Re: DOGE report

On Sat, 10 May 2025 12:56:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/9/2025 11:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/9/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:

>
>
What could go wrong?
>
https://wlos.com/news/local/volleyball-player-injured- after-
transgender- opponent-spiked-ball-at-her-speaks-out

>
Oooh, look! An anecdote!  ;-)
>
>

 
I thought about this on my refreshingly pleasant ride this morning. It's
just a joy in warm sunlight finally.
 
One might say, and I will, that Torah, English Common Law, the huge body
of US case law and much of western culture generally are comprised of
outlier anomalous anecdotes to establish various limiting principles.
 
This is not to say that every instance ought to set a new standard; far
from it!  But it's very human to reason from exceptional incidents to
define limits, that is, 'to here, but no further'.
 
For us, Dred Scott, Kelo, Koramatsu/Kabayashi/Yasui and Dobbs have
import.  They are important because they are outlier incidents and
establish limits. Those limits, being considered correct or not by one
person or another at various times and contexts, are crucial.
 
For example, Mr Eisenhower, Mr Kennedy and Mr Johnson read Brown v Board
and reflected, "My, that certainly is nice." Mr Nixon however enforced
it, vigorously and thoroughly at great political, social and financial
cost.  The particulars of Brown did not change. The decision by SCOTUS
did no change. The application, however, was a tumultuous and
revolutionary change.
 
Due to a gruesome and well publicized hanging in the Wisconsin
Territory, the State of Wisconsin has never allowed capital punishment,
even in the exceptional case of Jeffrey Dahmer. His fellow inmates,
however, saw the case differently and acted accordingly.
 
So you may make your own decision in your own way by your own standards
but one ought to consider what is the limiting factor, where are the
limits and why by reflecting on the outliers.
 
 
p.s. Think about The War of Jenkins' Ear versus the USS Pueblo incident.

>
I may not finish this now. Vacation activities are calling. But:
>
It may be very human to "reason" from exceptional incidents, but I take
most of that to be a sign of human imperfection. Humans are easily
duped, misled, deluded. When I hear of an exceptional incident, I
frequently begin to wonder "Is that likely to recur?" and "How much of a
problem is it?" I don't automatically think it's a critical issue.
>
The case you cited above is regrettable, but: There are certainly (true)
female volleyball players who are large, tough and muscular. If one of
them had done this spike, what would have been the reaction? How often
do injuries like this happen anyway? Is it simply something that happens
in the sport at that level?
>
Understand, I'm not generally sympathetic to trans "women" competing
against normal women. I do think the "former" men have continuing
physical advantages. But I think the amount of political attention being
given to this issue is grossly excessive, and I do think it's being
purposely done to distract from many issues that are much more critical.

"I may not finish this now. Vacation activities are calling. But:"


Curious.....  What are you vacating?

--
C'est bon
Soloman