HereAndGone2
No bio...
User ID: 4074
HereAndGone2
12d ago
Okay, but if this really was "innocent bystander got caught in the protest", why didn't she stop the car? Why be "fleeing the officer trying to arrest her"? Maybe she panicked, but that's a really bad decision as it turned out.
HereAndGone2
12d ago
starting with deciding to drive from Missouri to Minnesota to harass federal law enforcement.
You mean she...CROSSED STATE LINES???
I remember a huge deal being made out of this in the Rittenhouse case; he had no legitimate interest to be there because it was in a different state so him crossing state lines to go to the protest site was evidence he was up to no good.
Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander here. If Rittenhouse should have stayed at home whatever his feelings about the protests or wanting to do something to help, then so should this woman.
HereAndGone2
12d ago
From what I can see in the video, the ICE agent chose to put himself in front of the SUV to block the woman from leaving. Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway.
If a police officer is trying to arrest you, then trying to run away is not "calling his bluff", it is "resisting arrest".
What the legal status of an ICE agent vis-à-vis law enforcement is, I don't know. It may be that they are not the same as cops and don't have the right to arrest anyone.
But you don't get to turn up at a protest, yell at people doing their jobs, then try to get away after drawing attention to yourself and make yourself a target for arrest, and claim "I was only trying to leave peacefully!"
HereAndGone2
12d ago
HereAndGone2
12d ago
Hey, he's a colorectal surgeon. The toilets might be like a second office for him! 😁
Yeah, asking someone to meet you in the loo should be suspicious. On the other hand, if they were arranging a "date" (cough cough) then it might be for mutual privacy reasons. They're meeting up in the workplace, maybe they don't want colleagues to know about this or maybe one or both of them are not out at work. If they're seen chatting in the canteen or wherever by others, that's gossip fuel. A discreet, private, secluded place for first contact? Toilets are not the worst idea! X goes into the public toilet followed later by Y? Any bystanders will first assume they're just using the facilities for the intended purpose, not hooking up. It's a hospital bathroom, not the bathroom at a pub or club.
HereAndGone2
12d ago
The former especially is absolutely a sex act that should be standard fucking equipment in any relationship with a penis.
Exhibit A in "why you cannot now turn around and blame women for being sluts and whores after the sexual revolution".
Guys, if it's going to be "women should be chaste and not sleep around but also if she's dating me I expect full service", you are asking for the impossible. Buggery is now something that is "fantastically enjoyable" and women should be prepared to give it up to their men. Or else?
Do you guys see what I am saying about the creep (as in "increase", not "creepy") in sexual expectations that ordinary men have, and why I think exposure to porn is responsible for a lot of this?
HereAndGone2
12d ago
Especially because I do not believe for a second that oral sex was rare until the 90s or whatever when hardcore video porn started seriously proliferating throughout society.
Can't tell you what the book was or who because it's been so very long since I read it, but one account of the Marquis de Sade and his happy habits included that he used to hire hookers. Well, so far so norma, sez you. Yeah, but he wanted them to do kinky shit, which came out at his trial.
Oooh, what kind of kinky shit did the Father of BDSM want that disgusted professional prostitutes?
Fellatio. (Well, that and some yes for real kinky shit)
So yeah, I think social attitudes have changed over the centuries. Roman brothels were offering blow jobs as part of the services available, but Roman social mores still were that this was something you would only request from whores and not wives or girlfriends (the entire subject of the impure mouth in Roman rhetoric and as part of political attack ads, as we'd call today). And of course, men sucking cock was on a scale from laughable to disgusting perversion.
We have moved from "this is something you only ask degraded women to do" to "this is part of normal sex". That's a big shift in attitudes.
HereAndGone2
12d ago
Sports guys kissing their team mates after a victory is old hat in soccer 😁 Heck, "heterosexual life partners" is old hat.
I'm glad (I think) that the show was "gay sex all the time for the ladieez" because there was a lot of the relationship discussion stuff online. But your review of it, having seen it, makes sense to me. The plot is dumb, because yeah: what, guys never hang out together? Sure, if they're meant to be hated rivals on teams that hate each other, then hanging out might seem odd. But I think the whole "sneaking around because HOMOPHOBIA" is a large part of the appeal, the "oppressed" and allies sure love stories reassuring them that they are "oppressed" for being gay etc. See the transgender day of remembrance list of trans murder victims where "getting hit by a car = murder" because systemic racism, transphobia, something something.
I went in not expecting the book to be heavy on the self-reflection, but it went even lower than my expectations. She really puts herself across as Practically Perfect In Every Way. She has all sorts of applicable little relevant experiences in her life so she can connect with everyone from shit-kicking clodhoppers to the crème de la crème.
What's funny, and stunning, and a little bit frightening, is her complete lack of self-awareness. That bit about smiling at her staff as she burst the balloon with her stiletto? That's not normal, Kamala. That's sociopath behaviour. "You know I don't track my age. You have displeased me. Be thankful this is only a substitute for your empty heads, and not your real heads under my heel, as I crush this in punishment."
Definitely once out of her comfortable little San Francisco bubble, she can't handle the larger stage. The part about Joe Rogan? She goes on and on about how it was all his fault and the show's fault and literally accuses him of lying in his account of how they couldn't make the interview happen. Meanwhile, the Call Me Daddy interview for which she threw over Rogan gets about one sentence along the lines of "I did this". I was expecting her to expand upon why she did it, why it was so important, how she was getting her message across, the big huge massive audience that podcast has so yah boo Rogan, and so on. Nope, but she was happy to spend a few pages about how unfair and mean Rogan had been.
Everything descends into bathos with her. The important decision about picking her running mate, and how her staff liked Walz, and others advised her this and that? This is how it ends:
It was always going to have to be my decision. I told my staff and family that I didn’t want any more input, and I went to do something practical: I made a tasty rub and seasoned a pork roast.
By the time I went to bed, I’d decided on Walz.
She certainly ended up roasting Walz's pork! The linking of "seasoning a pork roast" with "deciding on Walz" makes it sound like the train of association going on in her mind was "Mmm, what a succulent little white boy piggy, he'd be perfect with a tasty rub and trussed in the oven!" 🤣
HereAndGone2
13d ago
Like, I can talk to, like, gays and trans people, and I can be like, but really, you see if only people who hate you continue to have kids, in the future, only people who cannot allow your culture to exist are going to be the dominant cultures on Earth. I talk about this in terms of pro-natalism all the time, and they’re often just like, they don’t really see it as a problem. And I’ve always been very confused as to how they don’t see it as a problem.
Because the line is "there have always been gay and trans people". And that's correct, as far as it goes: we've had millennia of pro-heterosexual society, and yet even where they must hide in order to pass as part of mainstream society, LGBT people existed and formed sub-cultures of their own.
So there isn't any worry, because so what if the cishets are the ones having kids? Historically, and statistically, some of those kids will be gay and/or trans. Unless they're going to genetically engineer all embryos to be cishet, there's no getting rid of the LGBT (apart from the genocide solution). Even if persecuted, LGBT people will exist in secret, and some day that future society will be liberal enough to give them their rights.
HereAndGone2
13d ago
And of course men never went through a series of women as muses, and engaged in serial monogamy? That's the double standard in action: I am a man of the world, experienced and tempered by time and wisdom, who has loved many women but never been tied down by one. She is a slut riding the alpha carousel.
HereAndGone2
13d ago
That is the female equivalent of the Nice Guy: I'm Not Like Other Girls. Both of them complaining about being friend-zoned and when will the object of their obsession wake up and realise that the partner they're currently with is wrong for them and if they'd only just look at me, they'd see how much I love them, and how good I'd be to them.
Someone quoted a song by a male artist which was about "that jerk beats her up, why does she stay with him, she should leave him for me" and it's the same energy.
They have a gut-level aversion to their partner experiencing lust towards other women that are typically younger and better-looking than them.
That may well be part of it, but there's also the disconnect between male and female sexuality. Women can feel it as a rejection. I remember an anecdote by Nancy Friday from one of her Secret Garden books about how when she was young and in a relationship with an older man, she felt really hurt when she found him masturbating one day. I'm here, I'm available, he doesn't need to do that! I forget exactly how he explained things to her and got her to go "and now, gals, I'm telling you don't be upset if your guy does this, it isn't a reflection on you". Something along the lines of "sometimes men just want that orgasm without having to think of anyone's pleasure but their own, and without having to put up with another person".
I can't tell you what the equivalent of porn (not erotica, this is not about the written word content) is for women, but I can point you to a hit TV show, or I assume it's a hit, because I see it being raved over on social media by women. A Canadian (and part-funded by the Canadian government via arts grants, which is funny and ironic, because the Netflix gay show failed) show called Heated Rivalry.
It's about gay hockey players, and from what I understand, it is very gay indeed**. But it's not simply two hot guys having explicit (as you can get away with on TV) sex that has the girlies all hot and bothered, it's the relationships. I'm trying to avoid the show, because I'm not interested, but simply by osmosis I understand that the fans are invested in the main couple and their trials and tribulations. Will they become a couple, or will it stay at the level of frenemies to lovers? The emotionally distant father of one guy which has hurt him and stunted him emotionally. The commitment issues of the other guy. And so on - it's the relationship as much as the butt-humping that is the appeal.
Are they masturbating to the butt-humping? I dunno, they could be. But I think the main difference is that for men, they don't care if the 46DD blonde having cum sprayed on those tits is resolving her daddy issues by having sex with the older guy spraying cum on her tits. They care about the size of the tits. Women find that... alienating. How can you not care about the people involved? Uh, because they're not people? What, you don't think women are people??? That's not what I meant, I meant that the big-titted blonde slut taking it in all orifices from six guys is only there for the purposes of getting my dick hard, I'm not supposed to care about her or why she's doing this, I don't want to care about her or why she's doing this.
And then the fight starts 😁
** But gay in a way that seems coded to appeal to women, not gay men. I have a feeling a show by gay men for gay men about gay men and gay sexual life would be very different and much more like porn for straight guys.
HereAndGone2
13d ago
Nowadays I have a simple principle: her pleasure, her responsibility.
So you get swiped left on the dating app and she gets the latest sex toy as reviewed in Cosmo. If you're happy with that bargain, then don't complain about it later.
The difference in values between what I imbibed growing up (and yeah, I probably read way too much chivalric literature) and modern morals is such a gulf, I almost don't recognise the people on the other side of the chasm.
Cheating is okay, stealing is okay, things that in the past were considered dishonourable are okay, because honour? pfft, that's a joke! The only thing that matters is if you get caught, and unless you're a fool or stupid, you can wiggle out of that with some excuse or plea.
Story out today about an Irish academic who was both editor of some economics journals and co-author of papers which got published in those journals. Sees no conflict of interest there at all. He did nothing wrong. This was recognised practice in the profession. (I'm tempted to make snarky remarks about economists, but let's not). Other academics have come to his support with "yeah, everyone did/does this":
Prof Lucey, who is a professor of international finance and commodities at Trinity Business School, was editor in chief of the International Review of Financial Analysis for 12 years up to 2024.
He was editor of the International Review of Economics & Finance, another Elsevier journal, from 2019 to last October and was co-editor of Finance Research Letters.
It is understood he has submitted a formal complaint about the retractions to the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) and asked it to assess whether the process followed by Elsevier align with accepted norms for editorial investigations.
In a statement to the Irish Independent, he said: “All the authors dispute the grounds for retraction, as stated by both Elsevier and Cope, the industry oversight body.
“Retractions should only take place where there are concerns in relation to the scientific validity of work. No such concerns have been expressed here.” Asked about his reaction to the controversy, in which international academics have weighed in on both sides, Prof Lucey added: “I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about. The science is solid.”
...One of his grounds of appeal to Cope is understood to be that the publisher has been applying policies first introduced in 2025 to academic papers produced as far back as 2017.
“Practices regarding authorship and collaboration that were standard and accepted at the time are being penalised ex post facto,” he said in the email to some co-authors, going on to claim that there had been a “history of professional conflict” between himself and Elsevier over the peer review process in the International Review of Financial Analysis.
...Among the academics who have come to Prof Lucey’s defence on the social media platform LinkedIn is Klaus Grobys, an associate professor of finance at the University of Vaasa in Finland, who posted: “ I think it’s widely understood in academia that many editors follow similar practices. Singling out one person – Brian in this case – as a scapegoat strikes me as unfair.
“Had this been a broader discussion naming several editors, I might have been more inclined to applaud it.”
Nice work if you can get it! Be the guy deciding what papers get published in the journal when it comes to papers co-written by you which are submitted to the journal!
HereAndGone2
13d ago
The song is not simply uncomplicated pro-IRA, it's set in the period of the Old IRA (before the Troubles, though in the transitional period between the War of Independence/Civil War of the 20s and the resurgence in the 60s/70s).
Written by Dominic Behan, who came from a Republican family and whose brother, Brendan Behan, was arrested in Britain for being part of a bombing campaign in the 30s, it is based on a true event and is told from the viewpoint of a young IRA volunteer who was raised on, and believes, the romantic idealised version of Irish-British history and the Republic and the armed struggle, and who dies in what is practically a pointless attack. As he lies dying he questions does this really achieve anything or benefit anyone?
The Clancy Brothers did do the definitive version, but other Irish groups like The Dubliners covered it also.
HereAndGone2
13d ago
Perhaps this is the peak of “guys hanging out” fiction.
Which also makes it very popular with (a section of) women; the relationships between the characters are given as much importance as the action, and people change and develop over time (while remaining very much themselves).
Action, adventure, hot guys in naval uniform being unbashed BFFs, what more could you want? 😁
HereAndGone2
13d ago
Ah, I remember the days when 140/80 was fine and normal. Blood pressure limits have trended downwards a lot recently, and I don't know how much is "medical science now tells us that there is a valid reason" and how much is "lower is better, we have to at least pretend to be doing something so we'll keep setting limits lower and lower even if it makes no real difference".
Seems that the standards changed in 2017:
The guidelines were presented today at the Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions conference in Anaheim, the premier global cardiovascular science meeting for the exchange of the latest advances in cardiovascular science for researchers and clinicians.
Rather than 1 in 3 U.S. adults having high blood pressure (32 percent) with the previous definition, the new guidelines will result in nearly half of the U.S. adult population (46 percent) having high blood pressure, or hypertension. However, there will only be a small increase in the number of U.S. adults who will require antihypertensive medication, authors said. These guidelines, the first update to offer comprehensive guidance to doctors on managing adults with high blood pressure since 2003, are designed to help people address the potentially deadly condition much earlier.
...Paul K. Whelton, M.B., M.D., M.Sc., lead author of the guidelines published in the American Heart Association journal, Hypertension and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted the dangers of blood pressure levels between 130-139/80-89 mm Hg.
“You’ve already doubled your risk of cardiovascular complications compared to those with a normal level of blood pressure,” he said. “We want to be straight with people – if you already have a doubling of risk, you need to know about it. It doesn’t mean you need medication, but it’s a yellow light that you need to be lowering your blood pressure, mainly with non-drug approaches.”
Blood pressure categories in the new guideline are:
Normal: Less than 120/80 mm Hg;
Elevated: Top number (systolic) between 120-129 and bottom number (diastolic) less than 80;
Stage 1: Systolic between 130-139 or diastolic between 80-89;
Stage 2: Systolic at least 140 or diastolic at least 90 mm Hg;
Hypertensive crisis: Top number over 180 and/or bottom number over 120, with patients needing prompt changes in medication if there are no other indications of problems, or immediate hospitalization if there are signs of organ damage.The new guidelines eliminate the category of prehypertension, which was used for blood pressures with a top number (systolic) between 120-139 mm Hg or a bottom number (diastolic) between 80-89 mm Hg. People with those readings now will be categorized as having either Elevated (120-129 and less than 80) or Stage I hypertension (130-139 or 80-89).
Previous guidelines classified 140/90 mm Hg as Stage 1 hypertension. This level is classified as Stage 2 hypertension under the new guidelines.
The impact of the new guidelines is expected to be greatest among younger people. The prevalence of high blood pressure is expected to triple among men under age 45, and double among women under 45 according to the report.
...Other changes in the new guideline include:
- Only prescribing medication for Stage I hypertension if a patient has already had a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke, or is at high risk of heart attack or stroke based on age, the presence of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease or calculation of atherosclerotic risk (using the same risk calculator used in evaluating high cholesterol).
- Recognizing that many people will need two or more types of medications to control their blood pressure, and that people may take their pills more consistently if multiple medications are combined into a single pill.
- Identifying socioeconomic status and psychosocial stress as risk factors for high blood pressure that should be considered in a patient’s plan of care.
120/70 is good enough for normal standards. Sure, if you're very fit and very sporty and very healthy and the right age, you can probably get it lower, but you'll run into "now it's too low, that's why I'm constantly slightly light-headed and low-level brain fog" territory if you go too low.
HereAndGone2
13d ago
Flattered as I am by the kind nomination, I'm also laughing. This seems to be how my participation here goes; awarded AAQC one week, getting into argy-bargy with another commenter and told to knock it off by a mod the next!
Happy New Year to one and all, it's already kinda crazy and it's still just the first week of the month. What odds Greenland as a satrapy of the USA?
HereAndGone2
13d ago
As you point out, even the Christians have folded on this. Catholics are not supposed to break the laws around sexual morality but of course the vast majority do because the culture now is "well yeah everyone has sex with their partner". I've seen the massive change on this in Ireland from the early 80s to today. We've updated to being a modern Western society with the same mores and morals.
So yes, the expectation there is "but you agreed to have sex with me, and there's no rule about this means commitment or a permanent relationship or anything of that nature anymore". We're stuck between two stools, as you doubtless have seen on here, all the criticism of women for sleeping around etc. whereas nobody is saying "men, too, should not be sleeping around". Indeed the argument is that women are not sleeping around enough, since "waaah, it's so unfair! women can get as much male attention as they want, just by existing, but guys can't even get a chance get a handjob on the third date, they can't even get a first date!"
It's not the fault of women that male sexuality is so easy it seems to be permanently turned on to "high" and just having boobs and ass means dick goes sproing! and guy wants to get dick wet.
Neither is it men's fault that women make stupid decisions and end up with the disaster guys. I've seen a court case in the papers right now that makes me want to scream. Oh, sure: the guy who came home drunk and threw the baby across the room is a "good father". The only hope there is that maybe this woman will finally get her and the kids out, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I think current mores have left everyone with the worst of both worlds; the old double standard is still floating around, but the sexual revolution has left the expectation that women and men will have sex outside of marriage, be that on a casual basis or within some kind of relationship. So men are feeling aggrieved at not getting the sexual access that they imagine the Chads and Alphas are getting, and blaming women for being simultaneously too promiscuous and too picky, and women are feeling aggrieved at providing the expected sexual access but not getting commitment in return (even the cases where "so me and my boyfriend have been living together for five/ten years, I'd love to get married, but he is making no move toward that/when I talk about it he shrugs it off that we're fine as we are" means "girl, he's never gonna propose, why would he? free milk without having to buy the cow!")
And we can't fix it by trying to turn the clock back because (to mix metaphors) that horse has bolted.
HereAndGone2
14d ago
You're convinced you're right. I'm convinced I'm right. I don't think we can go much further on from here, apart from butting heads and drawing the ire of the mods.
Hot button topics are hot, and get people hot under the collar. And when I'm hot, I react with heat.
HereAndGone2
14d ago
Taylor Swift seems, to my limited knowledge, to have navigated the problem of getting older and remaining popular/a star without resorting to the "oops, all my clothes fell off!" stage.
Look at Pink, who was big, and now is not so big. She, too, went through the "yeah I'm empowered" unconventional fashion choices. She's still touring but is not, I think, as relevant as she was; her audience is getting older along with her. They're loyal, but the 20 year olds aren't flocking to her (if I'm wrong, please correct me). Whereas Swift seems to have managed to get those 20 year olds to be her audience as well.
Look, I don't think pop stars are very smart, and the managers and record producers do tend to older guys. See the 80s line of manufactured boy bands and girl singers churned out by the likes of Stock, Aitken and Waterman as songwriters/producers. And I do think that the career trajectory for the disposable pop girly does go through the "slutty is empowered" stage on the way to "you're 30 or older now, the teenagers aren't buying your records any more, the exit is that way" ending, because Sex Sells and 50 year old men know that hot slutty 20 year old girls will get press attention and publicity, and even better if it can be sold on the back of fake feminism.
HereAndGone2
14d ago
It definitely comes across as she was scared any potential VP would outshine her (Shapiro or the former astronaut, Mark Kelly) so Walz was a godsend. No self-esteem/self-confidence, and happy to stand in the background and do what he was told.
HereAndGone2
14d ago
I think this book was definitely settling scores, particularly after the post-mortems on just how the fribblin' heck the Dems had screwed the pooch on this election.
Nothing is ever her fault. She is perfect. She can relate to everyone, no matter who, no matter what (it gets funny after a while when she pulls out yet another example of "I, too, was X, Y or Z" - like telling the high school band about how she gave up French horn because too much spit).
Her team were great, and yet. Failure! How could this be? Well plainly she was sabotaged, backstabbed, didn't get enough support, and of course Satan and his demons were all on the side of Trump (she hates Vance, too, which again is very funny to read).
But the fight goes on!
I wasn't sure if she intended to try a second bite at the cherry for 2028 or if she wanted to run for governor of California instead after this book, and I'm still not sure what her intentions are. She seems to be on an extended book tour and maybe trying to work up momentum for some new campaign.
I guess I might buy this if he's young and this is his first attempt at "okay I am gay, I want to do it with guys, how do I meet guys, okay there's an app for that" and he didn't know the rules of how encounters off Grindr are supposed to go.
Yeah, maybe he's stupid, but being socially awkward and stupid in that way can go along with "smart enough to become a medical doctor".
More options
Context Copy link