Comments by "June VanDerMark" (@junevandermark952) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
I suggest that if the majority of people were left-handed, the right would be perceived as being "sinister."
From the book … Cultural Anthropology by Selby Garretson
A result from psychology
In American culture we feel that things on the right are somehow better, more reliable, and stronger than things on the left.
To understand why we feel this way involves going into the languages and traditions of Western culture and asking about the symbolic history of ideas “right” and “left.” The word for “left’ in Latin is sinister, and the word for “right” is dexter. “Left” in our culture’s history has been associated with “evil” or “anomalous” or “dangerous”; while “right” is associated with the law (droit, the word for “law” in French, is derived from Latin dexter and “law” or “right”) In politics, “left” means “change society to new (sinister) forms, while “right” means “keep things as they are,” or “keep going straight ahead.” Even recently, parents used to give their left-handed children problems, and no end of moral misgiving over their “affliction.” They would often make them change to being right-handed, perhaps even doing harm to the psychological well-being of the child. This preference for right-handedness persists, even though it has been estimated that up to 10 percent of the people in America are naturally left-handed.
This system of logic by oppositions is by no means confined to our society or culture. It is found all over the world.
1
-
A messy government is where there is more than one party allowed. The politicians police each other, and bicker back and forth to try to win elections. What a wonderful system. In a dictatorship, there is one man that rules, and you follow his "advise," or meet a swift end to your lives. Do not KNOCK the government in the United States. It is good, BECAUSE it is messy. Of course it's not perfect. The politicians have to try to appease a whole lot of spoiled people, who all want only their own personal laws to dictate the lives of others. I live in Canada, and no matter which party is in power, I am thankful every day for the treatment I receive, and by the way ... I live in a trailer, in a trailer park. When you want too much, you might end up with someone in power such as Donald Trump, who, with his slick tongue will promise you anything ... just to get your votes ... and then WATCH OUT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not about which emoji to use, but the subject of the following is close enough. The term should not be "political correctness." It should be "polite correctness." The word "political" makes the "government" the focus, and the supposed culprit of all the dissention, whereas the word "polite correctness,” puts the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the individual. Should we not always be asking ourselves, "Am I being polite, or am I a big part of the problem?" It was not the government that enforced a law that the “N” word had to stop being used. It was those of the black race that rightfully complained that that was derogatory, and they wanted people to respect them by using the term “Black race.” Now, in “polite” company, people use the term “Black race.” The government has never forced people to either use words, or to stop using words. As civilians, we monitor our own language. And if a citizen feels forced to use words that show respect of a certain group, then that person should take the complaint to the Supreme Court if he or she feels it is necessary, but we should not blame the leaders of the government. Concerning language, when it pertains to likes and dislikes, they are just ordinary citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for allowing my freedom of speech.
My guess is that when Jordan recently created the podcast The Monster of Self-Guilt: “The Devil is Always in the Details” … it was his own conscience crying out to be relieved of its heavy burden ... as his conscience is fully aware that he earned his millions of dollars by being deceptive.
#1 Jordan made the choice to play party politics as a Conservative … which lead him to state that the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau was trying to take freedom of speech away from Canadians … when the truth was and is … that it was The Board of Psychologists in Ontario, Canada, that were receiving complaints from irate citizens concerning Jordan’s misuse of his license as a psychologist to in turn play party politics on social media.
#2 Jordan went on social media to preach his (either Catholic or Protestant) Christian religion … which was another misuse of his license as a Professor of Psychology.
#3 As a heterosexual … Jordan chose to preach that there isn’t any such condition as “being” transgender. And he did that under the guise of psychology … rather than admitting, “This is my personal opinion, based on my interpretation of the Christian Bible.”
#4 Jordan claimed that he was being forced to use words that respected those who (say) they are transgender … when the truth is … he didn’t have to say those words at all. His statement was that he would not be “forced” to say those words … which is much different than taking “away” freedom of speech. He wanted his followers on social media to believe that someone from the Canadian government was going to approach him and say, “You HAVE to say those pronouns, or we are going to throw you in jail.”
#5 Had Jordan created a disclaimer on every podcast … that his opinions were personal on all subjects … and did not represent his training as a psychologist … he would not have had any reason to even go to court … much less be retrained as a psychologist. And his conscience would not be creating havoc in his own mentality … which should be plain to all … by his following words from his more recent podcast.
“The Monster of Self-Guilt: “The Devil is Always in the Details” … “Yeah well, one of the things you learn if you are a clinician and you have any sense, is, also, is also why you don’t offer people advice. But I don’t know what the hell you should do. Like maybe you and I could figure it out together with some really careful thought, but I can’t … most people are in situations that are sufficiently complex, so that I can’t … casual advice is just not helpful. I mean there is a real arrogance in that. The same arrogance as judgement, like.”
1
-
As have others, please do not delete my freedom of speech, and if you do, it “should” bother your conscience.
When Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump, if she had encouraged her followers to attack the Capitol the way Donald encouraged his followers to attack the Capitol when he lost the election to Joe Biden, do you think Donald would not have wanted Hillary to be incarcerated (or maybe worse) for her crime against the government over which Donald suddenly ruled supreme?
If Hillary had even dared to rock Donald's boat as the new President, we don't know for certain what Donald (with his new and impressive sense of ultimate power) would have done to Hillary, but we should know that it would not have been at all good FOR Hillary.
In total contrast to Donald’s erratic and dictatorial behavior, was the striking message from the honorable Republican Ronald Reagan when he was leaving the office as President, “We must always remember that our strength lies in our respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and our determination to preserve it for our children and their children.”
If Donald becomes President again … his first JOB will be to do away with the Constitution and with any news media outlet that expresses a negative word against his erratic behavior. And he WILL create … “The Law According to Donald Trump” … as THAT is his aim.
Guaranteed … you won’t be laughing at his “jokes” then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When parents agree with circumcision of boys, you claim that is acceptable to the boys. Should that not also be against the law? After all, that is not done with the agreement of the boys when they are babies.
Just because you perceive that law as being acceptable ... does not mean that it SHOULD be acceptable. It's not about left or right. It's about what IS right ... and who decides that for children?
And are you aware that it was Christians who agreed with the barbaric operation of circumcision for girls? From the book … GORY DETAILS … ADVENTURES FROM THE DARK SIDE OF SCIENCE … author … ERICA ENGELHAUPT
Although clitoridectomies are most common today in a broad region across Africa and the Middle East, many people don’t realize that the surgery was once more widespread, and was also employed in Victorian England. A successful surgeon named Isaak Baker Brown, credited with developing many gynecological surgeries, touted clitoridectomies as a cure for masturbation.* In his book On the Curability of Certain Forms of Insanity, Epilepsy, Catalepsy, and Hysteria in Females, published in 1866, Brown offered among his instructions that “the clitoris is freely excised by scissors or knife—I always prefer scissors.” Eventually, the Obstetrical Society of London essentially put Brown and clitoris removals on trial, ultimately expelling him from the society. But the practice lingered for decades, and spread to America. The last known clitoridectomy in the United States was performed on a five-year-old girl in the 1940s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Although this United States Supreme Court judge is now deceased, words from her book live on.
From the book … My Own Words … author … RUTH BADER GINSBURG. Whether you are a Christian, or an Atheist … you better think hard and long, as you close one clinic after another … in the pretense that it protects “babies.” The lives of women are at stake here, and they are the lives of your mothers, daughters, aunts, friends … and even grandmothers.
Then she made a point, nowhere addressed in the Breyer opinion, but embedded in the memories of women old enough to remember the days when abortion was illegal: “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.”
(Later speaking with a reporter, she was blunt about the law’s purpose: “It seemed to me it was a sham to pretend this was about a woman’s health” rather than about making it harder to obtain an abortion.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thankfully this Jewish Supreme Court Judge (now deceased) could not be mislead or intimidated by Donald Trump … as were … and ARE the Christian judges.
She knew that what does not breathe on its own … which is the case with fetuses … could not BE murdered … and that the lives of the women were/are … of the utmost importance.
From the book … My Own Words … author … RUTH BADER GINSBURG.
Whether you are a Christian, or an Atheist … you better think hard and long, as you close one clinic after another … in the pretense that it protects “babies.” The lives of women are at stake here, and they are the lives of your mothers, daughters, aunts, friends … and even grandmothers. Then she made a point, nowhere addressed in the Breyer opinion, but embedded in the memories of women old enough to remember the days when abortion was illegal: “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.” (Later speaking with a reporter, she was blunt about the law’s purpose: “It seemed to me it was a sham to pretend this was about a woman’s health” rather than about making it harder to obtain an abortion.)
1
-
1