[Bee] MINNEAPOLIS, MN — Following recent developments stemming from political protests and clashes with the federal government across the state, Minnesota announced that it had changed the official state bird to a screaming lesbian.
After the recent spate of screaming lesbians, state officials agreed that a change was needed to modernize the official state bird and make it more fitting and identifiable as embodying what everyone thinks of when they think of Minnesota.
"It's much more of a natural fit," Governor Tim Walz said in a statement to reporters. "Yes, we've had the loon as our state bird for many years, and it has served us well. And while the case could be made that the loon very much still represents everything about Minnesota, we feel that the screaming lesbian is a fabulous step forward for both our state and for screaming lesbians."
Other state leaders paid respect to the loon for symbolizing Minnesota for so long, but acknowledged that the screaming lesbian was a more progressive change. "We've loved the loon, but we're excited about the screaming lesbians," said Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. "The screaming lesbian has become such a staple of our great state, and naming it our official state bird further weaves it into the very fabric of Minnesota. Surprisingly, the screaming lesbians are also far more populous than the loons, so it's perfect."
At publishing time, when a group of birdwatchers spotted and approached a screaming lesbian in a Minneapolis park Friday morning, it reportedly responded to their presence with its traditional call of, "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Democratic Socialist Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) was triggered this week by a Homeland Security post on X featuring a B-2 stealth bomber overhead and a cowboy below, accompanied by the text in the center of the image that read: "We'll Have Our Home Again."
"What does it evoke in you when you see this? Literally, when I see it, as a Muslim, as a Palestinian, as a child of immigrants, I see it as something that evokes the feeling that I'm not welcome here," Tlaib said.
#5
Women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently.
--Scott Adams
For some reason, the Universe just now wanted me to stumble over this Scott Adams quote. Go figure!
[OutKick] During Tuesday's hearings, the divide on the bench was impossible to miss. Three female justices landed squarely on the wrong side of fairness, biology and common sense.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard two cases regarding the legality of state laws that ban trans-identifying males from girls' and women's sports teams. It's a common sense issue — one that, in a sane world, should result in a 9-0 ruling in favor of the states. That is to say, in favor of protecting safety and fairness through sex-based categories in sports. After listening to nearly four hours of arguments, however, I'm more inclined to predict the Court will split, 6-3.
What's really disappointing is that those three votes will come from women.
The cases out of Idaho and West Virginia should not have been complicated. Both states passed laws drawing a clear line that girls' and women's sports are for females only. Because in athletics, biology is important.
And yet, as the arguments unfolded, it became clear that three justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — were hell-bent on avoiding that conclusion.
Of course, it's the justices' job to ask tough questions. No one expects them to lob softballs and flower petals at state solicitors. But what stood out Tuesday was a clear imbalance in the questioning. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson repeatedly pressed Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst, West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams, and Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan with hostile hypotheticals, procedural escape hatches and various narrowing maneuvers.
They pushed mootness and "as-applied" exceptions — anything, it seemed, to sidestep the bigger question and avoid a broad ruling that would allow states to protect girls and women with clear, enforceable laws.
They didn't bring that same energy to the plaintiffs' attorneys.
Kathleen Hartnett and ACLU attorney Joshua Block were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny from these three justices. In fact, at times, the questioning from the liberal justices sounded less like inquiry and more like advocacy — helping the plaintiffs refine arguments for why their clients should be treated as exceptions, even while conceding that sex-based categories themselves are legitimate.
That approach stood in stark contrast to Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who consistently pressed for clarity. They returned again and again to basic principles: if schools are allowed to have boys' and girls' teams, what do those words actually mean? Are the plaintiffs really challenging sex-based categories, or are they simply asking to be exempt from them? And what happens to schools, athletes and women's sports if the Court refuses to provide a clear answer?
There was an obvious disconnect, and I'm certainly not the only woman who noticed it.
#4
I wonder how Barrett will vote. I understand the 'librul' justices; they are insane (at best). Frankly, I worry when they vote 9-0; what is their angle? I do not understand Barrett, she is a mystery to me. Worst case, this 'could' go 5-4 against, considering Roberts' lack of sense and spine.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
01/17/2026 7:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Doesn't make sense to me, but nothing makes sense to me anymore.
#6
A commie’s overriding loyalty is not to gender. It’s the same with Greta, who claims to be a Human Rights activist. Any one of them
Who is silent on Iran is not a Human Rights activist.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
01/17/2026 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
Finally! We’ve been waiting for this for going on two decades.
[Townhall] Global warming has gone cold as an issue. Despite decades of panicked predictions of doom, it's never been a high priority for voters, and Trump's bold expressions of "climate denial" went unpunished by voters.
The media still sound allied with the Green New Deal pushers, but the thrill is gone. Last November, leftists blasted ABC, CBS and NBC for barely touching the COP30 global climate summit in Brazil. (PBS gave it nearly 16 minutes, and 10 of it was a John Kerry softball interview.)
Now, Axios.com posted an analysis by Amy Harder on this trend, titled "The world's great climate collapse." Greenpeace gang, beware: "The last year has seen an epic reversal that spread quickly from governments to boardrooms to pop culture."
Not only has Trump dismissed climate panic, but Harder noted Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, "once one of the world's most vocal climate advocates," is now repealing some of his country's climate policies. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also issued a memo questioning the wisdom of pursuing "net zero" emissions policies.
Then there's billionaire Bill Gates, an unelected global leader. He circulated a memo criticizing the climate movement while shifting much of his money and focus back to public health -- just four years after publishing the book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster," a bestseller that drew gushy reviews from AP, CNN, USA Today and Oprah Daily magazine.
With Trump in office, Ford pulled back sharply from its electric-vehicle plans, shifting focus to more popular and profitable hybrids and gas vehicles due to slowing EV demand. Europe scaled back its plan to ban gasoline-powered cars in the next decade and softened climate disclosure rules, which The New York Times captured with a dejected headline: "Europe Begins to Tiptoe Away From Key Climate Policies."
The Axios analysis claimed even Hollywood is tiptoeing away, "swapping climate angst ... for oil swagger, as seen in the current hit TV show 'Landman.'"
That's not entirely true. In December, the CBS drama "Fire Country" featured a firefighter lecturing like Al Gore: "We all know damn well there is no fire season anymore. Thanks to climate change, it's all year round. Just keeps getting worse," and concluding, "We're at war."
Posted by: NoMoreBS ||
01/17/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1781 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
[ZeroHedge] When Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood before reporters on Jan. 7 to discuss the military operation that took place in Venezuela four days prior, he added another element of intrigue. He planned to meet with Danish officials this week to discuss purchasing the world’s largest non-continental island: Greenland.
Such discussions will be new for Rubio, though it is not the first time the Trump administration has broached the subject. President Donald Trump’s brief statement to reporters on Jan. 4 aboard Air Force One was succinct: “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” It was a reiteration of his March 2025 congressional address.
Additionally, Trump first mentioned purchasing Greenland in August 2019, a suggestion rebuffed by Danish officials, which led to a brief kerfuffle between the two states.
When Rubio sits with Danish leaders for those first discussions, he will have entered upon diplomatic deliberations that stretch back to the Andrew Johnson administration. The first inquiry to purchase Greenland from the Danes came in 1868 from Secretary of State William Seward. America had recently purchased a tundra to its northwest: Alaska. That purchase in 1867 was initially mocked as “Seward’s Folly” by the press, but of course, after the discovery of gold and oil, Seward’s decision was more than justified. Nonetheless, Congress proved disinterested in the icy territory to its northwest.
[SWISSINFO] The capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro by the United States signals a breaking point in the established world order. Does this mean that international law is now a thing of the past? A Geneva-based legal expert shares some insights.
“It is a flagrant breach of international law,” says Vincent Chetail, a professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, when asked about the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by the US military on the night of January 2-3 in Caracas. “It is an act of armed aggression that violates the United Nations Charter and customary international law.”
Like Libya, only that broke the entire country with no effort to repair the damage. An now they have human trafficking and kidnapping for ransom, not to mention giving Turkey Libya's gold in exchange for ineffective mercenaries.
The UN Charter, the multilateral organisation’s founding document, prohibits the use of force except in the following three cases: if the state concerned requests it; if the UN Security Council authorises it; and in situations of self-defence. “Clearly, none of these apply here,” the international legal scholar says.
US President Donald Trump is presenting the capture of the Venezuelan leader as an act of defence against “narco-terrorism”. These narcotics, he adds, is claiming many victims in the United States, where the Venezuelan dictator, extradited to New York, now faces justice.
NO LEGAL ARGUMENT
“What is worrying is that not only is the Trump administration flouting international law, but it is not even attempting to give its actions a veneer of legality,” Chetail says. “The concept of narco-terrorism is an argument aimed at justifying the intervention domestically, but it does not exist in international law. It is pure invention.”
How did international law come to be, professor? By the evolution of customs and negotiated treaties, nicht wahr? Perhaps it is time for another evolutionary step to meet current realities.
This is not the first time that the United States has violated the UN Charter. The invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq two years later were also in breach of international law. Nor is it unprecedented for the country to capture a sitting head of state, as it did in 1989 with Manuel Noriega, then the ruler of Panama.
And the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — did that comply with international law as described?
“Until now, the United States developed a whole series of legal arguments, such as pre-emptive self-defence, which were certainly disputable, but at least reflected a desire to justify itself that is absent today,” Chetail adds.
TIMID REACTION IN EUROPE
In response to Maduro’s capture, most European countries have adopted a cautious stance towards the United States. In a statementExternal link supported by all member states except Hungary, the European Union on January 4 called for “respect for international law” but avoided condemning the US operation.
If, faced with a clear violation of international law, Europe is unable to voice clear condemnation, this shows the weakness of the European countries, which are struggling to accept the loss of their historic ally,” Chetail says. It also gives fodder to critics who, especially since the war in Gaza, have denounced the double standards applied by European capitals.
Switzerland, meanwhile, calledExternal link in a post on X for “de-escalation, restraint and respect for international law, including the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of respect for territorial integrity”. This reaction was deemed too timid by some on the left of the political spectrum, who would have preferred strong condemnationExternal link.
For Chetail, Switzerland, as host state of the UN in Europe and the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, has “a greater responsibility” to make its voice heard, but it “cannot, on its own, take responsibility for issues that even the states of Europe are unable to address”. This is all the more true in the context of an ongoing trade war.
[The Federalist] Not so long ago, Sweden used to be leftists’ favorite example of effective government: It had a generous welfare system, boasted a highly educated population, and just seemed a little classier and cleaner than most parts of the United States. True, it then had a small, homogenous population of law-abiding, productive citizens, but most admirers conveniently ignored this key detail.
In more recent years, far fewer people mention Sweden. If anyone mentions the country, it is usually to cite their soaring crime rates and terrorist attacks and the obvious connection with Sweden’s large number of unassimilated migrants from the Third World. Not only does this situation now threaten the livelihood for native Swedes, but also their reputable public entitlement system.
Indeed, as Swedish sociologist and writer Karl-Olov Arnstberg explains in his new book The Sweden Syndrome: How Elites Commit National Self-Destruction, the leadership in his country aggressively flushed away their many advantages by pursuing every bad leftist idea possible. What was once the pride of North European socialist technocracy is now being ruined with incompetent and corrupt politicians, a broken justice system, and a growing contingent of barbaric foreigners burdening their host nation in countless ways.
The book begins with a foreword from the online essayist John Carter, who recalls seeing a group of Arab young men harassing white Swedish girls on a bus in Uppsala. Because of the prevailing social norms of their country, both the girls and white male bystanders simply took the abuse in silence. He follows this by describing the familiar blight and decay that one now sees all around Swedish cities and the quiet exasperation of native Swedes lamenting what has become of their country.
With this context set, Arnstberg explains how his great country has come to this. In his view, the problem is not so much a specific policy position or ideology, but a whole pattern of positions and ideologies that make up what he calls "the Sweden Syndrome." Evidently, this illness is contagious since it has spread to the rest of the West along with blue-state America, destroying everything in its path.
#2
All cultures are not equal and letting hordes of barbarian colonists into societies with the trust-based legal system of Western Civilizations is suicidal. Routinely, the tipping point arrives before the gravity of the mistake is recognized, witness much of Western Europe.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Boris Rozhin
[TASS] Against the backdrop of constant derogatory comments from US President Donald Trump and members of his administration about Europe and its claims to independence, Ursula von der Leyen once again raised the issue of the need for greater European independence in military and political matters. "And, of course, I am honored that you will choose me to represent me us"
Recognizing the collapse of the old world order, the systemic crisis of the very concept of international law, and the dysfunction of institutions, EU leaders have long been voicing ideas for greater practical autonomy. This time, von der Leyen announced plans to present an EU security strategy in 2026 that will be based precisely on this desire for independence.
LOOSEN THE LEASH
Back in the second half of the 2010s—during Trump's first term—there was already a lively debate in Europe about the excessive dependence of European security on NATO, where the United States played and continues to play a dominant role. One of the vocal critics of this state of affairs was French President Emmanuel Macron, who actively lobbied for the creation of a unified European army. It would exist alongside NATO structures but would report to European command without the participation of US representatives. This would radically differentiate its command structure from NATO's.
At the same time, Macron actively tried to gain political support from Germany.
One argument used was that Trump's demands to increase defense spending for European countries to 2, 3, and 5% of GDP were excessive. If Europe had resolved security issues independently, defense spending could have been regulated within Europe without any pressure from Washington. This made the idea of an autonomous military structure more attractive to budget-strapped EU countries.
It was during this period that the now-familiar claims that Trump could dismantle NATO began to surface. True, at the time, this was linked to the fabricated "Russiagate" affair—the US Democratic Party systematically claimed that Trump was a "Kremlin agent" seeking to damage the transatlantic security system by undermining NATO unity. The concept of a European rapid reaction force, designed to have a high degree of operational readiness and the ability to be quickly deployed to NATO's eastern flank—the borders of Russia and Belarus—was developed. Essentially, this was justified by the West's already ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
Trump's defeat in the 2020 election and the return of the Democratic Party to power in the United States somewhat mitigated the tensions in relations between Washington and the EU (including security issues). This was particularly evident with the onset of the Cold War, when the West attempted to present a consolidated front against Russia, hoping to inflict a swift and crushing military, political, and economic defeat.
The failure of this strategy, the armed conflict in Ukraine entering a phase of attrition, and Trump's return to power in 2024 have resurfaced old problems, but at a completely different level. It's no coincidence that US Vice President J.D. Vance's keynote speech in February 2025 was so harshly received in Europe. In Munich, he questioned the existence of democracy in Europe and criticized its approach to ensuring its own security at the expense of the United States. This was despite Trump's already-voiced claims to Greenland and demands to increase NATO defense spending to 5%.
The conflict in Ukraine has exposed the EU's excessive dependence on the US in military matters at virtually every level, and demands from Washington have lost all trace of politeness and turned into systematic ultimatums on key EU issues. Therefore, the issue of the EU's strategic autonomy has once again come to the fore.
OUTLINES OF THE SECURITY CONCEPT
Ultimately, this EU desire stems from the European establishment's dreams of acquiring genuine military-political agency and transforming the amorphous union into a truly independent player on the global stage, capable of competing on an equal footing with the United States, Russia, and China. Currently, these demands are effectively ignored, especially by Washington and Moscow, which, in the context of Ukraine, are negotiating the future world order, often ignoring the EU's views on the matter. In other words, Europe is simply not allowed to participate in the negotiating table where the future world order is being discussed, hence the constant demands from Brussels to include their representatives in this process.
Thus, the potential concept of European security that von der Leyen intends to present will be aimed at increasing Brussels' autonomy in military and political decision-making, whether on the conflict in Ukraine or Trump's claims to annex Greenland. This also appears to be an attempt to respond to the updated US national security strategy, which effectively breaks with the concept familiar to Europe, which has been in place for decades. The stated desire to "become stronger" is based on increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP and above, the remilitarization of Germany, which openly declares its desire to rid itself of all restrictions and have the strongest army in Europe, and increased discipline in military and political decision-making within the bloc.
But there are a number of problems on the way to realizing these aspirations.
PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTATION
The ambitious ReArm Europe plan to strengthen the European Union's military (designed to invest €800 billion in re-equipping the militaries of EU countries) has been faced with the need for massive borrowing, increasing financial pressure on the socio-economic situation of member states. Hopes for private investment have proven unfounded in practice, effectively forcing the EU to "re-arm through debt"—as Poland, for example, is doing by taking out loans.
Thus, the elites' ambitious plans are being met by the need for ordinary Europeans to tighten their belts, which is leading to increased internal instability within the European Union. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's recent statement about the need to "work harder," amid mass layoffs in German industry, epitomizes these problems.
POLITICAL INSTABILITY IN THE EU
The presence of rebel countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and, more recently, the Czech Republic, the precarious political position of von der Leyen herself (who faces another attempt at a no-confidence vote), the ongoing political crisis in France and the decline of Macron's influence, the weakness of the red-black coalition in Germany, and so on—all of this undoubtedly impacts the EU's ability to make key decisions. This was clearly evident during the discussions over a $90 billion loan to Ukraine and the attempt to steal Russian sovereign assets frozen in the EU.
Attempts to resolve these issues by revoking unanimous approval by EU member states, manipulating elections in key countries, or stealing Russian assets undermine the EU's founding ideological principles. This is constantly pointed out by Russia and the United States, as well as by rebel and Eurosceptical countries within the union itself.
DEPENDENCE ON THE UNITED STATES
Washington still maintains a dominant position within NATO structures and keeps the EU dependent on energy (after Brussels rejected the more profitable Russian gas). Furthermore, US nuclear weapons are stationed on EU territory, providing part of NATO's nuclear umbrella, and tens of thousands of US troops are based there.
The White House is certainly not interested in losing control over Europe. But under the Trump administration, it has clearly pursued a policy of shifting costs onto Europe itself, pursuing a path of minimizing expenses and maximizing profits. It's now being openly stated that the US is profiting from Europe's war against Russia in Ukraine.
Despite the obvious crisis in relations, the EU is wary of directly engaging in conflict with the US, fully aware of the military-political imbalance between the hegemon (albeit weakened) and the loose EU. There's a glimmer of hope that Trump will lose the 2026 midterm elections and become a lame duck, and that in 2028 the Democrats will return to power and everything will return to normal.
However, the scale of changes in the world is such that hopes of "bringing back 2013" and restoring the familiar format of relations with the United States are unrealistic. The era of the "welfare state" is over. Economic changes and the processes of destruction of the previous world order are largely irreversible.
Europe has yet to determine which pole it wants to be in a multipolar world and whether it can truly become such a pole (or remain a quasi-structure dependent on the US). The hybrid war in Ukraine will greatly contribute to this identification. Therefore, for Europe, it is of existential nature.
[CTH] Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Bows to Big Panda, Looking for Financial Assistance Against Godzilla Trump
My dear Canadian conservative friends, things look very troubling. You have my deepest sympathies for the events of the next few years that are about to unfold.
[ZERO] Everything around us seems to be changing at breakneck speed. Twenty years ago, smartphones were niche products. Twenty years before that, computers were clunky behemoths. Forty years before that, far more Americans traveled by train than by plane. Forty years before that, cars were just starting to supplant horses.
Over the past couple millennia, a mere blip of Earth's history, humans have manifestly reshaped the planet — from the physical to the biological. The ground, the oceans, the air, the flora, the fauna — nothing is as it was. And yet, despite this radical transformation, it can seem like we ourselves haven't changed much at all...
But that's an illusion.
"Humans are still evolving," Dr. Scott Solomon, an Associate Teaching Professor at Rice University specializing in ecology, evolutionary biology, and scientific communication, wrote in his forthcoming book Becoming Martian: How Living in Space Will Change Our Bodies and Minds.
Sure, over the last 10,000 or so years, our physical alterations have been relatively muted compared to the changes seen in society and on our planet. Essentially, we've shrunk a bit, and our jaws have weakened. But even a little change is still change, and it begs a question: "In the far-flung future, what will happen to us, evolutionarily speaking?"
It's a question that Solomon considered in his 2016 book, Future Humans: Inside the Science of Our Continuing Evolution. He surmised that our ultimate evolutionary fate could follow one of three basic trajectories.
The first is a standstill — our species will remain roughly as it currently is. But Solomon thinks this is unlikely.
"So far, in the 3.7-billion-year history of life on Earth this has not happened to a single species... All species change, some faster than others, but there is no species alive today that has not undergone changes throughout its existence."
Our second possible fate is extinction. Though the chances of this may seem remote to our brains biased to optimism, the odds are far higher than any of us would like to admit. Extinction, after all, is the norm on Earth — 99 percent of all the species that have ever lived ultimately died out.
"There are an uncomfortably high number of plausible ways this could happen," Solomon wrote, "including another giant asteroid impact, a super-volcano eruption, nuclear war, catastrophic climate change, the spread of a devastating pandemic, or our sun exploding in a supernova."
The third possible fate for humanity, which Solomon explored in depth in Becoming Martian, is that at least part of humanity will evolve into a different species. A decade ago, Solomon deemed this path improbable. Humans today are so interconnected that no population could be siloed enough to speciate.
But now, he thinks the chances have risen considerably. Why? Because the world's richest men are plowing their hefty fortunes into making humans interplanetary. What once seemed science fiction is growing closer to reality with the launch of every large rocket. If a group of humans could colonize another world — Mars, for example — and cease to breed with Earthlings altogether, it may take only ten generations before they grow genetically distinct enough to no longer be considered humans, but rather Martians.
"If we do manage to spread out and survive on planets scattered across our solar system and others, we should expect to evolve, adapt, and speciate everywhere we go," Solomon wrote.
Like the cornucopia of different creatures inhabiting Charles Darwin's beloved Galapagos Islands, humans dwelling on different bodies within the solar system could similarly evolve "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful."
#1
Sort of skips the part where humans alter their environments, micro to macro, rather than the environments altering humans. What other earth species has walked on the moon?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Bee] MINNEAPOLIS, MN — Following recent developments stemming from political protests and clashes with the federal government across the state, 
[The Federalist] Not so long ago, 
[ZERO] Everything around us seems to be changing at breakneck speed. Twenty years ago, smartphones were niche products. Twenty years before that, computers were clunky behemoths. Forty years before that, far more Americans traveled by train than by plane. Forty years before that, cars were just starting to supplant horses.
