Monica, I just watched the Fox interview and loved all that you said. I join the interviewers in being grateful that you are using your powerful voice in this way. Simon, as for calling RFK Jr an anti-Semite, I urge you to read the following excerpt from Dr. Joe Mercola’s article published today:
Kennedy cited a July 2020 study in BMC Medicine, which reported that, based on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis, certain races, as well as people with certain diseases, are more susceptible to COVID-19. As noted in that paper:
“We found unique genetic susceptibility across different populations in ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Specifically, ACE2 polymorphisms were found to be associated with cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions by altering the angiotensinogen-ACE2 interactions, such as p.Arg514Gly in the African/African-American population.
Unique but prevalent polymorphisms ... in TMPRSS2, offer potential explanations for differential genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 as well as for risk factors, including those with cancer and the high-risk group of male patients.”
In his Instagram rebuttal, Kennedy explained that, according to this study, ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews were the least susceptible to COVID-19, while people of African descent and Caucasians were the most susceptible.
“This is not a controversial study,” Kennedy said. “Nobody has suggested that these were deliberately engineered changes. And I certainly don’t believe that they were deliberately engineered.
But what they are is kind of a proof of concept, that you CAN develop bioweapons that will attack certain ethnicities, and this should be terrifying to all of us ... and [needs to be] an object of discussion.”
RFK, Jr. is profoundly misunderstood by a disturbingly high number of Americans. I've seen this movie before, and I know you have, too. We've seen, time and time again, what happens when a squeaky wheel speaks up and challenges the power structure and its "endless war" and agency capture agenda. They're immediately slandered under the guise of "social justice," peddling a "conspiracy theory," or allegiance to Russia. At this point, the script literally writes itself.
RFK, Sr. would be so very proud of his son. He is attempting what seems to be the impossible: reminding the Democratic party of the core values it once embraced: tolerance and an equal voice for all.
Yes, I watched the congressional hearing about governmental censorship last Thursday during which Kennedy was a chief witness. It was shocking to me how his own party, the Democrats, tried to defame and shut him down at every turn, even ironically trying to censor him yet again by closing the hearing to the public (which gambit failed). They also clearly avoided calling on him because he spoke so eloquently and passionately about his belief in returning to the values of his father and uncle’s Democratic party, of comity, decency, and working together to solve problems. I agree with you that his father and uncle would be so proud of him; I think he is tremendously courageous and principled. Yes, flawed like any other human but also giving life his best shot.
"Yes, flawed like any other human but also giving life his best shot."
So eloquently said. He is such an inspiration to every American who refuses to be gaslit into silence.
IMO there's no point in making this journey if we don't take advantage of every opportunity at our disposal to make a difference in a world that is in desperate need of change. When this trip ends, we won't be able to take anything with us. What we leave behind is all that matters.
I watched the hearings, tool. I found it astounding (and mildly hilarious) that Democrats were literally attempting to silence RFK, Jr. in a hearing on censorship. The irony is as thick as a Porterhouse steak.
Are any of the living Kennedys supporting him? I can only find family members who disagree with most of his opinions. JFK couldn't be more different than RFK, Jr so he's going to need more than a famous last name to pass the smell test. He's just another disrupter.
I'm going to move on to another page and topic and writer. I'm disrupting the echo chamber in here.
Deb, there’s no need to move on, and you’re not disrupting anything! I actually find your voice and candor refreshing :-)
I’m not sure about the similarity between JFK and RFK, Jr, but if you’ll recall the ideals that RFK, Sr was advocating shortly before his death I think you’ll find that father and son seem remarkably aligned: they are hostile to the military industrial complex and the penetration of our institutions by deep pockets, and both made the growing class divide a centerpiece of their campaigns.
As for living Kennedys who support him: I don’t think that’s relevant at this point. I’m sure you and I would both run out of hands if we tried to count the people we know who have a political perspective that is diametrically opposed to their family members! (If everyone in my family supported Trump except me, would that be reason to dismiss my opinion?)
We walk our own path in this life. No one walks it for us. If we allow others to guide our thoughts, ideas, an opinions -- based on blood, friendship, or other affiliation -- then we’re not living as free and sovereign beings; we are merely followers.
I welcome your perspective, Deb, and hope to see you In future discussions.
As for RFK Jr.’s family, I don’t think any of his seven adult children (in their 20s and 30s) have spoken against him, although Kennedy has said that they often disagree with him and he welcomes debate with them. His son Conor went and fought in Ukraine (for Ukraine) as a machine gunner for two months recently without telling his dad, and although Kennedy does not agree with his son about that war, he said he fully supports that his son acted on his principles.
Thanks Noel, you stand out from the masses when you welcome other’s opinions. I said I was moving on from this page but after reading your comment I wanted to say thank you.
Also, I really admire Caroline Kennedy so I will look to her for an informed opinion on RFK Jr.
Yes! Exactly! (Both to not being able to take anything with us—although my personal belief is that our consciousness lives on after death and that we can thus take any learning with us, just nothing material—and the thickness of the irony of trying to censor a censorship hearing.)
Hi Monica, I was censored too, for sharing the stories of black detrans lesbians on Instagram and Facebook-they deleted everything in less than 24 hours, after 8 years of content curation and audience building. That is actually why I joined Substack. I've felt really pushed out of social media since then and I am trying to rebuld.
I will say that I have learned a lot about the trans movement in the past few years, and I don't actually believe that transwomen are a marginalized group. They're sort of a mixed bag, some of them gay males who have experienced homophobia...but a lot of them are also straight men who fetishize the female experience (autogynephiles). Either way, they are still men and have the power and privilege that comes with it, whether they take estrogen or not. Transwomen are painted as these delicate feminine creatures but plenty of them can go toe-to-toe with any other man.
I don't really have the space or feel called to advocate for them when they're stomping on our rights all the time, calling us terfs for speaking up for ourselves, and getting us deplatformed, threatening our livelihood. There is so much money and media backing said 'transwomen' rights at the moment...I do not see them as being vulnerable, and certainly not more than women. There are no rights that they don't already have--however, women are losing all of ours so they can have more privileges.
Thanks for sharing that perspective, and very sorry to hear the loss you suffered with your content. I’m grateful, as I’m sure you are, to find a home on Substack (for as long as it lasts).
I’ve always assumed that transgender women are marginalized and often violently victimized by heterosexual men who are fearful/insecure/threatened. Aside from that, I agree that they seem to be no more vulnerable or marginalized than women, and they seem to be gaining rights as we lose ours.
I’m well aware of the deep pockets and institutions that are investing heavily in advancing the trans cause. I’m always skeptical when moneyed interests have a substantial interest in anything, specially when it relates to social justice. I think these people could care less about any marginalized group. They just use people of color, women, trans, and gay people to advance their goal of silencing dissent, creating division, and stripping rights.
Transwomen are gaining privileges over women because they're men. It's statistically proven that transwomen are no less violent or predatory towards women than any other group of men...and that's because, they're men.
Male-on-male violence has been going on for ages, and it's nothing new. The reality is, any man is vulnerable to male violence, if he's in the wrong situation or if he is deemed more feminine-whether straight or gay. It's not a trans issue. It's a male violence issue, and on that note, transwomen need to do just as much reform as any other male because they're hurting us.
I don't know if you're aware of the Dana Rivers case, the transwoman who gaslit women into entering Mitchfest and later murdered a black lesbian family in their own home...but he is now being housed in a female prison, as of June 2023. People will say, "Oh it's just a man who is misusing the trans label"...no, it's a "transwoman" who acted as any other violent male would.
The idea that transwomen are victimized, is what keeps them in female prisons. People like to pick and choose who gets to be trans based on who gives them good PR, and that's why it remains a nebulous concept.
Trans is just an identity-there's no such thing as being 'spiritually' female, or 'feeling' female. Our government should not create a set of laws based on new age spirituality. It's a cult. There's just a lot of veils that need to be removed. Liberal-progressive is turning into totalitarianism.
But anyway, thank you for speaking out. The more of us who speak, across different backgrounds, the better. 🙏🏾🌺
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
Hi. I have responded to Monica before. My current view is that there is a
"mass formation." This is a technical term best explained by others, but something like mass ideology or masses of people losing the ability even to think or I should say "creatively." And those persons do not know what "creatively" means. Bill Gates is not creative, for example. Nor does he understand the word. He has no soul. What is a soul? Must be some kind of primitive religious thing. So, I think "mass formation" means there is no longer a single person that you can (may) access to show you a different way of seeing life. No "channel" to tune into, like late-night AM radio, or the eleven PM talk shows on TV. So you fall into line, like all the other magnetic filings. In a "mass formation" there is no disagreement anymore. In Chicago, we used to have a guy on TV late night (Kupcinet) who would have every kind of person imaginable on the show, just to give people the opportunity to hear diverse views.
I just heard about the "Stacie-Marie Laughton" case and a new idea comes to mind.
Aren't trans activists infiltrated by pedophiles in disguise on a broader scale than we could think?
Back in the day, pedophilia was tolerated amongst the LGBT community, at least until 1993 (NAMBLA). They were banned since, but some may seek revenge and become willingly "useful idiots" to the service of other agendas...
Jul 26, 2023·edited Jul 26, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
"Defending women’s rights has now become a “conservative” talking point."
You're right, Monica!
This is on purpose. The idea that the weak spots of the left are today more than ever exploited by the far right spin-doctors is now obvious. This subtle game involves trans-activism today, but could very well involve any activism that once has been labeled "leftist". A long time ago the spin doctors were focused on labeling left as "wrong" and right as "right". Over thirty years they learned to manipulate the "leftists" to become useful idiots. And that worked. Sadly. Now the option is on international matters, there is still huge, deadly flaws in the "right", and we are closer than never to WWIII, and I believe we can make freedom proficient again. We need an online "shadow cabinet" to be created along with every living human who validated a Ph.D. thesis, wherever they live wherever them from. From this "Regency" we can constitute a powerful, sensical lobby, and defend freedom as a whole rather than locally or nationally. I hope this petition below helps understand how "Regencies" and shadow cabinets are the way: https://www.change.org/ContinentalRegency
I don’t recall referring to RFK, Jr. as a working class hero. I do, however, think he deserves credit for calling attention to what are currently the greatest threats to our constitutional democracy.
I am pleased that you got your message out on Fox News and hope you have some normal outlets soon. I was less happy to see how happy you were to be at a conference with Putin-loving Tulsi Gabbard and anti-Semite Robert Kennedy. Just because someone has been censored doesn’t make them good company.
I actually see no evidence that Tulsi loves Putin, and I'm quite sure that RFK, Jr. (given his extremely pro-Israel positions in the past) isn’t anti-Semitic.
What I think is happening, which is so often the case these days, is that the viewpoints and perspectives of unpopular figures are being distorted and misrepresented. A week ago, the go-to smear for RFK, Jr. was "anti-vaxxer"; today, it's "anti-Semitic." I can only imagine what it will be tomorrow.
Incidentally, I watched the anti-Semitic slur slung at Bernie Sanders in 2016. It was disingenuous then, and it's just as disingenuous now.
The pattern I've noticed over the past five decades is that whenever unpopular messages are floated that threaten power structures and their perma-war and agency capture agenda, the wagons circle quickly to discredit the messenger.
As for censorship: anyone who is willing to stand up to a government that is secretly colluding with private companies to circumvent the First Amendment deserves our support, whether or not we agree with them. Have you ever seen "The People vs Larry Flynt?" It's a masterful paean to free speech and a reminder that this precious right survives only if we're willing to extend it to our enemies. This is the essence of what makes America so damn special.
Once the precedent of government censorship is set, no American is safe. Any of us could easily find ourselves on the wrong side of the Ministry of Truth. You may be safe today, but that could all change tomorrow. I know many women who are learning this the hard way.
Thank you for saying all this (and everything else you say, lol). Small point: I think you probably meant to say: “and I'm quite sure that RFK, Jr. (given his extremely pro-Israel positions in the past) *isn’t anti-Semitic.” 😊
Equating quoting a scientific study regarding genetic differences in disease susceptibility with antisemitism, and equating lack of support for a proxy war in Ukraine as “Putin loving”, indicates you’re not much of a thinker. You need to stay in your echo chamber.
Jul 25, 2023·edited Jul 25, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
This is one of the things that people loyal to whatever the Democratic Party narrative is do not seem to get, Stuart. Based on what I have seen both Gabbard and RFK say numerous times makes it ridiculous to call them Putin-loving or anti-Semitic, respectively. That is clearly false based on empirical observations of their respective speaking history, and it does not suddenly become true because the Democrats say that it's true as a form of smear tactic. The Democrats are one wing of the capitalist-controlled duopoly, and their biggest fear is the entire working class achieving class unity and demanding a fundamental re-organization of society into a system that works for *everyone.*
The Dems, like the Repubs, are determined to subvert class unity among the workers by keeping us fighting over issues like "Red vs. Blue," men vs. women, black vs white, heteronormative vs. non-heteronormative, etc. They want all worker demographics fighting against each other for the nominal privilege of trustees within the prison system rather than uniting to smash the prison system altogether and freeing *everyone* from its dog-eat-dog competitive environment.
"Free speech, this precious right, survives only if we're willing to extend it to our enemies"
From a French perspective, the time of "spin doctors" (either left or right) is vanishing quickly. We're closer than ever to WWIII, and we need an online international shadow cabinet NOW, which proposals would be sanctioned NOW by every living human on earth who validated a Ph.D. Thesis. Several urgent proposals can be made about those subjects too, though I'd prefer to stay focused on the necessary limits to sovereignty. When "sovereignty" implies the right to persecute people, as the CPC seems to think, then there must be a set limit. This set limit will become a "smart limit" once validated by the whole Ph.D. community, which is much more valued in conservative cultures than the "democracy" concept. The more we make the CPC lose its conservative support, the faster the CPC either changes radically or collapses, leading to the domino collapse of its Russian ally.
That goes precisely to the point I am making. The interests of “T” are no longer aligned with those of “L.” The equation has become problematic because it’s not respectful of the individual needs of each member of this group, but instead conflates them. This isn’t fair, and it certainly isn’t equitable.
The T have always been the misunderstood black sheep of our what used to be family. They are also the most vulnerable and bullied, and it disgusts me to see lesbians leading the charge against them. That's my point. There's no open dialog I can find that includes any attempt toward understanding, but instead I hear insults and accusations. The elders are spinning in their graves with this current behavior, and based on games of sport. Sportsball. Shameful.
I understand the point you are making, but I‘m wondering what insults and accusations you found in my article? I would love to see examples of this.
I was merely expressing my belief that it should be possible to extend rights to a disenfranchised group without taking them from another disenfranchised group. And to be clear, these issues extend beyond games and sport, as I pointed out in my article. These issues extend to prisons, women’s shelters, locker rooms, and a host of other environments. Moreover, I have no objection to including trans women in some sports; I would propose we not include them in sports in which biological women are at a disadvantage because of physical strength derived from hormones. For example, men may have a physical advantage in the 500 meter butterfly, but not diving. The latter, IMO, is appropriate for transgender inclusion.
As for attempts toward open dialog and understanding, I don’t think it’s the case that these efforts are not made. In fact, I was scheduled to appear on a panel this week with advocates of the trans community. However, after agreeing to participate, members of the trans community pressured their panelists to withdraw less than a week before the event. No reasons whatsoever were given. I and others had been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to discuss these issues in a public, open forum — in a balanced and sensible manner — but our attempts were thwarted:
Please keep in mind that there are people outside the trans community who want to reach out and come to a common understanding and an appreciation of perspectives, but these efforts must be bilateral. The fact that I’m engaging with you now should be evidence that respectful dialog is possible. And I am thankful for this exchange 🙏
I am not trans. You are talking to an old lesbian who is watching our community fighting each other instead of the systems that try to eliminate us and our rights on a regular basis. The straights have latched onto our trans community and have sunk teeth into them, and the terfs and some lesbians are right beside them. It's so heartbreaking to watch.
Martina Navratilova is among the most shocking to me. She was the aggressive butch with muscles playing against little Chrissie Evert in the 70's, looking more like a dude than a lady, dominating their matches until Chris altered her game to have a chance against this new power in the women's game. Same thing when Serena Williams arrived. I know grown men now who would love to have Serena's muscle tone in their arms. I understand the difference here in that these are cis females. I also know that not all men are stronger than all women. And once again the cis community would like the right to decide which part of life in which the trans folks are allowed to participate.
As for the open dialog, I'm not privy to the details of the panel at the APS event, but I can't really find fault with people who decide not to expose themselves to a crowd of people expecting them to explain to them why and how and all the rest. I'm not sure why anyone would assume to be received respectfully and with open minds when they are walking into a room full of people who already have an opinion formed and are looking to be recognized. The dot org of it all has a stated mission going in. Trans people are just trying to live.
I don't know Monica, I'm not here to try to change hearts and minds because I know that to be a fool's errand. I don't understand this new version of humans I see in front of me these days. I'm just an old lesbian who remembers the vast amounts of shit we went through to give these little queer folks the ground to stand on and have these debates. There are no words to stop the deluge coming for my trans brothers and sisters, but I will be here bearing witness. The Karma police have a way of leveling things when the time is right.
I am so thankful for the opportunity to engage with you, Deb! This is going to be a lengthy response because you raised a lot of points that I think need to be addressed.
I didn't get the sense that you are trans. You sound like a deeply compassionate ally who is understandably concerned about how trans people are treated. I hope you know that it was never my intent to cast insults and accusations at the trans community. Although there are some who choose to do that, I think you assumed that I am part of a group that is leading a charge with insults and accusations. This is absolutely not the case. I am merely arguing that we need to find a way to balance the interests of groups that no longer seem to be in complete alignment. Is that a perspective you find insulting? Just as you are concerned that people are making unwarranted assumptions about trans people and misrepresenting them, I have the same concerns about assumptions that people make about me. I don’t want to be misrepresented. I think this highlights the dangers of assumptions that people seem to be making across many groups -- that all trans people think the same way, all cisgender people think the same way, and all gays and lesbians think the same way. But we do not. We are not, and have never been, monolithic groups.
I’m not sure I’m what you call an old school lesbian, but I came out in the late 80s when it was not cool to be a lesbian. I lived in constant fear that my lifestyle choice would be exposed among family, friends and colleagues. Thankfully, by the time I reached my 40s, that fear had largely dissipated. Yet a decade later, I see lesbians facing a different brand of discrimination. If we make the choice to be in relationships with women who were never biological men, and we choose not to entertain the possibility of dating these women on dating sites, we are viewed as TERFs. If we believe that lesbians can only be women who were never biological men, we are viewed as TERFs.
IMO what’s happening isn’t much different from the way men treated me in law school when they learned I was gay: “You just haven’t met the ‘right’ guy,” they would tell me. To which I would respond: “No, there is no ‘right’ guy for me; I am simply attracted to female parts.” And my decision does not change if a biological man identifies as a woman. Moreover, I shouldn’t be shamed for my choice. But that’s exactly what’s happening to lesbians now. You may see my preference as synonymous with a rejection of trans women, but it's merely an affirmation of the right I have, as a gay women, to express an identity and a sexual preference I have worked VERY hard to create and to be proud of. What I see happening now is a lot of young lesbians, with far less confidence that I have, are being shamed into having preferences that are not organic to them. So, this is not an issue of the cis community sinking its teeth into the trans community; this is about lesbians being allowed to retain their right to their identity. This is a right that should not be taken from us. What I find truly heartbreaking is watching people who advocated so hard for my rights as a lesbian turning a blind eye when I speak up now to defend those same rights.
As for sports: it’s unquestionable that Martina and Serena could handily beat their male counterparts, but the issue is whether the best female players can beat the best male players, and they cannot. Obviously, there will never be a completely level playing field among athletes. Could Sugar Ray Leonard knock out Mike Tyson? Of course not. Because even among male athletes, not all are equally endowed. But the science is unequivocal: the average male competitor – not the exceptional male competitor – has a clear advantage over their average female counterpart. For example, my 14-year old son likes to arm wrestle. When he was younger, I could always easily beat him. When he turned 12, the game began to change. I began to struggle during our “matches,” and now I don’t even have a chance, even when I try my hardest. My son isn’t exceptionally endowed; he’s just an average boy who’s experienced puberty, and that transition has gifted him with a prowess the vast majority of women (let alone girls) simply cannot match.
Regarding open dialogue: American Public Square, the organization that offered to host the panel, is non-partisan and has a reputation for being fair and balanced and not taking “sides.” APS’ sole mission is finding common ground. The goal was to inform and educate, to help viewers hear both sides and understand the complexity of the issues so that we would have a better chance of bridging the divide. They worked hard to find panelists ALL along the spectrum to participate in the discussion. There was no indication that the panelists representing the trans community would be exposed to a crowd of people who have already formed an opinion. In fact, the day before the trans panelists withdrew, we had a friendly and engaging introductory meeting with all panelists that went very well! There was no indication whatsoever that the trans panelists perceived hostility from me or the other panelists – yet they inexplicably withdrew less than 24 hours later. Moreover, our attempts to reach out and get clarity on their decision have been met with silence. We were ghosted.
I think this experience, and your response, again highlights the pitfalls of making assumptions. You assumed the audience would be hostile, have their minds made up, and that the trans panelists would not be received respectfully and with open minds -- and perhaps the advocates who pressured the panelists to withdrew made the same assumptions. But why? Because members of the audience would be allowed to ask questions? Because some panelists would have a different perspective? I hope you can understand how a refusal to participate in this kind of discussion -- by assuming ill will with no evidence whatsoever – will not advance the interests of the trans community. It will only lead to alienation and further the divide. How can any community be heard if they are not willing to engage in a discussion?
Like you, I don’t know how to change hearts and minds, but there’s one thing I know for certain: we can't possibly do it until we stop making assumptions about what people think about us and how they will treat us. We must be willing to engage without predicting that we will be misunderstood. I’ve encountered my fair share of racists as a black woman, but I would not have developed ANY meaningful relationships with white people if I had assumed they were all racist. I know that the trans community has been on the receiving end of a lot of hate, without cause or justification. Like you, I don’t recognize the “new version of humans” that has regressed to such hate. But we're not all haters or hostile, Deb. Many of us just want to find common ground so we can peacefully co-exist without any group feeling displaced. There has to be a way to respectfully engage – as we are doing now – to make this happen. You see where I’m coming from?
Wow! I didn't have time to really read this and absorb until now, and that was my first response. Wow. You and I seem to have been out and about in the same decade, but that is where our similarities end. Reading your response is the first time hearing of the lesbians being in opposition to trans for this reason. I've known hundreds of lesbians, and this is a first for me. I'm sorry this is such a problem for so many, but I have nothing to add to this discussion at all.
What I have noticed is that my gaydar seems to be broken. This new generation and their many sexuals broke it right into. I think it was the pansexual specifically who broke it. Now I am working on my pronoun usage to respect their requests, and that is tricky as a boomer, but the effort doesn't upset me.
I have also noticed the increase in the number of trans deaths, specifically people of color, in our country.
These are places I can focus my energy and move forward more dialog that could result in a more acceptable set of conditions for our rainbow family, the LGBTQA+ of them all.
Now I will indeed move on after having read all of these comments. I am definitely not among my people here, and I am too damn old and tired to be spinning tires just to make noise. You and I could trade replies for days and nothing would change. We are not even in the same ballpark in any way that I recognized in your response.
And the way you explained to me who's opinion should or should not matter when deciding my vote says a lot about how we should probably not communicate. That bugged me in a real specific kind of way. Shades of mansplaining in that that shut me down right away. I have zero interest in further debate or dialog after that. I saw all the things I needed to come back to you about and the very thought was exhausting and I found I could not dredge up the sincerity required to start. I am sure that statement will trigger a very long reply from you because you seem to have a need to be right, but know while you are typing that I don't care. Maybe learn this if you are trying to get people to listen to you in the future.
No need to fret about a lengthy response from me, Deb. I took time to write so much because I wanted you to know I wasn’t dismissing your opinion and appreciate engaging with you, even if I don’t agree with you.
Please know that I don’t have a need to be right or change your mind, but I do feel the need to express myself and leave the channels of communication open. Because once we stop communicating, everything goes sideways — which is precisely what’s happening in this country now.
That’s what I lament most about the “new version of humans,” as you call them. There was once a time when people could dialog even if they shared completely different perspectives (Mary Matalin and James Carville come to mind!). A rabid Republican was integrated into our heavily-Democrat family decades ago. It led to spirited debate at holidays, but in the end we all still loved and respected each other, which is used to be one of the beautiful things about this country. Sadly, it seems we no longer have this capacity.
I do respect your opinion and love your candor and authenticity. It’s very refreshing.
Monica, I just watched the Fox interview and loved all that you said. I join the interviewers in being grateful that you are using your powerful voice in this way. Simon, as for calling RFK Jr an anti-Semite, I urge you to read the following excerpt from Dr. Joe Mercola’s article published today:
Kennedy cited a July 2020 study in BMC Medicine, which reported that, based on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis, certain races, as well as people with certain diseases, are more susceptible to COVID-19. As noted in that paper:
“We found unique genetic susceptibility across different populations in ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Specifically, ACE2 polymorphisms were found to be associated with cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions by altering the angiotensinogen-ACE2 interactions, such as p.Arg514Gly in the African/African-American population.
Unique but prevalent polymorphisms ... in TMPRSS2, offer potential explanations for differential genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 as well as for risk factors, including those with cancer and the high-risk group of male patients.”
In his Instagram rebuttal, Kennedy explained that, according to this study, ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews were the least susceptible to COVID-19, while people of African descent and Caucasians were the most susceptible.
“This is not a controversial study,” Kennedy said. “Nobody has suggested that these were deliberately engineered changes. And I certainly don’t believe that they were deliberately engineered.
But what they are is kind of a proof of concept, that you CAN develop bioweapons that will attack certain ethnicities, and this should be terrifying to all of us ... and [needs to be] an object of discussion.”
Many thanks for your support, Noel.
RFK, Jr. is profoundly misunderstood by a disturbingly high number of Americans. I've seen this movie before, and I know you have, too. We've seen, time and time again, what happens when a squeaky wheel speaks up and challenges the power structure and its "endless war" and agency capture agenda. They're immediately slandered under the guise of "social justice," peddling a "conspiracy theory," or allegiance to Russia. At this point, the script literally writes itself.
RFK, Sr. would be so very proud of his son. He is attempting what seems to be the impossible: reminding the Democratic party of the core values it once embraced: tolerance and an equal voice for all.
Yes, I watched the congressional hearing about governmental censorship last Thursday during which Kennedy was a chief witness. It was shocking to me how his own party, the Democrats, tried to defame and shut him down at every turn, even ironically trying to censor him yet again by closing the hearing to the public (which gambit failed). They also clearly avoided calling on him because he spoke so eloquently and passionately about his belief in returning to the values of his father and uncle’s Democratic party, of comity, decency, and working together to solve problems. I agree with you that his father and uncle would be so proud of him; I think he is tremendously courageous and principled. Yes, flawed like any other human but also giving life his best shot.
"Yes, flawed like any other human but also giving life his best shot."
So eloquently said. He is such an inspiration to every American who refuses to be gaslit into silence.
IMO there's no point in making this journey if we don't take advantage of every opportunity at our disposal to make a difference in a world that is in desperate need of change. When this trip ends, we won't be able to take anything with us. What we leave behind is all that matters.
I watched the hearings, tool. I found it astounding (and mildly hilarious) that Democrats were literally attempting to silence RFK, Jr. in a hearing on censorship. The irony is as thick as a Porterhouse steak.
Are any of the living Kennedys supporting him? I can only find family members who disagree with most of his opinions. JFK couldn't be more different than RFK, Jr so he's going to need more than a famous last name to pass the smell test. He's just another disrupter.
I'm going to move on to another page and topic and writer. I'm disrupting the echo chamber in here.
Peace and love..
Deb, there’s no need to move on, and you’re not disrupting anything! I actually find your voice and candor refreshing :-)
I’m not sure about the similarity between JFK and RFK, Jr, but if you’ll recall the ideals that RFK, Sr was advocating shortly before his death I think you’ll find that father and son seem remarkably aligned: they are hostile to the military industrial complex and the penetration of our institutions by deep pockets, and both made the growing class divide a centerpiece of their campaigns.
As for living Kennedys who support him: I don’t think that’s relevant at this point. I’m sure you and I would both run out of hands if we tried to count the people we know who have a political perspective that is diametrically opposed to their family members! (If everyone in my family supported Trump except me, would that be reason to dismiss my opinion?)
We walk our own path in this life. No one walks it for us. If we allow others to guide our thoughts, ideas, an opinions -- based on blood, friendship, or other affiliation -- then we’re not living as free and sovereign beings; we are merely followers.
I welcome your perspective, Deb, and hope to see you In future discussions.
As for RFK Jr.’s family, I don’t think any of his seven adult children (in their 20s and 30s) have spoken against him, although Kennedy has said that they often disagree with him and he welcomes debate with them. His son Conor went and fought in Ukraine (for Ukraine) as a machine gunner for two months recently without telling his dad, and although Kennedy does not agree with his son about that war, he said he fully supports that his son acted on his principles.
Thanks Noel, you stand out from the masses when you welcome other’s opinions. I said I was moving on from this page but after reading your comment I wanted to say thank you.
Also, I really admire Caroline Kennedy so I will look to her for an informed opinion on RFK Jr.
That’s a good idea to check out Caroline Kennedy’s opinion. I would be very interested to know what she says about him.
I do wish Deb would stick around :-)
Here is a link to the video (found via DuckDuckGo search engine): https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6331778452112
Yes! Exactly! (Both to not being able to take anything with us—although my personal belief is that our consciousness lives on after death and that we can thus take any learning with us, just nothing material—and the thickness of the irony of trying to censor a censorship hearing.)
Pathetic is the perfect word for this stance against the trans community. There would be no LGBTQA+ without the T part of that equation.
Hi Monica, I was censored too, for sharing the stories of black detrans lesbians on Instagram and Facebook-they deleted everything in less than 24 hours, after 8 years of content curation and audience building. That is actually why I joined Substack. I've felt really pushed out of social media since then and I am trying to rebuld.
I will say that I have learned a lot about the trans movement in the past few years, and I don't actually believe that transwomen are a marginalized group. They're sort of a mixed bag, some of them gay males who have experienced homophobia...but a lot of them are also straight men who fetishize the female experience (autogynephiles). Either way, they are still men and have the power and privilege that comes with it, whether they take estrogen or not. Transwomen are painted as these delicate feminine creatures but plenty of them can go toe-to-toe with any other man.
I don't really have the space or feel called to advocate for them when they're stomping on our rights all the time, calling us terfs for speaking up for ourselves, and getting us deplatformed, threatening our livelihood. There is so much money and media backing said 'transwomen' rights at the moment...I do not see them as being vulnerable, and certainly not more than women. There are no rights that they don't already have--however, women are losing all of ours so they can have more privileges.
Thanks for sharing that perspective, and very sorry to hear the loss you suffered with your content. I’m grateful, as I’m sure you are, to find a home on Substack (for as long as it lasts).
I’ve always assumed that transgender women are marginalized and often violently victimized by heterosexual men who are fearful/insecure/threatened. Aside from that, I agree that they seem to be no more vulnerable or marginalized than women, and they seem to be gaining rights as we lose ours.
I’m well aware of the deep pockets and institutions that are investing heavily in advancing the trans cause. I’m always skeptical when moneyed interests have a substantial interest in anything, specially when it relates to social justice. I think these people could care less about any marginalized group. They just use people of color, women, trans, and gay people to advance their goal of silencing dissent, creating division, and stripping rights.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, too.
Transwomen are gaining privileges over women because they're men. It's statistically proven that transwomen are no less violent or predatory towards women than any other group of men...and that's because, they're men.
Male-on-male violence has been going on for ages, and it's nothing new. The reality is, any man is vulnerable to male violence, if he's in the wrong situation or if he is deemed more feminine-whether straight or gay. It's not a trans issue. It's a male violence issue, and on that note, transwomen need to do just as much reform as any other male because they're hurting us.
I don't know if you're aware of the Dana Rivers case, the transwoman who gaslit women into entering Mitchfest and later murdered a black lesbian family in their own home...but he is now being housed in a female prison, as of June 2023. People will say, "Oh it's just a man who is misusing the trans label"...no, it's a "transwoman" who acted as any other violent male would.
The idea that transwomen are victimized, is what keeps them in female prisons. People like to pick and choose who gets to be trans based on who gives them good PR, and that's why it remains a nebulous concept.
Trans is just an identity-there's no such thing as being 'spiritually' female, or 'feeling' female. Our government should not create a set of laws based on new age spirituality. It's a cult. There's just a lot of veils that need to be removed. Liberal-progressive is turning into totalitarianism.
But anyway, thank you for speaking out. The more of us who speak, across different backgrounds, the better. 🙏🏾🌺
Hi. I have responded to Monica before. My current view is that there is a
"mass formation." This is a technical term best explained by others, but something like mass ideology or masses of people losing the ability even to think or I should say "creatively." And those persons do not know what "creatively" means. Bill Gates is not creative, for example. Nor does he understand the word. He has no soul. What is a soul? Must be some kind of primitive religious thing. So, I think "mass formation" means there is no longer a single person that you can (may) access to show you a different way of seeing life. No "channel" to tune into, like late-night AM radio, or the eleven PM talk shows on TV. So you fall into line, like all the other magnetic filings. In a "mass formation" there is no disagreement anymore. In Chicago, we used to have a guy on TV late night (Kupcinet) who would have every kind of person imaginable on the show, just to give people the opportunity to hear diverse views.
I just heard about the "Stacie-Marie Laughton" case and a new idea comes to mind.
Aren't trans activists infiltrated by pedophiles in disguise on a broader scale than we could think?
Back in the day, pedophilia was tolerated amongst the LGBT community, at least until 1993 (NAMBLA). They were banned since, but some may seek revenge and become willingly "useful idiots" to the service of other agendas...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12327191/First-transgender-state-rep-charged-stomach-churning-child-porn-offenses-daycare-worker-girlfriend-sent-naked-photos-toddlers-hired-care-for.html?ico=related-replace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
"Defending women’s rights has now become a “conservative” talking point."
You're right, Monica!
This is on purpose. The idea that the weak spots of the left are today more than ever exploited by the far right spin-doctors is now obvious. This subtle game involves trans-activism today, but could very well involve any activism that once has been labeled "leftist". A long time ago the spin doctors were focused on labeling left as "wrong" and right as "right". Over thirty years they learned to manipulate the "leftists" to become useful idiots. And that worked. Sadly. Now the option is on international matters, there is still huge, deadly flaws in the "right", and we are closer than never to WWIII, and I believe we can make freedom proficient again. We need an online "shadow cabinet" to be created along with every living human who validated a Ph.D. thesis, wherever they live wherever them from. From this "Regency" we can constitute a powerful, sensical lobby, and defend freedom as a whole rather than locally or nationally. I hope this petition below helps understand how "Regencies" and shadow cabinets are the way: https://www.change.org/ContinentalRegency
Thanks again, Monica, and never stop trying!
Monica! Congrats! This is huge! Congrats again!
Oh God, you think Robert Kennedy is a working class hero?
I don’t recall referring to RFK, Jr. as a working class hero. I do, however, think he deserves credit for calling attention to what are currently the greatest threats to our constitutional democracy.
Not you Monica, someone on this stream.
Ah, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
I am pleased that you got your message out on Fox News and hope you have some normal outlets soon. I was less happy to see how happy you were to be at a conference with Putin-loving Tulsi Gabbard and anti-Semite Robert Kennedy. Just because someone has been censored doesn’t make them good company.
Thank you for your support, Stuart.
I actually see no evidence that Tulsi loves Putin, and I'm quite sure that RFK, Jr. (given his extremely pro-Israel positions in the past) isn’t anti-Semitic.
What I think is happening, which is so often the case these days, is that the viewpoints and perspectives of unpopular figures are being distorted and misrepresented. A week ago, the go-to smear for RFK, Jr. was "anti-vaxxer"; today, it's "anti-Semitic." I can only imagine what it will be tomorrow.
Incidentally, I watched the anti-Semitic slur slung at Bernie Sanders in 2016. It was disingenuous then, and it's just as disingenuous now.
The pattern I've noticed over the past five decades is that whenever unpopular messages are floated that threaten power structures and their perma-war and agency capture agenda, the wagons circle quickly to discredit the messenger.
As for censorship: anyone who is willing to stand up to a government that is secretly colluding with private companies to circumvent the First Amendment deserves our support, whether or not we agree with them. Have you ever seen "The People vs Larry Flynt?" It's a masterful paean to free speech and a reminder that this precious right survives only if we're willing to extend it to our enemies. This is the essence of what makes America so damn special.
Once the precedent of government censorship is set, no American is safe. Any of us could easily find ourselves on the wrong side of the Ministry of Truth. You may be safe today, but that could all change tomorrow. I know many women who are learning this the hard way.
Thank you for saying all this (and everything else you say, lol). Small point: I think you probably meant to say: “and I'm quite sure that RFK, Jr. (given his extremely pro-Israel positions in the past) *isn’t anti-Semitic.” 😊
Ah, thanks for catching. Just corrected that!
Yes. Woody was great in that.
Equating quoting a scientific study regarding genetic differences in disease susceptibility with antisemitism, and equating lack of support for a proxy war in Ukraine as “Putin loving”, indicates you’re not much of a thinker. You need to stay in your echo chamber.
They just want to discredit anyone who refuses to swallow the narrative. The narrative is god.
This is one of the things that people loyal to whatever the Democratic Party narrative is do not seem to get, Stuart. Based on what I have seen both Gabbard and RFK say numerous times makes it ridiculous to call them Putin-loving or anti-Semitic, respectively. That is clearly false based on empirical observations of their respective speaking history, and it does not suddenly become true because the Democrats say that it's true as a form of smear tactic. The Democrats are one wing of the capitalist-controlled duopoly, and their biggest fear is the entire working class achieving class unity and demanding a fundamental re-organization of society into a system that works for *everyone.*
The Dems, like the Repubs, are determined to subvert class unity among the workers by keeping us fighting over issues like "Red vs. Blue," men vs. women, black vs white, heteronormative vs. non-heteronormative, etc. They want all worker demographics fighting against each other for the nominal privilege of trustees within the prison system rather than uniting to smash the prison system altogether and freeing *everyone* from its dog-eat-dog competitive environment.
"Free speech, this precious right, survives only if we're willing to extend it to our enemies"
"Free speech, this precious right, survives only if we're willing to extend it to our enemies"
From a French perspective, the time of "spin doctors" (either left or right) is vanishing quickly. We're closer than ever to WWIII, and we need an online international shadow cabinet NOW, which proposals would be sanctioned NOW by every living human on earth who validated a Ph.D. Thesis. Several urgent proposals can be made about those subjects too, though I'd prefer to stay focused on the necessary limits to sovereignty. When "sovereignty" implies the right to persecute people, as the CPC seems to think, then there must be a set limit. This set limit will become a "smart limit" once validated by the whole Ph.D. community, which is much more valued in conservative cultures than the "democracy" concept. The more we make the CPC lose its conservative support, the faster the CPC either changes radically or collapses, leading to the domino collapse of its Russian ally.
That goes precisely to the point I am making. The interests of “T” are no longer aligned with those of “L.” The equation has become problematic because it’s not respectful of the individual needs of each member of this group, but instead conflates them. This isn’t fair, and it certainly isn’t equitable.
The T have always been the misunderstood black sheep of our what used to be family. They are also the most vulnerable and bullied, and it disgusts me to see lesbians leading the charge against them. That's my point. There's no open dialog I can find that includes any attempt toward understanding, but instead I hear insults and accusations. The elders are spinning in their graves with this current behavior, and based on games of sport. Sportsball. Shameful.
I understand the point you are making, but I‘m wondering what insults and accusations you found in my article? I would love to see examples of this.
I was merely expressing my belief that it should be possible to extend rights to a disenfranchised group without taking them from another disenfranchised group. And to be clear, these issues extend beyond games and sport, as I pointed out in my article. These issues extend to prisons, women’s shelters, locker rooms, and a host of other environments. Moreover, I have no objection to including trans women in some sports; I would propose we not include them in sports in which biological women are at a disadvantage because of physical strength derived from hormones. For example, men may have a physical advantage in the 500 meter butterfly, but not diving. The latter, IMO, is appropriate for transgender inclusion.
As for attempts toward open dialog and understanding, I don’t think it’s the case that these efforts are not made. In fact, I was scheduled to appear on a panel this week with advocates of the trans community. However, after agreeing to participate, members of the trans community pressured their panelists to withdraw less than a week before the event. No reasons whatsoever were given. I and others had been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to discuss these issues in a public, open forum — in a balanced and sensible manner — but our attempts were thwarted:
https://americanpublicsquare.org/event/gender-and-identity/
Please keep in mind that there are people outside the trans community who want to reach out and come to a common understanding and an appreciation of perspectives, but these efforts must be bilateral. The fact that I’m engaging with you now should be evidence that respectful dialog is possible. And I am thankful for this exchange 🙏
I am not trans. You are talking to an old lesbian who is watching our community fighting each other instead of the systems that try to eliminate us and our rights on a regular basis. The straights have latched onto our trans community and have sunk teeth into them, and the terfs and some lesbians are right beside them. It's so heartbreaking to watch.
Martina Navratilova is among the most shocking to me. She was the aggressive butch with muscles playing against little Chrissie Evert in the 70's, looking more like a dude than a lady, dominating their matches until Chris altered her game to have a chance against this new power in the women's game. Same thing when Serena Williams arrived. I know grown men now who would love to have Serena's muscle tone in their arms. I understand the difference here in that these are cis females. I also know that not all men are stronger than all women. And once again the cis community would like the right to decide which part of life in which the trans folks are allowed to participate.
As for the open dialog, I'm not privy to the details of the panel at the APS event, but I can't really find fault with people who decide not to expose themselves to a crowd of people expecting them to explain to them why and how and all the rest. I'm not sure why anyone would assume to be received respectfully and with open minds when they are walking into a room full of people who already have an opinion formed and are looking to be recognized. The dot org of it all has a stated mission going in. Trans people are just trying to live.
I don't know Monica, I'm not here to try to change hearts and minds because I know that to be a fool's errand. I don't understand this new version of humans I see in front of me these days. I'm just an old lesbian who remembers the vast amounts of shit we went through to give these little queer folks the ground to stand on and have these debates. There are no words to stop the deluge coming for my trans brothers and sisters, but I will be here bearing witness. The Karma police have a way of leveling things when the time is right.
I am so thankful for the opportunity to engage with you, Deb! This is going to be a lengthy response because you raised a lot of points that I think need to be addressed.
I didn't get the sense that you are trans. You sound like a deeply compassionate ally who is understandably concerned about how trans people are treated. I hope you know that it was never my intent to cast insults and accusations at the trans community. Although there are some who choose to do that, I think you assumed that I am part of a group that is leading a charge with insults and accusations. This is absolutely not the case. I am merely arguing that we need to find a way to balance the interests of groups that no longer seem to be in complete alignment. Is that a perspective you find insulting? Just as you are concerned that people are making unwarranted assumptions about trans people and misrepresenting them, I have the same concerns about assumptions that people make about me. I don’t want to be misrepresented. I think this highlights the dangers of assumptions that people seem to be making across many groups -- that all trans people think the same way, all cisgender people think the same way, and all gays and lesbians think the same way. But we do not. We are not, and have never been, monolithic groups.
I’m not sure I’m what you call an old school lesbian, but I came out in the late 80s when it was not cool to be a lesbian. I lived in constant fear that my lifestyle choice would be exposed among family, friends and colleagues. Thankfully, by the time I reached my 40s, that fear had largely dissipated. Yet a decade later, I see lesbians facing a different brand of discrimination. If we make the choice to be in relationships with women who were never biological men, and we choose not to entertain the possibility of dating these women on dating sites, we are viewed as TERFs. If we believe that lesbians can only be women who were never biological men, we are viewed as TERFs.
IMO what’s happening isn’t much different from the way men treated me in law school when they learned I was gay: “You just haven’t met the ‘right’ guy,” they would tell me. To which I would respond: “No, there is no ‘right’ guy for me; I am simply attracted to female parts.” And my decision does not change if a biological man identifies as a woman. Moreover, I shouldn’t be shamed for my choice. But that’s exactly what’s happening to lesbians now. You may see my preference as synonymous with a rejection of trans women, but it's merely an affirmation of the right I have, as a gay women, to express an identity and a sexual preference I have worked VERY hard to create and to be proud of. What I see happening now is a lot of young lesbians, with far less confidence that I have, are being shamed into having preferences that are not organic to them. So, this is not an issue of the cis community sinking its teeth into the trans community; this is about lesbians being allowed to retain their right to their identity. This is a right that should not be taken from us. What I find truly heartbreaking is watching people who advocated so hard for my rights as a lesbian turning a blind eye when I speak up now to defend those same rights.
As for sports: it’s unquestionable that Martina and Serena could handily beat their male counterparts, but the issue is whether the best female players can beat the best male players, and they cannot. Obviously, there will never be a completely level playing field among athletes. Could Sugar Ray Leonard knock out Mike Tyson? Of course not. Because even among male athletes, not all are equally endowed. But the science is unequivocal: the average male competitor – not the exceptional male competitor – has a clear advantage over their average female counterpart. For example, my 14-year old son likes to arm wrestle. When he was younger, I could always easily beat him. When he turned 12, the game began to change. I began to struggle during our “matches,” and now I don’t even have a chance, even when I try my hardest. My son isn’t exceptionally endowed; he’s just an average boy who’s experienced puberty, and that transition has gifted him with a prowess the vast majority of women (let alone girls) simply cannot match.
Regarding open dialogue: American Public Square, the organization that offered to host the panel, is non-partisan and has a reputation for being fair and balanced and not taking “sides.” APS’ sole mission is finding common ground. The goal was to inform and educate, to help viewers hear both sides and understand the complexity of the issues so that we would have a better chance of bridging the divide. They worked hard to find panelists ALL along the spectrum to participate in the discussion. There was no indication that the panelists representing the trans community would be exposed to a crowd of people who have already formed an opinion. In fact, the day before the trans panelists withdrew, we had a friendly and engaging introductory meeting with all panelists that went very well! There was no indication whatsoever that the trans panelists perceived hostility from me or the other panelists – yet they inexplicably withdrew less than 24 hours later. Moreover, our attempts to reach out and get clarity on their decision have been met with silence. We were ghosted.
I think this experience, and your response, again highlights the pitfalls of making assumptions. You assumed the audience would be hostile, have their minds made up, and that the trans panelists would not be received respectfully and with open minds -- and perhaps the advocates who pressured the panelists to withdrew made the same assumptions. But why? Because members of the audience would be allowed to ask questions? Because some panelists would have a different perspective? I hope you can understand how a refusal to participate in this kind of discussion -- by assuming ill will with no evidence whatsoever – will not advance the interests of the trans community. It will only lead to alienation and further the divide. How can any community be heard if they are not willing to engage in a discussion?
Like you, I don’t know how to change hearts and minds, but there’s one thing I know for certain: we can't possibly do it until we stop making assumptions about what people think about us and how they will treat us. We must be willing to engage without predicting that we will be misunderstood. I’ve encountered my fair share of racists as a black woman, but I would not have developed ANY meaningful relationships with white people if I had assumed they were all racist. I know that the trans community has been on the receiving end of a lot of hate, without cause or justification. Like you, I don’t recognize the “new version of humans” that has regressed to such hate. But we're not all haters or hostile, Deb. Many of us just want to find common ground so we can peacefully co-exist without any group feeling displaced. There has to be a way to respectfully engage – as we are doing now – to make this happen. You see where I’m coming from?
Wow! I didn't have time to really read this and absorb until now, and that was my first response. Wow. You and I seem to have been out and about in the same decade, but that is where our similarities end. Reading your response is the first time hearing of the lesbians being in opposition to trans for this reason. I've known hundreds of lesbians, and this is a first for me. I'm sorry this is such a problem for so many, but I have nothing to add to this discussion at all.
What I have noticed is that my gaydar seems to be broken. This new generation and their many sexuals broke it right into. I think it was the pansexual specifically who broke it. Now I am working on my pronoun usage to respect their requests, and that is tricky as a boomer, but the effort doesn't upset me.
I have also noticed the increase in the number of trans deaths, specifically people of color, in our country.
These are places I can focus my energy and move forward more dialog that could result in a more acceptable set of conditions for our rainbow family, the LGBTQA+ of them all.
Now I will indeed move on after having read all of these comments. I am definitely not among my people here, and I am too damn old and tired to be spinning tires just to make noise. You and I could trade replies for days and nothing would change. We are not even in the same ballpark in any way that I recognized in your response.
And the way you explained to me who's opinion should or should not matter when deciding my vote says a lot about how we should probably not communicate. That bugged me in a real specific kind of way. Shades of mansplaining in that that shut me down right away. I have zero interest in further debate or dialog after that. I saw all the things I needed to come back to you about and the very thought was exhausting and I found I could not dredge up the sincerity required to start. I am sure that statement will trigger a very long reply from you because you seem to have a need to be right, but know while you are typing that I don't care. Maybe learn this if you are trying to get people to listen to you in the future.
No need to fret about a lengthy response from me, Deb. I took time to write so much because I wanted you to know I wasn’t dismissing your opinion and appreciate engaging with you, even if I don’t agree with you.
Please know that I don’t have a need to be right or change your mind, but I do feel the need to express myself and leave the channels of communication open. Because once we stop communicating, everything goes sideways — which is precisely what’s happening in this country now.
That’s what I lament most about the “new version of humans,” as you call them. There was once a time when people could dialog even if they shared completely different perspectives (Mary Matalin and James Carville come to mind!). A rabid Republican was integrated into our heavily-Democrat family decades ago. It led to spirited debate at holidays, but in the end we all still loved and respected each other, which is used to be one of the beautiful things about this country. Sadly, it seems we no longer have this capacity.
I do respect your opinion and love your candor and authenticity. It’s very refreshing.
Be well!
Anybody got a link to the interview? Searches on google and FOXBusiness are polluted with similar names.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6331778452112
Thanks, Noel.
Thanks!
So sorry I neglected to include. Here it is:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6331778452112
I’ve corrected the post to include.