Postmodern Assault On Language Moves Around The World

Taiwanese postmoderns want the Mandarin word translated as hymen retired and a different word less demeaning to women used in its place.

 "The term 'virginity membrane' makes a strong association with women's virginity while virginal obsession and the myth of purity persist in society," the groups said. "We should opt for a more neutral wording to avoid the inappropriate association, which unconsciously undermines women's sexual autonomy."

One health official states the another term for the hymen in Mandarin literally translated as vaginal corona could be adopted but if that's unsatisfactory a different term could be chosen. 

            asian-sirens.net
 

I Don't Know, I'm Not A Bioligist

Those words, uttered by US Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings in response to the question put to her by Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, "What is a woman?", will be saved for posterity in the annals of postmodernism. 

           moj-grad.com

Most interesting about the lady's response is the fact that her status as a biologist isn't the issue. A biologist may well have given a similar answer because the question involves semantics, not biology. Semantics is a branch of linguistics that studies the meanings of words in a lexical, logical or cognitive sense.

In modern terms, a woman is a female adult human being. In the postmodern vernacular, where words have whatever meaning the speaker may desire, a "woman" may be almost anything or even nothing at all. 

This may be a difficult thought to wrap one's mind around. It might be easier to look at it from the point of one of the items being investigated about Mrs. Brown's history, that being children. What is a child? Of course a child is an immature human. But it's also a "stage" in a human process, a stage that's not been precisely defined. When does a human become a child and when does childhood end? When does a child become a man or a woman? How is a man, for instance, defined, as opposed to a child? These questions all involve semantics, not biology.

In the not so distant past such questions were easily answered by the non-academics toiling in the fields or laboring in factories. In the postmodern age institutions like Harvard University are able to employ academics to produce speakers of postmodern language. For a price, Harvard can remold your offspring into speakers, and thinkers, with a command of the indefinite and illusion. They will be able to speak postmodern English with postmodern thinking.   
 

Business Insider Imagines The News

On-line rag Business Insider can't find enough real material so it's forced to make stuff up. The latest example is an article about US sanctions, whatever they might be, against the Russian legislative body, the Duma.  Included in these sanctions is one of the Duma's newer members Maria Butina. The Butina lady was arrested and charged with being a Russian spy in July of 2018. Since no one on earth can afford the legal representation to successfully fight a criminal case against the US Justice Department the Siberian Mata Hari was forced to take a plea deal and admit to being an unregistered foreign agent, something that practically any tourist with an opinion could be forced into. She wasn't convicted of anything. What she really needs is an apology.

 

 socialnewsdaily.com

What's Next In The US/International Drama?

Based on some previous incidents in US history it seems likely that the country's leadership might be considering a manufactured event that could seriously alarm the Yankee population and unite them in an opinion. The sinking of the heavy cruiser USS Maine in 1898 in Havana harbor was blamed on the Spanish but an investigation found it more likely to have been caused by a fire and explosion in the coal bunker. Nevertheless, it helped push public opinion into a war with Spain.

The RMS Luisitania was torpedoed by a German U-Boat on 7 May, 1915 off the coast of Ireland in waters considered as a war zone by the Germans. The death toll was 1,198, 128 of whom were Americans, which outraged the American public and was one factor that led to the Yankees entering the war two years later.

The Gulf of Tonkin attack by the North Vietnamese Navy on the USS Turner Joy and the USS Maddox on 4 August, 1964 was accepted as fact for years and played a significant role in the American entry into the Viet Nam war. Later it was revealed to have never happened at all.

Events occurring on the ocean are difficult to analyze and interpret because the results are hidden on the bottom and witnesses are few. Authorities can say what they wish with little chance of the truth being exposed.

It's very likely that one of the many plans on the Pentagon table for dealing with the present confrontation in eastern Europe would include a similar occurrence. The ideal one would be an announcement that contact with a US attack submarine had been lost. No other information would need to be given. The media would supply all the conjecture required. Any other national problems would move far down a list of importance. Many seriously unpleasant things could happen in short order.

   news usni.org

US Female Pro Basketball Star Arrested Crossing Russian Border With Drugs

This story describes the arrest and some things about the aftermath of a US pro athlete caught bringing illegal drugs into Russia. We don't really know anything about the incident other than  speculation about what might be necessary to allow the woman's return to the US.

At the same time we should keep in mind the recent unpleasantness experienced by Maria Butina, a Siberian gun enthusiast who spent 18 months in US solitary confinement after being accused of prostitution and espionage before bargaining to a plea as an unregistered foreign agent. No drugs were said to be involved.

The Next Minneapolls Police Union Contract

The Athens of the Plains, or as it is commonly known, Minneapolis, and its police department have been continuing to operate under a contract that was to have ended in 2019. Negotiations for a new labor contract that will extend until the end of 2022 are currently under way. 

Both sides in this negotiation, and the population that will live under its results, understand that it will be about wages, benefits, retirement, representation and other fine print minutiae that determine the responsibilities of all parties involved.

Those factors aren't enough. This is a chance for a city that considers itself to be a center of sophistication and intelligence to lead the rest of the country in adopting a policy that should have been in place many years ago as an integral part of city law enforcement.

This policy would prohibit the consumption of alcohol or drugs at any time by any employed licensed law enforcement officer. The policy would be enforced by 24/7 random testing of department personnel by an independent agency. Test failures would result termination of employment or even arrest in blatant cases. 

An objection to this seldom proposed policy is that it would make it very difficult to recruit employees. No one knows if that is true but if it is accepted as true it would mean that our society in general is so dedicated to drink and drugs that the majority would rather indulge in them than have responsible employment. Maybe so.

Ultimately, it's madness to allow individuals compromised by alcohol or drugs unlimited access to both powerful automobiles and firearms, something that is already forbidden to the general public.

Professional cyclists and other athletes are subjected to this very kind of screening for the purpose of fair competition. Nobody is worried about a Tour de France rider involving them in a fatal roadside encounter. A crane operator involved in an accident at a construction site or a locomotive engineer involved in a train collision expects to be tested for drugs immediately after the affair. Why should it be any different for a "public servant"?

Addendum:  The pertinent aspects of the contract are as follows:

Section 30.02 - Work Rules
(a) No employee shall be under the influence of any drug or alcohol while the employee is
working or while the employee is on the Employer's premises or operating the Employer's
vehicle, machinery, or equipment, except pursuant to a valid medical reason or when
approved by the Employer as a proper law enforcement activity.
(b) No employee shall use, possess, sell or transfer drugs, alcohol or drug paraphernalia while
the employee is working or while the employee is on the Employer's premises or operating
the Employer's vehicle, machinery or equipment, except pursuant to a valid medical reason,
as determined by the Medical Review Officer, or when approved by the Employer as a
proper law enforcement activity.
(c) No employee, while on duty, shall engage or attempt to engage or conspire to engage in
conduct which would violate any law or ordinance concerning drugs or alcohol, regardless
of whether a criminal conviction results from the conduct.

    d) As a condition of employment, no employee shall engage in the unlawful manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in the Employer's
workplace.
(e) As a condition of employment, every employee must notify the Employer of any criminal
drug statute conviction no later than five (5) days after such conviction.
(f) Any employee who receives a criminal drug statute conviction, if not discharged from
employment, must within thirty (30) days satisfactorily participate in a drug abuse
assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a federal, state or local
health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
(g) The Employer shall notify the granting agency within ten (10) days after receiving notice
of a criminal drug statute conviction from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice
of such conviction. 

     Section 30.03 - Person Subject To Testing
All employees are subject to testing under applicable sections of this Article. However, no person will be
tested for drugs or alcohol under this Article without the person's consent. The Employer will require an
individual to undergo drug or alcohol testing only under the circumstances described in this Article.
Section 30.04 - Circumstances For Drug Or Alcohol Testing
A. Reasonable Suspicion Testing. The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or
require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the
employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences draw
from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:
1. Is under the influence of drugs or alcohol while the employee is working or while the employee
is on the Employer's premises or operating the Employer's vehicle, machinery, or equipment;
or
2. Has used, possessed, sold or transferred drugs, alcohol or drug paraphernalia while the
employee was working or while the employee was on the Employer's premises or operating
the Employer's vehicle, machinery or equipment (other than in connection with the employee’s
official duties); or
3. Has sustained a personal injury as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes §176.011, Subd.
16, or has caused another person to die or sustain a personal injury; or
4. Was operating or helping to operate machinery, equipment, or vehicles involved in a work-
related accident resulting in property damage or personal injury and the Employer or
investigating supervisor has a reasonable suspicion that the cause of the accident may be
related to the use of drugs or alcohol; or
5. Has discharged a firearm loaded with bullets, slugs or shot other than: (1) on an established
target range; (2) while conducting authorized ballistics tests; (3) while engaged in recreational    Fitness and Wellness for Duty
Page 81 of 97
Police Officers Federation ⦁ 2020-2022
hunting activities; or (4) when authorized by a supervisor to shoot a wounded or dangerous
animal or to disable a light, lock or other object which presents an impediment or hazard to an
officer who is carrying out their lawful duties.
More than one Agent of the Employer shall be involved in determinations under subsections A.1.
and A.2. of this Section 30.04.
The mere request or requirement that an employee be tested pursuant to subparagraph 3, 4 or 5,
above, does not constitute an admission by the employer or the employee that the employee has
caused an accident or death or injury to another nor does it create or establish any legal liability
for the employer or the employee to another person or entity.
B. Treatment Program Testing. The employer may request or require an employee to submit to
drug and alcohol testing if the employee is referred for chemical dependency treatment by reason
of having a positive test result under this Article or is participating in a chemical dependency
treatment program under an employee benefit plan. In such case, the employee may be required
to submit to drug or alcohol testing without prior notice during the evaluation or treatment period
and for a period of up to two years following notification that they will be subjected to Treatment
Program Testing.
C. Unannounced Testing by Agreement. The employer may request or require an employee to
submit to drug and alcohol testing without prior notice on terms and conditions established by a
written “last-chance” agreement between the Employer and employee’s collective bargaining
representative.
D. Testing Pursuant to Federal Law. The employer may request or require an employee to submit
to testing as may be necessary to comply with federal law and regulations. It is the intent of this
Article that federal law preempts both state drug and alcohol testing laws and City policies and
agreements. If this Article conflicts with federal law or regulations, federal law and regulations
shall prevail. If there are conflicts between federal regulations and this Article, attributed in part
to revisions to the law or changes in interpretations, and when those changes have not been updated
or accurately reflected in this policy, the federal law shall prevail

 Section 30.05 - Refusal To Undergo Testing
A. Right to Refuse. Employees have the right to refuse to undergo drug and alcohol testing.
If an employee refuses to undergo drug or alcohol testing requested or required by the
Employer, no such test shall be given.
B. Consequences of Refusal. If any employee refuses to undergo drug or alcohol testing
requested or required by the Employer, the Employer may subject the employee to
disciplinary action up to and including discharge from employment.
C. Refusal on Religious Grounds. No employee who refuses to undergo drug or alcohol
testing of a blood sample upon religious grounds shall be deemed to have refused unless
the employee also refuses to undergo alternative drug or alcohol testing methods.

 D. Failure to Provide a Valid Sample with a Certified Result. Failure to provide a Valid
Sample with a Certified Result shall constitute a refusal to undergo drug or alcohol testing
under this Section 30.05. A “failure to provide a Valid Sample with a Certified Result”
means: 1) failing to provide a valid sample that can be used to detect the presence of drugs
and alcohol or their metabolites; 2) providing false information in connection with a test;
3) attempting to falsify test results through tampering, contamination, adulteration, or
substitution; 4) failing to provide a specimen without a legitimate medical explanation; or
5) demonstrating behavior which is obstructive, uncooperative, or verbally offensive, and
which results in the inability to conduct the test.

Of course, these, and more contract stipulations, make no mention of testing for drugs or alcohol when not actually in the course of employment.

  

Doctors Prescribing Opiates

The US Supreme Court is now hearing arguments in cases where physicians have been convicted and sentenced for illegally prescribing excessive amounts of opiates that can lead to addiction or overdose deaths.

This is while the bankruptcy proceedings and payments being arranged by Purdue Pharma, a leading manufacturer of the opiate Oxy-Contin, and its owners, the Sackler family. A $6 billion settlement is awaiting approval by bankruptcy judge Choose Robert Drain which would direct the settlement to addiction and prevention programs in a number of states.

There are, in actuality, five entities with a stake in the opiates situation. First, of course, are the addicts themselves, who may have become addicted to the product either through prescribed medication for pain or by using it recreationally, as heroin was and continues to be. Second is Purdue Pharma, a company that enthusiastically promoted its products, as all companies do, in search of profits in the great American capitalist marketplace. Next are the communities that have suffered the negatives of opiate abuse, described generally as economically backward rural localities inhabited by intellectual dwarfs, and the governments that attempt to regulate their behavior. One of the largest stakeholders in the attempt to solve the opiate problem is the family of the addict or, even worse, the recipient of an overdose. However, the key element of the situation is the doctor prescribing the Oxy-Contin, since it's a highly-regulated Category 2 narcotic.

Perdue Pharma couldn't legally sell its flagship product in a retail environment. It must be prescribed by a licensed physician for purchase from a licensed pharmacy. The basis for the many suits against the manufacturer is that they encouraged doctors to prescribe their product for alleviating pain. Manufacturers always attempt to encourage the individuals responsible for a purchase to make it one of their products. In this case, the product is a legal one and Perdue Pharma was acting legally in encouraging its sale.

The key figures in the opioid epidemic are the prescribing doctors, who run a gamut from dedicated family physicians to cash-only prescription issuers who don't bother to examine the patient. Aside from actual dealers of stolen or fake opioids, criminals by definition, physicians are the sole source of these addicting products. Yet in a crisis with a trillion dollar price tag, the doctors, regarded in society as cousins of the angels, are relatively ignored, at least compared to big pharma. Even collectively, the government/legal machine can't extract $6 billion from the nation's doctors and incarcerate the most flagrant RX issuers. People would go berserk if they had to visit the penitentiary to get their blood pressure taken by the kindly Dr. Welby. So, Purdue Pharma gets the blame and the bill.

Maybe the pharmaceutical complex, like almost every aspect of the US health scene, has become a gigantic financial redistribution system, akin and in league with the legal system. Well, no maybe about it.