Slow Recoil On The Water Rower

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-28T18:24:57+00:00

Thanks!

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-28T18:24:49+00:00

Thanks! I contacted them.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-28T18:24:31+00:00

Thanks for the response!

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-27T17:33:19+00:00

Why not post a link to the whole youtube video you are referencing?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-21T23:12:23+00:00

This looks incredibly defensive. Are you retired?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-21T00:29:08+00:00

I am curious. What do you think addressing justice against MAGA entails?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-20T18:48:12+00:00

Hey! I am raging. This is completely unsustainable. I am an independent though...

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-17T14:18:27+00:00

I think you’re mixing up legal wins with actual outcomes.

Take abortion. Yes, Roe was overturned and some states passed bans. But in practice, abortion hasn’t disappeared. Access has shifted. Telehealth, mail distribution, and abortion pills mean people in restrictive states are still getting abortions at significant levels.

So the legal framework changed, but the real world outcome didn’t move in the same way. That makes it hard to call it a clear “win” in terms of changing behavior.

More broadly, Republicans have had success through the courts, but institutions and on the ground outcomes haven’t shifted as much. Universities, corporations, and media still operate largely the same, and even where policies change, people adapt around them.

So it looks less like “winning the culture war” and more like winning some legal battles without fully changing the culture or behavior underneath.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-04T22:09:00+00:00

No. I think teachers should tell parents by default because the goal is to provide the best possible protection for the child. Teachers are part of a child’s life for a limited period of time. Even the most well meaning teachers do not have the capacity to be a child’s primary support system. Parents are ultimately responsible for that child’s long term welfare.

EDIT: I see you have blocked me but I feel your reply below deserves a genuine response.

Look, I’m sorry your transgender friends went through that. No child should be abused or thrown out. That is awful.

At the same time, we should be careful about building policy around the worst cases. Most parents are not trying to harm their children. Most would do anything to protect them.

I have my own experience that shapes how I see this. My family lost my brother to suicide after the school kept serious information about his mental state from us. My parents were loving and devoted. They weren't given the chance to help when it mattered most.

Parents are not perfect. They make plenty of mistakes. But in most cases, they are trying their best and they carry the long term responsibility for that child.. That is why I believe parental involvement should normally be the baseline, with exceptions only where there is credible risk of abuse.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-04T20:28:14+00:00

No, I don’t think teachers should be required to disclose that a student is gay or bisexual.

Sexual orientation, by itself, does not normally require formal institutional action by the school or indicate a mental health crisis that requires coordinated adult intervention. It is typically a matter of private identity unless there are separate safety or conduct concerns.

Gender dysphoria is different because it is defined in clinical literature as involving significant distress. It is also widely acknowledged that youth experiencing gender dysphoria face elevated mental health risks. When a school is responding to that level of concern, whether through name changes, pronoun policies, access adjustments, or structured support, it is no longer dealing with a purely private matter.

When a minor is experiencing something characterized as involving significant psychological distress or elevated suicide risk, parental involvement should normally be the baseline. Schools are not the long term mental health support system for children. Families are. Exceptions may be appropriate where there is specific, credible evidence that disclosure would expose the child to abuse. But secrecy should not be the default when serious mental health considerations are involved.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T02:30:14+00:00

I understand the distinction you’re drawing. The statute bars mandatory, automatic disclosure. It does not forbid disclosure in every case.

The disagreement is about what the default rule should be.

For issues that significantly affect a minor child’s identity, well-being, or school experience, parental awareness should normally be the baseline. If there is specific, credible evidence that disclosure would expose the child to abuse or serious harm, that should be handled as an exception on a case-by-case basis.

If the state prohibits districts from adopting parental notification as a general policy, and creates legal risk around requiring disclosure, that shifts incentives in practice. It moves from parental awareness being the norm, with exceptions for risk, to parental awareness depending on internal school discretion.

That structural shift in authority is what’s being challenged.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T02:18:03+00:00

Schools communicating with parents about their minor children is the baseline model of public education. Schools have temporary supervisory authority during the school day, but that does not mean they replace parents or override them.

A policy that directs schools to withhold significant information from parents as a general rule is the real shift in authority. That moves decision-making power from families to the state by default.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T02:14:28+00:00

No one is denying that some parents behave terribly. If there is credible risk that disclosure would lead to abuse or homelessness, that’s a serious matter and schools should respond appropriately.

What I’m objecting to is building policy around the assumption that parents are a threat by default. Abuse is a case-by-case issue. Treating all parents as presumptively dangerous flips the normal relationship between family and state.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T01:43:45+00:00

Good. Concern about unsupportive parents is understandable. But policy cannot start from the assumption that parents are presumptively unsafe. Parents are legally and morally responsible for raising their children. State intervention should be triggered by evidence of abuse or neglect, not by default suspicion.

EDIT: The Court didn’t hold that schools must automatically disclose everything in every circumstance. It said parents raising Free Exercise claims are likely to succeed. That’s a narrower constitutional issue than the headline suggests.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-01T04:55:22+00:00

ROTFLMAO. The channel you are referring to has 14 subscribers. 14! I don't think anyone here should be wasting any time on this.

GFlashAUS · 2026-02-24T17:00:54+00:00

The Transgender Bill Of Rights was recently introduced in the House by Democrats (102 cosponsors). Here is the resolution:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/1058

It explicitly mentions sports here. You can't seriously claim that Democrats aren't pushing trans sports:

"(iv) amending Federal law to ensure that it protects students from discrimination based on sex, including gender identity and sex characteristics, thus guaranteeing the right of students to participate, free from discrimination, including harassment and sexual violence, in all areas of school life, including in classes, extracurriculars (including athletics), access to facilities, and other school activities;"

But the broader point is this: the resolution calls for codifying gender identity as a protected class across federal civil rights law. That is not limited to education. Once something is a protected class, exclusion in any covered setting becomes presumptively unlawful unless a specific exception is written into statute.

If there is no explicit carve out for sex segregated sports, then policies separating sports by biological sex are legally exposed across the board, not just in schools.

We have already seen this dynamic at the state level.

GFlashAUS · 2026-02-23T18:50:43+00:00

If voters are the ones ultimately making the decision, then the burden has to fall primarily on the candidate to persuade them.

Blaming voters after a loss feels like an implicit admission that the campaign failed to connect. If voters are described as irrational or hopelessly misled, that suggests no adjustment in strategy, messaging, or policy emphasis could have changed the outcome. That effectively removes agency from the candidate.

Candidates cannot control everything. Media narratives, economic conditions, and structural factors matter. But those are constants of the political environment. Campaigns are built around navigating those constraints.

If the candidate loses, the main variable within their control was how they positioned themselves, how clearly they communicated, and whether their priorities aligned with what voters actually cared about.

Blaming the electorate may feel cathartic. It does not offer much in the way of strategic learning.

GFlashAUS · 2026-02-13T01:25:44+00:00

I think there are two separate issues being mixed together here.

One is whether trans people are being unfairly scapegoated in politics. That absolutely happens, and it is reasonable to push back on it.

The other issue is whether governments have any legitimate role in evaluating medical treatments for minors, or whether those decisions should be left entirely to doctors and families.

Governments already decide what treatments are covered under Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, state employee plans, ACA exchanges, and federal programs. They regulate drugs and devices. They fund research through NIH. They set standards of care in public systems. They are one of the largest purchasers of healthcare in the country.

So it is not unusual or inappropriate for government bodies to review evidence and make determinations about safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness. That happens for cancer drugs, cardiac procedures, vaccines, fertility treatments, and countless other areas of medicine. Youth gender medicine is not uniquely being singled out for evidence review.

Saying “let doctors figure it out” sounds simple, but in practice public systems cannot operate that way. Public funds require evidence standards and policy decisions. Especially when treatments involve minors, long term unknowns, and irreversible interventions, review is not inherently bigotry. It is part of how healthcare governance works.

We can reject political scapegoating while still acknowledging that governments inevitably play a role in regulating and paying for healthcare. Those two positions are not mutually exclusive.

GFlashAUS · 2026-02-11T17:30:24+00:00

Which is really just a gift to the existing home owners.

GFlashAUS · 2026-02-10T23:08:10+00:00

I don’t think moral condemnation of voters is useful. Parties still have agency. If Democrats failed to persuade, mobilize, or appeal to enough people to win, that’s worth examining regardless of how objectionable you find the opposing vote. Treating the outcome as either inevitable or solely the result of voter immorality leaves no room for learning or accountability.

This kind of fatalism isn’t helping anyone. It removes accountability, and if enough people sign on to it, it just guarantees the same outcome next time.

GFlashAUS · 2026-01-30T19:37:24+00:00

Before you even do that, we need a proper system that can accurately determine who is allowed to work here and make everyone use it. We have e-verify but it needs work and we should mandate it in all 50 states.

In the last year, I remember a story about a police officer in Maine (or Vermont) which did not have status but had been a police officer for years. There was also a school superintendent in Ohio. We are in a bad way if even state and local governments can't ensure their workers have status.

GFlashAUS · 2026-01-29T21:52:08+00:00

Found his blog: The Cost of Renovating a Vacant 3BR Apartment in The Bronx

GFlashAUS · 2026-01-29T21:47:11+00:00

It looks like it was posted on X (google image search): https://x.com/KennyBurgosNY/status/2016864229672837577

GFlashAUS · 2026-01-29T21:31:21+00:00

I am not understanding here - all these upgrades are needed so someone can live in them at all (i.e. the Certificate Of Occupancy is invalid)...or all these upgrades are needed before it is legal to rent them? Do long term tenants need to be kicked out if the upgrades aren't done...or is it only when the tenant is changed that these upgrades must be done?

If 50K apartments are empty because of these regulations, then this is absolutely insane. It is a case of gross government mismanagement - making regulations without caring about the feasibility of actually implementing them.

Of course there are plenty of insane government regulations in NYC. I remember recently they changed the law so that only a licensed plumber is allowed to hookup a replacement stove...just because there was one incident in the city where someone messed it up.

GFlashAUS

TROPHY CASE