LIFTER WANTS TO SWITCH SIDES

Chattanooga Times Free Press - - OPINION -

NEEDS TO TRANS-ITION

U.S. Rep. Il­han Omar, D-Min­nesota, wants to make sure bi­o­log­i­cal males can com­pete in women’s pow­er­lift­ing events. She re­cently sent USA Pow­er­lift­ing a let­ter re­quest­ing that Min­nesota At­tor­ney Gen­eral Keith El­li­son in­ves­ti­gate USA Pow­er­lift­ing, which she says won’t let trans­gen­der women com­pete in women’s events.

Her con­gres­sional dis­trict con­stituent, JayCee Cooper, she wrote, is be­ing dis­crim­i­nated against be­cause of her gen­der, which she says is a vi­o­la­tion of the Min­nesota Hu­man Rights Act.

USA Pow­er­lift­ing is­sued a ban on bi­o­log­i­cal males com­pet­ing in women’s events last month, say­ing, “Men nat­u­rally have a larger bone struc­ture, higher bone den­sity, stronger con­nec­tive tis­sue and higher mus­cle den­sity than women. These traits, even with re­duced lev­els of testos­terone, do not go away. While [male-to-fe­male ath­letes] may be weaker and less [mus­cu­lar] than they once were, the bi­o­log­i­cal ben­e­fits given them at birth still re­main over that of a fe­male.”

Omar, though, said trans­gen­der women hav­ing a “di­rect com­pet­i­tive ad­van­tage” is a myth not supported by med­i­cal sci­ence. How­ever, she pro­vided no med­i­cal sci­ence backup for such a state­ment. She also cited In­ter­na­tional Olympic Com­mit­tee (IOC) guide­lines in her let­ter about how to in­cor­po­rate trans­gen­der ath­letes but over­looked the fact the IOC “al­lows sports to de­ter­mine the im­pact on fair play through such in­clu­sion.”

Look to see this is­sue on a play­ing field near you.

ASKED AND AN­SWERED

As cable news or­ga­ni­za­tions do, CNN took a quick poll of what view­ers thought of Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s State of the Union mes­sage last week.

As the net­work’s po­lit­i­cal di­rec­tor, David Chalian, pointed out, 59 per­cent of re­spon­dents gave the mes­sage very pos­i­tive rat­ings, and 17 per­cent tabbed it some­what pos­i­tive, so it had an ap­proval rat­ing of 76 per­cent of view­ers.

Of course, that wasn’t what the far left net­work hoped to hear. “So I just want to stress here, for a State of the Union ad­dress,” Chalian said, “the pres­i­dent’s par­ti­sans, his sup­port­ers, tend to turn out to watch the speech. … So tonight, we saw a heav­ily Repub­li­can skewed au­di­ence turn out to watch the pres­i­dent’s speech.”

Which begs two ques­tions. If CNN knew what it was go­ing to get in the poll, why did it bother to take it? And if Trump’s par­ti­sans were watch­ing CNN, who was watch­ing FOX?

Chalian also must have had to swal­low hard when he told view­ers the pres­i­dent’s “very positives” were higher this year than in 2017 and 2018.

‘TEST OF HU­MAN­ITY’

Pan­era Bread’s so­cial­ist ex­per­i­ment should have les­sons for the newly minted mem­bers of Con­gress anx­ious to push the U.S. into a purely so­cial­ist fu­ture.

This week the com­pany will close its last pay-what-you­can res­tau­rant, with a food sec­tor pub­li­ca­tion re­port­ing that none of the five lo­ca­tions was self-sus­tain­ing.

The busi­ness model of the Pan­era Cares restau­rants, cre­ated to serve low-in­come cus­tomers, was that pa­trons could dine for a donation. The com­pany’s founder, Ron Shaich, said in 2010 the pro­gram’s aim was a “test of hu­man­ity.”

How did hu­man­ity do? Well, it was re­ported that home­less people and stu­dents “mobbed” the restau­rants and paid noth­ing. The Port­land lo­ca­tion even­tu­ally had to limit its home­less pa­trons — some of whom were com­ing in for ev­ery meal a week — to a few meals per week. Else­where, it was said se­cu­rity guards manned en­trances at some restau­rants and glared at cus­tomers, and man­agers of­ten had to tell off cus­tomers for “abus­ing the sys­tem.” Fur­ther, it was re­ported, vis­i­tors who tried to pay but couldn’t af­ford the sug­gested amount left feel­ing shamed.

Shaich, who stepped down as com­pany CEO in 2017, ad­mit­ted last year “the na­ture of the eco­nomics did not make sense.”

There’s a les­son there for young con­gres­sional so­cial­ists.

GUCCI BOO BOO

Fash­ion la­bel Gucci re­cently pulled its black bal­a­clava sweaters from its shelves and im­me­di­ately flogged it­self for any of­fense the sweaters may have caused.

What did they do?

The sweaters come up and cover the neck but ex­tend far­ther, also cov­er­ing the area around the mouth (but with red lips out­lin­ing the mouth). To some­one look­ing to be of­fended, and some­one ap­par­ently was, the sweater looked like some­one wear­ing black­face.

“Gucci deeply apol­o­gizes for the of­fense caused by the wool bal­a­clava sweaters,” the com­pany wrote. “We con­sider di­ver­sity to be a fun­da­men­tal value to be fully up­held, re­spected, and at the fore­front of ev­ery de­ci­sion we make.” It was, the state­ment added, a “pow­er­ful learn­ing mo­ment.” At the 2018 Fall/Win­ter run­way show, the New York Post said this of the $890 tops: “In­spired by vin­tage ski masks, mul­ti­col­ored knit­ted bal­a­clavas walked the run­way, adding a mys­te­ri­ous feel to this col­lec­tion.”

Why the Post didn’t call out Gucci for such bla­tant racism last fall is any­one’s guess. But maybe be­cause it saw the items as sweaters.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.