jerryskids

I said eradication of Israel, not Jews. Of course they aren't calling for all Jews to be killed. But eradication of Israel?

Hormones and puberty blockers vs surgery are somewhat distinctions without a difference. They are processes by which you can physically modify your body. It seems inconsistent to me to favor one and oppose the other. Also it occurs to me that if you need to take hormones to feel like a different sex, that might be an indication that the problem is psychological. But that's a different discussion.

What's your alternative interpretation? Also it's funny that Lefties give young boys a hard time about wearing Native facepaint to a football game, but Harvard students aren't supposed to know what "from the river to the sea" means. And by funny I mean pathetic.

Also, dropping aid into Gaza isn't anti-semitic per say. It's pretty stupid, since most likely Hamas will take it all and leave their women and children to starve. But I understand the liberal need to feel like you are doing something nice.

It's a call for the eradication of Israel. Would you consider that anti-semitic?

I just reread it and saw nothing about not having the facilities as a reason to reduce treatment. Also, you tagged me for this, so I'm going to finish my thoughts. I think you once again refuse to see the rush to diagnosis as the problem. UK: "The NHS cited an internal review that raised concerns that children were being referred too quickly, causing an unsustainable surge in patients" France: "The NHS cited an internal review that raised concerns that children were being referred too quickly, causing an unsustainable surge in patients." Sweden: "Part of the coverage focused on criticism of Stockholm’s Karolinska University Hospital for allegedly rushing children into treatment and failing to adequately consider whether they suffered from mental health problems." Norway: Not as good of an example, so I'll put "Norway made headlines last year after one of its independent agencies recommended defining gender-affirming care for minors as “experimental.”" Anyway, include hormones and puberty blockers in your restrictions for minors, and I basically agree with your suggestions.

Nice looking house for a redneck.

Thanks Tim, I appreciate the good discussion. I find your link to be completely in sync with my "claim" or position. I feel like I've been consistent with it and stated it multiple times, but in the interest of further good discussion, I'll repeat it yet again. I believe that gender dysphoria exists, but is very rare. Until recently, remedies like hormones or surgery were reserved for extreme, severe cases. What changed is that it has become a social contagion, enabled by the psychiatric community. Every single country in your link, every one, is in some stage of increasing restrictions, limiting care to extreme cases, requiring multidisciplinary teams to diagnose cases, etc. One of many examples: You refuse to even consider the existence of this contagion, and the associated lack of rigor by the medical community. Yet if you read your link through this lens, it is clear that that is exactly what is being addressed. Perhaps stated another way: if you do not believe it, then what issue do you think they are addressing with these restrictions? If we could revert to a time where such rigor was implemented, I would be much more open to discussion of medical intervention for minors in extreme cases. Or in other words, deferring to the experts. But when those "experts" think such interventions are needed for anyone who feels trans, I will consider them idiot quacks who are caught up in a social movement, not experts. HTH

Sounds good! We live right by the east end of the park, by Marcos de Niza parking lot. Tons of different trails weave around that area -- just yesterday I walked along the golf course from what you may know as the Pointe (now called Arizona Grand). Have to go west a little to get the higher, 1000+ foot climbs, but there is enough up and down nearby to stay in shape. Also I sometimes ruck with a 45 pound plate to make it harder. Wife and I like to travel as well, and we like to explore different places, which is another negative for getting a second place. To your Horseman comment, I am like you. I have always lived within my means, which has gone through wide ranges over my life, without spending much effort to budget -- I just have an internal radar about it.

sawdust

I live next to South Mountain park; I've thought about becoming a park ranger, walking around with an awesome day-glo green shirt and flirting with errrr... helping young ladies find the right trail (to my house).

I already live in a retirement destination (Phoenix), and two of my kids still live here, so I can't imagine us moving. We dabble with getting some property up north to escape the summer heat, but to date we have lived by the credo "rent your toys," so we just occasionally get a VRBO/AirBnB for a weekend. My son's (pretty serious) girlfriend's family has some property in Williams, about 30 minutes west of Flagstaff. If they end up married, I could see some momentum to getting some land there. So to answer your question in a round-about way: proximity to family would be the main driver for us to get a second home. Now that I say that, with my third kid in Manhattan, a nice beach house on Long Island or the Jersey shore sounds good. I'm sure they are cheap!

Cool. Shouldn't need much notice to swing by somewhere for a drink. My MIL is here from 3/14-24 or so, and we are in Cottonwood that first weekend. Let me know.

One of my favs, as he was dying of cancer, I think:

That would disturb me. What are the threats?

In a weird bit of timing, I just got an email that the company I retired from just hired a new VP of sales. I read through the press release and... meh. That would have been me, I was hired in to do that role, when they were ready to have it. The first time they were ready, I helped interview the guy they hired. I didn't think he was a good fit, because he never seemed to last two years at any one company (basically the @edjr of sales management), and his personality seemed off. But I was sick and hadn't been there long, so I didn't push too hard. Sure enough, he left before two years. The press release on this guy basically says: he's the most qualified guy we could find. It was maybe the least glowing press release I've ever seen for an executive hire. Anyway, I'm salty because this thread got me thinking about my retirement.

Ahh, thanks. I always thought they just had shoulder pads, which is what we had in rec league hockey, where no checking was (allegedly) allowed.

Thanks! The post-op nurse (blond, 32 C, super cute I think, although I was a little groggy, but my wife said she was super cute as well) said that she thought she had the wrong patient, because I didn't look 56. Later she said something about me looking fit and clearly working out... maybe she has a fetish for young-looking old guys with laryngectomies? At least in my dreams she does.

I'm not an expert in hockey fights, so I'll ask... why don't they throw body blows? Is it some sort of "warrior creed" or something that says you need to keep punching a hard helmet?

True, I have... actually, yesterday I had a procedure that I had hoped would improve my speech. Basically, dilating my throat to make it wider. Unfortunately, while that was successful, it identified the root cause of my problem, which is a sizeable ridge from reconstruction which traps food and liquid, and inhibits my prosthetic. Dilation does not resolve that. The (possibly) good news is that my ENT PA, who is a focking great guy (like, I would give money to Mayo in his name, he's been so supportive) saw the results and instantly told me he's setting up an appointment for me with the head of ENT (who also did my lary) to discuss surgical options to eliminate the ridge. I don't know yet if there are any such solutions, but I'm keeping up hope that there are.

Also, I just went back and re-read parts of this thread I missed while on and off typing my post. Good to see people put political crap aside and have a supportive discussion.

Retired in 2021 at 54 because my throat cancer was supposed to kill me. 2.5 years later I'm still doing well, knock on wood... but because of the bleak diagnosis, SSDI approved me right away, and I make a pretty nice monthly income from it. Wife is still working; she enjoys her job (and enjoys biotching about it). Plus we get Mayo health coverage, which has been... quite useful! Someday she'll maybe get tired of doing it full-time -- she is pretty Salesforce knowledgeable so can easily consult for as many hours as she wants. Combine those with a good savings, and we are doing fine. Not "FU money" fine, but able to live comfortably and enjoy nice things. Answering perhaps an unasked question: I never really had a target date to retire. When I was young I had a stretch savings goal, which we may actually have achieved based on my income, but we had two major investments go belly up in our life (one resulted in an SEC indictment and large class action settlement, and both were attempts to diversify / be more conservative in our investing strategy, LOL). I've probably mentioned, by my cancer diagnosis happened 6 weeks after I had joined a new, smaller, local company. I had spent most of my career in large Fortune 500 companies with Phoenix more of a base from which I traveled; this was finally an opportunity to focus more closer to home and help a small but growing company with my industry knowledge and connections. I was so into it that after they darn near cut my haid clear off in the laryngectomy, and bombarded me with radiation, I still went back to work and intended to do continue doing so. What can I say -- I come from blue collar stock that expects to work. But then I got the metastasis news, and with it chemo and the likelihood that I'd be dead in the not too distant future. My wife had to say "dood, you worked your whole life for this family and we saved all this money, retire already and enjoy what time you have left." So I did. But like I said, through Keytruda, other treatments, and the grace of God, I'm still here.

I like that song.

And the techno/synth stuff started before the 80s, but became mainstream in the 80s. I've seen the music you post, it is obscure shiot. I just looked it up: Nirvana had some obscure album (Bleach) in 89; Nevermind was in 91, as was Pearl Jam 10. Jane's Addiction maybe? Spotify has one playlist for 80's grunge, and it is a combo of mostly obscure stuff and Spin Doctors?! For hip hop, again going by the one Spotify playlist: Beastie Boys? Tone-Loc, Run DMC, Rob Base? Maybe Public Enemy, but earlier stuff near the end of the decade. To summarize: no new sound just appears and instantly becomes mainstream. The 90s were the decade of grunge and hip hop. YWIA