Are we ready to admit that Woke & DEI and woke wasn’t what was holding you back from success?

[Anonymous]

We're ready to admit that great progress is being made!

Here are the Hospitals Pausing Child Sex Change Procedures in the Wake of Trump’s Executive Order

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order halting taxpayer funding of child sex change procedures through federal grants and health benefit programs. By making taxpayer funding contingent on ending so-called “gender-affirming care,” the order incentivizes medical facilities that rely on federal funds to halt their child sex change programs.

I count 28 hospitals and medical clinics so far.

https://donoharmmedicine.org/2025/02/03/hospitals-pausing-child-sex-change-procedures-executive-order/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

For starters, “America First” has a dark past. It began as an isolationist movement, but by the 1940s it attracted vocal anti-Semites and openly pro-Nazi fascists. People who know history are uneasy at the echoes and not convinced that this “America First” movement won’t end up the same way. The GOP doesn’t have a good track record of policing itself and denouncing these things. Anybody remember the CPAC stage shaped like the Nazi symbol?

If we truly wanted to put America first, we would value education instead of defunding it.

This is ridiculous nonsense.

I stopped reading after this sentence. You failed to address the point.

You made no point to address. You said something that equates to, Nazis ate beans therefore beans create Nazis. It's just a nonsensical point to avoid real discussion.

Beans and Nazis? Schools really need to teach critical thinking skills, then maybe America could compete with the rest of the world.

I pointed out the history of “America First”. It’s actual history. Facts. You don’t get to just wave it away as nonsense. Then I oberved that today’s GOP, far from denouncing the same elements that sullied the original “America First” movement, appears to embrace them. The CPAC stage was an example of that. It was a clear dogwhistle. The stage design made absolutely no sense otherwise. The layout was too weird and impractical to be a coincidence. When the resemblance was pointed out, the response wasn’t “whoops, that was unfortunate, our apologies”, it was belligerent gaslighting. That response made it clear that the symbolism was intentional. That’s what I mean when I say we don’t trust the right not to follow down the same path as the original “America First” movement.

All of these are observable facts. You’re the one avoiding the discussion here.

It sounds like you've assembled a bunch of disparate facts to make a conspiracy theory that a government working on behalf of its citizens is secretly Nazi. It's frankly a bizarre argument. I have never heard of this CPAC swastika thing, but the US Navy has a swastika shaped building in San Diego- are they part of this Nazi plot?

The bottom line is that you think Americans shouldn't be protected and defended by their government. You can say that there is a "dark history" but there's a dark history to practically everything. It has no relevance on the issue.

You’re way off base here. There’s no conspiracy involved in looking at history, seeing a pattern, and then noticing echoes of that same pattern in the present. If dark clouds have brought rain in the past, it’s not a huge leap to see dark clouds in the present and be concerned that they might bring rain again.

The difference with the Naval swastika barracks is that unlike the CPAC organizers, the US Navy apologized, said they did not want to be associated with the design, and stated its intention to redesign or camouflage the buildings (though that hasn’t happened yet due to lack of funding). I don’t know what the architects were thinking but are two buildings nearby, designed as part of the same complex, that are supposedly shaped like bombers flying in to destroy the swastika.

Your bottom line conclusion doesn’t follow from anything I’ve said.

[Anonymous]

Who cares about the shape of a building? <---- more ouitrage porn

Is it efficient in treating medical problems? That's what I care about.

Were you as outraged that the Russell Senate Orifice Building is named after Richard Russell, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

Today's class will cover him:

Russell supported racial segregation and co-authored the Southern Manifesto with Strom Thurmond.[8] Russell and 17 fellow Democratic Senators, along with one Republican, blocked the passage of civil rights legislation via the filibuster. After Russell's protégé, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law,[9] Russell led a Southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention.[10] Russell served in the Senate until his death from emphysema in 1971.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the shape of a building? <---- more ouitrage porn

Is it efficient in treating medical problems? That's what I care about.

Were you as outraged that the Russell Senate Orifice Building is named after Richard Russell, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

Today's class will cover him:

Russell supported racial segregation and co-authored the Southern Manifesto with Strom Thurmond.[8] Russell and 17 fellow Democratic Senators, along with one Republican, blocked the passage of civil rights legislation via the filibuster. After Russell's protégé, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law,[9] Russell led a Southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention.[10] Russell served in the Senate until his death from emphysema in 1971.

I have no problem with renaming the building after a moderate like John McCain, although it should be noted that Russell later urged compliance with the Civil Rights Act after its passage. And don’t forget the end of the story, where Southern segregationists subsequently found their home in the Republican Party after Nixon and Reagan wooed white voters.

As for building shapes, Jews, Holocaust survivors and those who fought on the Allied side in WWII care. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to them. There are millions of possible neutral building designs, so why pick an offensive one? Wouldn’t you be disturbed by a hospital that spelled out “KILL MAGA”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the shape of a building? <---- more ouitrage porn

Is it efficient in treating medical problems? That's what I care about.

Were you as outraged that the Russell Senate Orifice Building is named after Richard Russell, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

Today's class will cover him:

Russell supported racial segregation and co-authored the Southern Manifesto with Strom Thurmond.[8] Russell and 17 fellow Democratic Senators, along with one Republican, blocked the passage of civil rights legislation via the filibuster. After Russell's protégé, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law,[9] Russell led a Southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention.[10] Russell served in the Senate until his death from emphysema in 1971.

I have no problem with renaming the building after a moderate like John McCain, although ***it should be noted*** that Russell later urged compliance with the Civil Rights Act after its passage. And don’t forget the end of the story, where Southern segregationists subsequently found their home in the Republican Party after Nixon and Reagan wooed white voters.

As for building shapes, Jews, Holocaust survivors and those who fought on the Allied side in WWII care. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to them. There are millions of possible neutral building designs, so why pick an offensive one? Wouldn’t you be disturbed by a hospital that spelled out “KILL MAGA”?

That's fine. It has been mentioned here many times and in other places. This isn't a big secret. And yet, it doesn't get renamed. I'm not caring who gets renamed to. The point is, the name remains year after year.

Why is that?

Is it because you democrats want to have sh** to bi+ch about but really aren't serious? You burn people's Teslas with glee, but any observations about your status are fended off?

*** It should be noted that your entire solution to the racism of the past is to confer special rights in the present (AKA reverse discrimination) and attempt to impose guilt as a bargaining chip for concessions. I can tell you wholeheartedly, that's never going to work. In fact, it has the opposite effect of your aims. BTW, you will never get reparations. You'll get a Bosnia - Herzegovina type of situation before that ever happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the shape of a building? <---- more ouitrage porn

Is it efficient in treating medical problems? That's what I care about.

Were you as outraged that the Russell Senate Orifice Building is named after Richard Russell, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

Today's class will cover him:

Russell supported racial segregation and co-authored the Southern Manifesto with Strom Thurmond.[8] Russell and 17 fellow Democratic Senators, along with one Republican, blocked the passage of civil rights legislation via the filibuster. After Russell's protégé, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law,[9] Russell led a Southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention.[10] Russell served in the Senate until his death from emphysema in 1971.

I have no problem with renaming the building after a moderate like John McCain, although it should be noted that Russell later urged compliance with the Civil Rights Act after its passage. And don’t forget the end of the story, where Southern segregationists subsequently found their home in the Republican Party after Nixon and Reagan wooed white voters.

As for building shapes, Jews, Holocaust survivors and those who fought on the Allied side in WWII care. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to them. There are millions of possible neutral building designs, so why pick an offensive one? Wouldn’t you be disturbed by a hospital that spelled out “KILL MAGA”?

Said building was build in the mid 1960s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the shape of a building? <---- more ouitrage porn

Is it efficient in treating medical problems? That's what I care about.

Were you as outraged that the Russell Senate Orifice Building is named after Richard Russell, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

Today's class will cover him:

Russell supported racial segregation and co-authored the Southern Manifesto with Strom Thurmond.[8] Russell and 17 fellow Democratic Senators, along with one Republican, blocked the passage of civil rights legislation via the filibuster. After Russell's protégé, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law,[9] Russell led a Southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention.[10] Russell served in the Senate until his death from emphysema in 1971.

I have no problem with renaming the building after a moderate like John McCain, although ***it should be noted*** that Russell later urged compliance with the Civil Rights Act after its passage. And don’t forget the end of the story, where Southern segregationists subsequently found their home in the Republican Party after Nixon and Reagan wooed white voters.

As for building shapes, Jews, Holocaust survivors and those who fought on the Allied side in WWII care. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to them. There are millions of possible neutral building designs, so why pick an offensive one? Wouldn’t you be disturbed by a hospital that spelled out “KILL MAGA”?

That's fine. It has been mentioned here many times and in other places. This isn't a big secret. And yet, it doesn't get renamed. I'm not caring who gets renamed to. The point is, the name remains year after year.

Why is that?

Is it because you democrats want to have sh** to bi+ch about but really aren't serious? You burn people's Teslas with glee, but any observations about your status are fended off?

*** It should be noted that your entire solution to the racism of the past is to confer special rights in the present (AKA reverse discrimination) and attempt to impose guilt as a bargaining chip for concessions. I can tell you wholeheartedly, that's never going to work. In fact, it has the opposite effect of your aims. BTW, you will never get reparations. You'll get a Bosnia - Herzegovina type of situation before that ever happens.

The Senate is in charge of naming their office buildings. Last I checked, Republicans were in charge of the Senate and have been for some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're ready to admit that great progress is being made!

Here are the Hospitals Pausing Child Sex Change Procedures in the Wake of Trump’s Executive Order

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order halting taxpayer funding of child sex change procedures through federal grants and health benefit programs. By making taxpayer funding contingent on ending so-called “gender-affirming care,” the order incentivizes medical facilities that rely on federal funds to halt their child sex change programs.

I count 28 hospitals and medical clinics so far.

https://donoharmmedicine.org/2025/02/03/hospitals-pausing-child-sex-change-procedures-executive-order/

Unless you have a child who was seeking gender affirming care against your wishes and can no longer have it, this is not a direct improvement to your life. You’re just sitting in glee reading headlines. You still haven’t answered the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

Harvard is not a state institution. Who are you to decide who Harvard does business with?

And you are dense not to understand that having a global student body and faculty *is* part of the education.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

What money are we "giving" to Harvard?

Should foreigners be barred from our casinos, sporting events (in taxpayer-supported arenas), hotels, office buildings, churches (tax-exempt!), homes that have received FEMA aid in the past, etc etc.

What you are asserting makes no sense.

I just want to highlight this little piece. Democrats are a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

Harvard is not a state institution. Who are you to decide who Harvard does business with?

And you are dense not to understand that having a global student body and faculty *is* part of the education.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

What money are we "giving" to Harvard?

Should foreigners be barred from our casinos, sporting events (in taxpayer-supported arenas), hotels, office buildings, churches (tax-exempt!), homes that have received FEMA aid in the past, etc etc.

What you are asserting makes no sense.

I just want to highlight this little piece. Democrats are a joke.

DP. I'm confused as to why this is a "joke" - taxpayers don't pay for foreign students to attend Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're ready to admit that great progress is being made!

Here are the Hospitals Pausing Child Sex Change Procedures in the Wake of Trump’s Executive Order

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order halting taxpayer funding of child sex change procedures through federal grants and health benefit programs. By making taxpayer funding contingent on ending so-called “gender-affirming care,” the order incentivizes medical facilities that rely on federal funds to halt their child sex change programs.

I count 28 hospitals and medical clinics so far.

https://donoharmmedicine.org/2025/02/03/hospitals-pausing-child-sex-change-procedures-executive-order/

Unless you have a child who was seeking gender affirming care against your wishes and can no longer have it, this is not a direct improvement to your life. You’re just sitting in glee reading headlines. You still haven’t answered the question.

+1 interesting how no one can answer the OP question.