Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, and more.
Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, and more
33 Midwood Road, from $6.950 million to $6.6. It began at $8.3 back in October ‘21, dropped as low as $6.950 by the end of ‘22, then, in a display of market defiance, the price was raised to $7.2 in April ‘23. That didn’t work as hoped for.
1928 homes can be a tough sell, but Deer Park isn’t, so a buyer is sure to turn up.
153 E Elm Street (no link, because they’ve pulled all its pictures — I’m posting a couple from the MLS age, just to give the flavor) was purchased for $2.9 million in April 2021. Those buyers put it back up for sale the following January, 2022 for $3.250, entered into a sales contract that February, and when the buyer failed to perform, put it back on the market briefly before giving it up and giving it a rest.
It came back on this March at $3.450, and has now sold for $3.8.
There’s a celebrity trend that has nothing to do with the season’s hottest fashion designer, jewelry item or flashy car. Instead, Hollywood stars are parading their transgender children around like some sort of good luck charms on a keychain.
Actresses like Megan Fox, Jennifer Lopez and Charlize Theron have been posing for photos next to their transgender or “non-binary” kids, sending a message that this is somehow the new definition of cool. Fox specifically has styled her three boys in very obviously feminine ways, something that Northwestern University Psychologist Dr. Michael Bailey called “kind of crazy.”
“I think that our society now is kind of crazy, and that is, you know, that’s an example, I guess, of how we’re crazy, and I think that’s really bad for our society. I don’t know why anybody would think that’s a good idea,” Bailey told the Daily Caller.
Fox has openly discussed her support of her alleged non-binary child Noah, a son she shares with ex-husband Brian Austin Green. Noah has been photographed wearing dresses when he was as young as age five. The “Transformers” actress insisted that he made that fashion choice himself but has also admitted to encouraging Noah to form a unique identity. Fox says Noah started wearing dresses at age two, according to People.
“When I became pregnant with Noah, I could feel, through my mother’s intuition I suppose, that he was not subscribing to gender stereotypes, so I decided to provide an environment for him early on that would allow him to discover how he wanted to express himself,” she said in a 2019 interview with Education and Career News.
Noah apparently gets bullied at school, but Fox told Glamour in a 2022 interview she gave her son books that tell him it’s okay to dress like a girl.
Dr. Bailey told the Caller that actors aren’t really known for being “mentally healthy people,” which perhaps can explain certain choices.
“They’re known for being good actors and actresses, and, you know, they tend to be good looking and so on. I think that there’s probably a high rate of certain kinds of problems, like personality disorders. I’m not saying [Fox] has one, although this behavior certainly makes me wonder.”
Because of my mother’s Hollywood heritage we had a fairly-steady stream of actors visiting and staying in our house over the years; with but one exception*, they all seemed to suffer from, as Dr. Bailey says, “a high rate of … personality disorders”. Few of the men wore dresses, mind you, but it was a different era; I’m sure that would have changed by now.
(The exception to that parade of nice, but whacky Hollywood stars was family friend Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., who was as impressive off-screen as he was on it — more so, in fact. Kind, intelligent, and rarely seen in a pinafore and curlers, at least when he was at our house.
You can read his full military history here — very impressive for anyone, let alone a Hollywood star who could have stayed there, making heroic war movies, or flying about on USO tours.)
*Ah, sorry, Granny, but ….
NEA President Becky Pringle banged on the podium, flailed her hands in the air and screamed about winning "all the things" repeatedly at the NEA's Annual Meeting and Representative Assembly (RA) in Philadelphia. X critics compared the moment to an iconic scene with Dwight Schrute from "The Office."
During the screechy speech, Pringle called for transformative social justice change in the education system in the pursuit of equity.
"To unite not just our members, but the nation to reclaim public education as a common good, as the foundation of our democracy, and then transform it into something it was never designed to be—a racially and socially just and equitable system," Pringle said. "We worked hard to rid ourselves of a tyrannical, deceitful, and corrupt White House, but the reality is that the seeds that were sown during that horrible season continue to germinate."
"We are the ones who help shape the heart of this nation's hope and dreams. We are the ones who hold steadfast to the belief in the plausibility of the possible. We are the heirs of all who did this work before us. We must keep going. NEA Delegates, we can do this work. We must do this work," she added.
"Our students are depending on us to win all the things," Pringle said, while continuing her screechy pitch. "All the things! All the things! All the things."
ohn Dewey as a young professor of philosophy and psychology at Michigan, 1891.
When humanist John Dewey and his disciples took over the emerging government-education system created decades earlier to advance collectivism, the fledgling system was still in its infancy.
By the time he died in 1952, though, it was a well-oiled collectivist machine that would obliterate America’s religious, intellectual, and political heritage more effectively than any force previously imaginable.
Dewey is often lauded as the founding father of the “progressive” education that now has more than 85 percent of American children in its grip. Although he wasn’t alone—he stood on the shoulders of fellow collectivists Robert Owen and Horace Mann—Dewey certainly deserves much of the credit, or blame, for unleashing it on the United States and humanity.
Like Mann and Owen before him, Dewey had ulterior motives when he dedicated himself with missionary zeal to the cause of “education reform.” Fortunately for future generations and historians, he was a prolific writer who cranked out a seemingly never-ending stream of essays, papers, manifestos, and articles. His views and objectives, then, are hardly a mystery.
Dewey wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. He wanted it to look more like the Soviet Union, in fact. To do that, he believed a total transformation of education and society was required—literally “changing the conception of what constitutes education,” as he wrote in “The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education” in 1904.
Education must bring about a “new social order,” he argued.
As was the case with virtually all of the key figures involved in the government takeover of education, Dewey rejected Christianity and even the very existence of God. More on his religion later. He also rejected the individualism and liberty that defined America up to that point, with its strong protections for God-given rights, private property, and free markets.
I>>>>
On top of that, the system would produce a nation in which less than a third of those same seniors would even be considered “proficient” in reading and math, according to federal data gathered from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Interestingly, Dewey was from Burlington, Vermont—socialist Bernie Sanders’s stomping grounds. And like Sanders, Dewey styled himself a “democratic” socialist. But many decades before Sanders visited the Soviet Union on his honeymoon while it was slaughtering and torturing dissidents, Dewey made a pilgrimage to Moscow under Bolshevik rule.
>>>>
Writing in the far-left magazine New Republic, Dewey provided glowing reports about the communist system being imposed upon the people of the Soviet Union. He was especially pleased with its so-called education system, celebrating the way it was instilling a “collectivistic mentality” in Soviet children in his “Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World” published in 1929.
Despite his fondness for Soviet totalitarianism and the communist “ideology” behind it, Dewey would publicly criticize Stalin and Stalinism later in life. His model for a communist United States, by contrast, was outlined in Edward Bellamy’s 1888 book “Looking Backward,” a fantasy about a wonderful collectivist America in the year 2000 where all private property would be nationalized by government.
Dewey’s socialist views were hardly a secret. In “Liberalism and Social Action,” he wrote that the “only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of productivity are cooperatively controlled.” “Organized social planning,” he continued in his well-known 1935 work, “is now the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
In common with virtually all the totalitarians of the 20th century, Dewey understood that the education of children would be fundamental to achieving his Utopian vision of collectivism. “Education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness,” he claimed. “The adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”
In his important 1898 essay “The Primary Education Fetich [sic],” Dewey argued strongly against the then-heavy emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic in the younger years. It produced highly literate, independent-minded individualists with faith in God and freedom. That was not conducive to a collectivist Utopia, obviously.
Instead, Dewey thought the main focus of education during those precious early years should be socialization and emphasizing collectivism. In particular, the reformer wanted to ditch reading and writing in the primary grades to concentrate on giving children “the habits of thought and action” that he believed were “required for effective participation in community life.”
An astute operator, Dewey recognized that the liberty-minded and overwhelmingly Christian teachers, taxpayers, and parents of America of that era would never knowingly support his radical educational and political ambitions if they understood them. “Change must come gradually,” he explained in that same essay. “To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.”
So instead of going to the American people, Dewey went to the Rockefeller oil dynasty, which was giving away unfathomable amounts of money for “educational reform” through the “General Education Board.” The “philanthropic” outfit gave Dewey millions of dollars to create an experimental school to try out his ideas—a school that successfully cranked out reading-disabled collectivists.
>>>
From his ivory-tower perch, Dewey would train up legions of teachers and disciples to unleash on an unsuspecting United States and carry forward his vision. It worked. Dewey became the founding father of America’s “progressive” public education system, and his ideology went mainstream.
Another Dewey “achievement” while in academia was resurrecting quack methods for teaching reading that had been discredited in the 1840s under Mann in Boston. That incredible saga—the root cause of America’s current illiteracy crisis—will be the subject of a future piece in this series.
Perhaps even more important and far-reaching than being able to advance his views on education and politics was Dewey’s influence on the religious views of Americans. Dewey was a self-proclaimed humanist, with his public declarations on religion fusing atheism with socialism and communism. His success on this front is unquestionable and will be the subject of an upcoming piece in this series as well.
In fairness to Dewey, Owen, Mann, and the lesser-known characters behind the government takeover of education, they didn’t have the 20th century in the rearview mirror. It might be said, in their defense, that they did not know the ideology of collectivism, when implemented, would lead to the untimely deaths and mass slaughter of hundreds of millions of people. Now, we should know better.
(Lest you think that the passages above are a tad over the edge of hysteria, written as they are by a conservative Christian, you can find pretty much the same story told by the socialist magazine Jacobin in an appreciation published January 8, 2018.) It concludes with this quote from the hero himself:
… [T]he ends which liberalism has always promoted can be attained only as control of the means of production and distribution is taken out of the hands of individuals who exercise powers created socially for narrow individual interests. The ends remain valid. But the means of attaining them demand a radical change in economic institutions and the political arrangements based on them. These changes are necessary in order that social control of forces and agencies socially created may accrue to the liberation of all individuals associated together in the great undertaking of building a life that expresses and promotes human liberty.
President Biden told a room full of supporters in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Sunday that Philadelphia always got him “across the line” when he was running for the U.S. Senate. However, Biden was a U.S. Senator from Delaware, not from Pennsylvania.
“Even when I was running for Senate, each time I ran – quite frankly, not a joke – Philadelphia, in particularly, got me across the line,” Biden said, eliciting applause from the audience. “No, I’m not joking.”
Not appearing to catch his mistake, Biden plowed ahead.
“No, I mean it, seriously. Organizationally and in terms of fundraising, the whole deal,” Biden said.
The quality and intelligence (and knowledge of geography) of Biden voters was on full display:
“Even when I was running for Senate, each time I ran – quite frankly, not a joke – Philadelphia, in particularly, got me across the line,” Biden said, eliciting applause from the audience. “No, I’m not joking.”
He left his hotel in Atlanta 27 minutes late and arrived with less than half an hour to spare, with no time to learn where to look when Trump was talking, the Washington Post reported.
As a result, he often looked in the wrong direction and appeared like he was staring into space, barely aware of what was going on.
Uh huh. So, it wasn’t the cold, the 12-day jet lag, or mean ol’ Trump yelling at him, eh?
benedict arnold escaped to england; his co-conspirator Major Andre did not
General Milley says it all: “I engage with [Biden] frequently and (he is) alert, sound, does his homework, reads the papers, reads all the read-ahead material, and is very, very engaging in issues of very serious matters of war and peace and life and death… the American people… pic.twitter.com/jRkJ7AVqGf
— Marc Broklawski (@marcbroklawski) July 5, 2024
CBS INTERVIEW OCTOBER 8 2023
EOS and I were discussing the new (to me) replacement for the term “Karen”. It’s been around, apparently, since 2019, but I only just today ran across it. It’s perfect.
The Urban Dictionary describes her thus:
Affluent White Female Liberal
Characteristics
*Ages 18-80, primary years are 22-45, precursor to Karen. [I’d say successor, but what do I know?]
*Middle to upper middle-class backgrounds, consequence free life.
*College educated in fields with lousy earning prospects
*Works in Academia, Govt, HR, Journalism, Law, NGO/Think Tanks
*Cult of Nice, political correctness.
*Supports the “Current Thing” like LGBT+, abortion, gun control, debt cancelation. Will make any cause about them and their struggles. Problematic.
*Supports “Anti-Icky” things and people. Will do Anti-Icky things, “Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.”
*Radio silent if something happens to women if they don’t share their views.
*Cult Worship of feminist heroines (HRC, RBG, AOC)
*Casual Misandry – Male tears, “No wars if women ruled the world.”
*Toxic management skills. Belittles others.
*Chronic Victimhood, criticism = misogyny.
*Poor life skills, remedial adulting, hatred towards parents especially dad.
*SSRI addiction, substance abuse.
*COVID-19 restriction enthusiasts, mask, Vax x Infinity, Munchausen Syndrome.
*Undatable, cat lady. Runs off friends. If in a relationship/marriage, the guy is abused/emasculated.
AWFLs are universally disliked by everyone. Men of all backgrounds, minorities, and women who lived life on the wrong side of the sisterhood. Other AWFL’s and Karen's even hate them.
Affluent =/= rich. It’s the ability to wield power like cancel culture, doxing, or firing. They reside at the top of the privilege pyramid.
Your standard journalist at the Washington Post is likely an AWFL.
Here’s one in action now:
”Woman claims White people shouldn't tan in the summer unless they're a BLM ally.”
Woman claims White people shouldn't tan in the summer unless they're a BLM ally. pic.twitter.com/Sy19MvPFS5
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 5, 2024
“diversity is our strength”
The Army has woefully failed to meet its recruiting and retention goals, but, really, is addressing that problem anywhere close to as important as ensuring that our forces reflect “the racial and gender makeup of our county”?
A new government report detailed the dire living conditions some military members face in their barracks across the country, highlighting a problem military leaders have so far struggled to fix.
A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that young troops living in barracks on military installations have been forced to confront everything from pests such as roaches and bed bugs to toxic waste and even squatters, potentially putting the health and safety of members at risk while damaging morale.
The 118-page report, which was published Monday by the GAO, concluded that military leaders at the Pentagon have not been able to provide proper oversight over the problem and have mostly left the issues up to each individual service to fix.
So, if they can’t provide decent housing for the troops, how’s that diversity thing going? Remember when Defense Secretary ordered the entire Army, worldwide, to stand down so that white racists could be dug out and exposed? Well …
A study commissioned by the Department of Defense to assess the extent of extremism within the armed services found no evidence that the military harbors a disproportionate number of political radicals.
Conducted by a team of researchers from the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), the study found “fewer than 100 substantiated cases per year of extremist activity by members of the military in recent years.”
The report was inspired by growing concern among members of the incoming Biden administration that the military had been infiltrated by white supremacists and other right-wing extremists. The concerns were largely driven by the Capitol riot, which resulted in nearly three dozen current and former service members being charged.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called January 6 a “wake-up call” on the extent of right-wing extremism in the military, while then-Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told CNN the problem was “vexing.” “Many of these people,” Kirby added, “work very hard to conceal their beliefs. We can’t be the thought police.”
However, the report found that “of the more than 700 federal cases in which charges were publicly available a year after these events, fewer than ten” were serving in the military at the time of the riot. There’s “no evidence that service members were charged at a different rate than the members of the general population.”
We’re being led by very stupid people.
(Jarvis is a satirist — neither CNN nor abc will admit that they are too, inadvertently)
Ed Driscoll has assembled a lengthy compilation of various takes on the media’s long history of duplicity. Long as it is, it can only touch the surface of what these ignorant, stupid little people have been up to over the decades.
BEN SHAPIRO: How Biden’s bad debate exposed the legacy media.
Before 2008, the legacy media — while always leaning to the political left — had maintained a patina of objectivity. When Bill Clinton lied to the American people about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, they belatedly pounced. When John Kerry’s campaign began to crater, they reluctantly covered it. They were, to be sure, oriented against Republican candidates and policies. But they recognized that their credibility innately relied on the public’s perception that they could put their own biases aside long enough to report accurately even on those with whom they agreed.
Public trust in the media had been in a steady state of decline since the late 1990s — according to Gallup, 53 percent of Americans said they had a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media in 1997; in 2007, that number was 47 percent.
Then came Barack Obama. In 2008, the media, in its insistence that Barack Obama was a philosopher-king, decided to adhere to his version of the facts at every available instance. They ignored or downplayed stories that hurt Obama. They insisted that his biggest scandal was the wearing of a beige suit. Obama was simply too godlike a figure for them to resist. They became, for all intents and purposes, extensions of the Democratic White House. And public trust began to crater. In 2008, those who trusted the media dropped to 43 percent. In 2016, with the media’s abominable coverage of the Trump-Hillary race, the number dropped to 32 percent. It recovered slightly over the next five, but then began cratering again: to just 36 percent in 2021, 34 percent in 2022, 32 percent in 2023.
A consistent pattern of partisan coverage ate away at the media’s credibility, slowly and steadily.
Then came Joe Biden’s debate collapse last week. And now, all media credibility is gone.
Ernest Hemingway once described the process of going bankrupt: “Gradually, then suddenly.” The same is true of legacy media legitimacy. Legacy media lost the trust of the American people with its coverage of Russiagate, Black Lives Matter, Covid, transgenderism and the Hunter Biden laptop story. But they maintained some semblance of credibility by appealing to “new studies,” the “fog of war,” the difficulty of reporting an ever-evolving set of facts. When their lies were debunked and they were exposed they could simply claim they were just reporting based on the information they had at the time. They were just doing the hard work of Journalisming™ — just trusting the experts, who always slanted their political direction — and could continue congratulating each other for their brave and important work. Then came the Biden presidency.
Either Biden is senile or he is not. And it does not take an expert in Russian relations, systemic racism or Covid biology to tell the answer to that question. Any child could do it.
Flash-forward to the present day, and twenty years of full-on gaslighting later. At the NRO Corner, Jeffrey Blehar writes: The Media Want the Flaming Wreckage of the Biden Campaign to Explode — to Cover Their Tracks.
With each additional piece — each “Now It Can Be Told!” preface, each additional scandalous detail about Biden being non compos mentis — my blood begins to curdle. Oh, the sudden enthusiasm with which the media is now reporting on this! And why now? Because it can no longer be hidden! If Biden had succeeded somehow in hiding it — or had he declined to debate altogether, as most observers expected him to before he (surprisingly) agreed to an early debate — then it is undeniably true that none of these pieces would be written now. Did we experience an orgy of self-recriminative “make up” reporting about the implosion of the Russiagate hoax? Or about Hunter Biden’s laptop being authentic? How about Covid likely being a Chinese lab leak? Of course not — no apology was necessary in the media’s mind because those were no longer “live” issues, and their suppression of the truth had served its necessary purpose. This time the ruse was exposed before the con had been completed. Now the only job: Get a new shyster in to run at the top of the ticket and complete the mission.
It’s easy to get lost in bleak humor (or score-settling) and lose sight of the sheer magnitude of what it is we are living through: The president of the United States is an empty shell of himself mentally. His praetorian guard has been keeping his near-complete mental collapse a secret for possibly years now, and the media engaged in a “conspiracy of silence” (Nuzzi’s words, not mine) to conceal it from voters, out of reflexive (in the truest sense of the word) partisan and professional self-interest. Very Smart People tell me that my sense of complete betrayal and abiding disgust is a feeling peculiar only to Republicans and political anoraks — chumps who care too much, in other words. Perhaps so.
But the question Charlie Cooke posed last week should be the same one you hang on to as well: If the media claims it has been lied to about the state of Biden’s health for all these long years, then maybe they should investigate that? How that happened? How much did Kamala Harris — Biden’s almost certain replacement, should he step down — know? When did she know it? A real media would start from the premise that she is just as disqualified by helping to conceal Biden’s collapse as Biden and his people themselves are, and force her to prove otherwise. A real media wouldn’t play a balancing game in its head, saying, “Let’s not push her too hard, we don’t want to help the Other Guy.” This is not a real media, however, so I will invoke Betteridge’s Law by answering the question Charlie merely posed in his headline: Will the media seriously investigate how they were “misled” about Biden’s health? No. That would mean investigating themselves.
Be notified of new posts! Sign-up here:
Want to comment without registering?
