So, I saw this woman. She looked good, so I said hi. ;-)
She’s from DC. (That’s bad)
She’s an attorney. (That’s worse)
She works at the DOJ. (Oh, hell no)
I figured she was a lost cause, but I decided to see if I could get some inside scoop from her. She laughed that everybody in the city of DC is an attorney. (I don’t find that funny)
I asked her what she thought about the Sussmann indictment. (Who?)
She has no idea who Michael Sussmann is, much less that he was indicted. She has no idea who John Durham is.
She works on the civil side of things, not criminal. But still. She is a fucking attorney in fucking DC, and she works at the D.O. fucking J. Hello! Anybody home?
She told me that when a federal government employee gets fired, they have due process rights. I thought, yeah no shit, everybody has due process rights. I told her everybody has due process rights, and she really could not comprehend the concept that everybody has rights. She seemed to think that federal government employees “are in a privileged position” (her words) and that’s why they have due process rights. For a seemingly intelligent woman, this chick is clueless.
I left the conversation thinking that this is exactly what we see with so many doctors. Both doctors and attorneys are taught a very narrow slice of the truth of their professions, and then they have blinders on to anything that is not within the scope of what their professors, bosses, and co-workers spoon-feed to them. They have no knowledge beyond their tunnel vision. Much of what they think they know is not true. And there is a lot of truth that they are completely unaware of.
And these attorneys in DC have an obvious arrogance about them. They think they are on the top of the food chain. They think they have somehow “made it.” The reality is the federal government is at the bottom of the food chain. They are servants. Nothing more.
I also listened to an interview on the radio where a lawyer was talking about how so many judges have been “fooled” (that was the word used) by claims of the 1905 Supreme Court case related to mandating vaccines. He said it was a very narrow ruling (only applied to a specific situation, not related to what we are seeing now), and even that was overturned later by the Supreme Court. It seems that lawyers are bamboozeling judges into believing that the court case is relevant when it is not. But apparently, judges are too lazy or too stupid to read.
Clown World.
Blaine Bug: Intelligence Quotient is not necessarily correlated with memorization skills. I.Q. measures sophistication in reasoning and problem-solving. This will seem more obvious to you if you ever take an I.Q. test. The material is not as concerned with data you may or may not know, but with your ability to apply mental skills to problems that are presented to you for the first time.
I remember taking the test in school, not knowing it was any special test. Later, I found out it was an IQ test. That's because they told my mother that I tested at the genius level. I don't know if they explain this to all parents.
The test as about your ability to apply abstract reasoning. It is conceptual, not based on memorized facts. Part of it is mathematical (I was always the #1 student in math), and the other part is verbal (females generally do better on this part).
Both males and females tend to do about the same, overall, with the males scoring higher in math and females in verbal.
However, the bell curve for each sex is very different. Females are generally bunched up in the middle (within 1 standard deviation), but males have a "fat-tailed" bell curve. There are far more males at each extreme of the curve. There are about 10 times more males than females that test at the genius level, and a correspondingly higher number of males than females who test at the extreme stupid level -- which, along with strength and testosterone levels, explains why criminal behavior is primarily a male trait.
This is sometimes called the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" and I tend to agree with it as it explains things well IMO.
Nature can afford to roll the dice more with men to have greater genetic variability in the hopes of knocking it out of the park.
With women on the other hand, nature tends to play it safe, as they're the only ones who can have have babies and are critical to survival of the species.
Losing 50% of men is less bad than losing 50% of women from a survival standpoint, as the remaining men can still get it on with multiple women.
This exact scenario has happened in our evolutionary past.