.

.

Identity Crisis

I used to think my body was all woman,
My fruitful womb refused to be dismissed.
But now I’m not so sure I’m even human—
I’m not a fully trained biologist.

I’m failing at cisgender recognition
In times when genitalia count for naught.
But I can’t count, I’m not a mathematician—
The thought of naught is apt to leave me fraught.

I heard guys came from Mars and gals from Venus.
For that I make a grave apology.
I do not know my elbow from my penis
And didn’t major in astronomy.

Don’t ask me what the future holds in store,
My crystal balls lie busted on the floor.

.

.

Susan Jarvis Bryant has poetry published on Lighten Up Online, Snakeskin, Light, Sparks of Calliope, and Expansive Poetry Online. She also has poetry published in TRINACRIA, Beth Houston’s Extreme Formal Poems anthology, and in Openings (anthologies of poems by Open University Poets in the UK). Susan is the winner of the 2020 International SCP Poetry Competition, and has been nominated for the 2022 Pushcart Prize.

NOTE TO READERS: If you enjoyed this poem or other content, please consider making a donation to the Society of Classical Poets.

The Society of Classical Poets does not endorse any views expressed in individual poems or commentary.


CODEC Stories:

145 Responses

  1. Brian Yapko

    I’m rolling on the floor laughing, Susan. Boy did you nail it! I actually started my comment out with “hahahahahaha” and then stopped myself for fear of breaching decorum. Oh what the hell. Hahahahahaha! This is the funniest thing I’ve read in ages and how I wish I had written it. I can’t even comment on the prosody. I have to go outside and get some air now.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Brian, just the reaction I was hoping for. The only way to survive this craziness is with one helluva giggle! I was once told, “You cannot reason with madness, so don’t waste your time trying.” I’ve since learned you can… with poetry. 🙂

      Reply
  2. Sally Cook

    Dear Susan –

    This has to be one of your best — very best! You don’t even have to make them up any more, do you? And the illustration, — beyond perfection !! And, may I add, all these solemn questions make me prouder than ever to be a cynic; prouder than ever to be in your company.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      My dear friend, I am honored to receive this comment, and thrilled we’re on the same page where insidious idiocy is concerned. I too am proud to be a cynic… and extremely proud to be in your company. Let’s brave this bizarre battlefield with a wink and a grin! Onward and upward in the name of poetry and sanity in an increasingly insane world.

      Reply
  3. Paul Freeman

    That final couplet, especially, cracked me up.

    However, I can’t see why Ketanji Brown Jackson was being asked a myriad questions (Are babies racist? etc.) which had little or nothing to do with her confirmation as a supreme court justice. To me, her reaction was frustration at being asked another dumb question by a politician seeking to impress their electorate.

    I did enjoy the poem, though.

    Thanks for the read, Susan.

    Reply
    • Frank De Canio

      Thanks Paul, for your measured response. Yes, the poem is ingenious, well-crafted and hilarious. But the person asking such a stupid question to an obviously intelligent woman WHO has all the qualifications needed to be on the Supreme court got exactly the answer HE deserved.. She should have said: “You tell me what it means to be a man!” But the saying goes: “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”

      Reply
      • Frank De Canio

        Sorry I meant to write: But the person asking such a stupid question to an obviously intelligent woman WHO has all the qualifications needed to be on the Supreme court got exactly the answer HE deserved..

      • C.B. Anderson

        You are a dope, Frank. Sorry, but that’s how I read you.

      • C.B. Anderson

        Is it possible that anyone can be so stupid, Frank? I’m afraid so.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Hey, C.B., be fair to Frank. His comments were prompted by Paul Freeman who thinks that the response of the sagacious SCOTUS nominee was down to dumb questions by politicians seeking to impress their electorate. Any American with a brain will know that their vote is meaningless, and every woman with a brain knows they’ve plummeted on the victim-hierarchy ladder in favor of the transgender movement. Paul is setting women back years with his views.

    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Paul, thank you for dropping by with your measured response. I absolutely agree with you on the dumb question front. Who on earth would ask such an intelligent person the definition of a woman? The problem is, the dumb answer. This is a SCOTUS nominee. Surely this erudite person knows a biologist won’t have the answer. Sex has nothing to do with biology. Chromosomes don’t count. We are who we choose to be. Ketanji Brown Jackson fouled up on that one. As for the question “are babies racist?”, how dumb is that? White babies are obviously systemically racist – racism flows through their newborn veins just as day follows night. We all know that! Thank you for your astute observations.

      Reply
      • Frank De Canio

        Actually Susan, I don’t believe babies are racist. racism is taught, As our great lyricist, Oscar Hammerstein, put it:

        “You’ve got to be taught
        To hate and fear,
        You’ve got to be taught
        From year to year,
        It’s got to be drummed
        In your dear little ear
        You’ve got to be carefully taught.

        You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
        Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
        And people whose skin is a different shade,
        You’ve got to be carefully taught.

        You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
        Before you are six or seven or eight,
        To hate all the people your relatives hate,
        You’ve got to be carefully taught!

      • Mike Bryant

        Oscar Hammerstein II was truly ahead of his time. I’ve never read a better description of Critical Race Theory, which, incidentally, is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s pet project. Thanks for shedding light on the folly that confirming this SCOTUS nominee would be.

      • Mike Bryant

        Susan, that’s why I love you so much. You have a way with words that always connects with truth. I also think it’s admirable that you can expose that truth without a hint of sarcasm.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Mike, I always deal in satire, not sarcasm 😉 And, as you well know, I never deal in hypocrisy.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Frank De Canio, I like the lyrics… the thing is very few ordinary people, especially mothers and fathers, in today’s world teach “racism”. I come from London, and my son grew up with every color and creed. He sees beyond color and country of origin. The only people that don’t are those presiding over us. If everyone knew their divisive means of control, we would rise up and challenge. Martin Luther King Jr. did. Gandhi did. Perhaps we should… before we lose everything they fought for. No one should be judged on the color of their skin, only the content of their character.

      • Jack DesBois

        Mr. De Canio, those lyrics ran through my head frequently during my undergraduate years at Middlebury College. In one notable instance that has stuck with me, I once read an interview of a black student saying something along the following lines: “I’m so glad I came to Middlebury – I didn’t realize how oppressed I was until my professors and peers taught me about systemic racism.” Yes, you do indeed have to be carefully taught.

      • Julian D. Woodruff

        Hi, Susan
        I’m catching up on reading & commenting selectively. Great poem, as usual (like Paul, I was impressed by the final couplet), with a staggering number of responses. I’d modify your reply to Paul slightly. Why should white babies wait till they’re born to become racists? They’re racist from conception to death (natural or otherwise). Gives ’em 9 months to practice hating all the non-whites they’re gonna meet out there!

      • Mike Bryant

        Julian, our Science/Medicine/Technology/Government overlords are not racists, at least when it comes to killing babies in the womb. The more the merrier for baby body parts. Also, it’s in the works to make abortion legal up to TWO years after birth. From there it’s easy enough to kill them with vaccines and masks. In fact, they are pretty fair about killing anyone at any age regardless of race. So, they are really only mass murderers. They’re only interested in numbers.

        It’s been in the works for awhile, but they’ve made a good start.

        “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”
        Henry Kissinger, Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State, chairman of Kissinger Associates, member of the Club of Rome.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Julian, who would’ve thought this silly little bit of satire could have caused such an uproar. I was laughing when it was posted and ended up despairing. I am smiling again having just read your spot-on comment with so much truth between the canny lines. You have a very good point. Thank you for restoring sanity through humor… something I strive to do daily in these tragic times.

    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Freeman and De Canio — both of you have severe perception problems.

      In a contemporary world where issues of gender identity and sexuality have become politically hot and filled with horrible possibilities, the questions asked make PERFECT sense. Fake women athletes are taking over traditional women’s sports events, winning medals and awards that they could never get by competing against their fellow males. Schoolchildren are being propagandized by radical teachers to question their own sexual nature, and to prepare for surgical “transitioning.” Bathrooms are now being declared open zones for anyone, regardless of their genitalia or whatever mutilations they have had on their genitalia. Pronouns are being wrecked and appropriated so that idiots can “self-define” their gender. Are you both completely unaware of this situation? Have you been living on another planet?

      Leftists and liberals pulled no punches when they utterly trashed the candidacy of Robert Bork, one of the best legal minds of our nation, at his confirmation hearing. And now you are whining about the same treatment being dished out to a nonentity like Jackson? What goddamned hypocrisy.

      If this woke bitch gets on the Supreme Court, she will decide issues of sexuality by looking through the prism of her stupid, politically correct assumptions. That needs to be pointed out!

      Susan, thanks again for an absolutely spot-on poem of satire.

      Reply
      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Joe, you are most welcome, and thank you for being the brave voice for women in a world that wants to eradicate them!

      • Paul Freeman

        Joseph – a) I’m not whining. It’s actually you that’s whining if you read your post.
        b) How can it be ‘hypocrisy’ if I’ve no idea who this Bork guy is in the first place? I’m merely commenting on the case in hand.
        c) I do take exception to you referring to any woman you take a dislike to as ‘bitch’. And that’s not wokeness, it’s pure decency.

      • Mike Bryant

        If you have no idea who Bork is, perhaps you should find out before you comment. Judge Bork was absolutely lynched by the Democrats and he never became a SCOTUS justice. His name has entered the dictionary.
        bork
        verb
        To defeat a judicial nomination through a concerted attack on the nominee’s character, background and philosophy.
        That has NOT happened to the honorable Judge Jackson.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        So Paul, it’s the pits to call a woman a “bitch”, but it’s okay to rape her if you are a man identifying as a woman? I’m not being facetious, I really want to hear your opinion on my concern.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        To Paul Freeman:

        You can “take exception” to whatever the hell you like, but I’m not changing my vocabulary to suit your preferences. Got that?

        By the way, I call many men “pricks.” This isn’t an Anglican tea-party here.

      • Paul Freeman

        All the big guns called in to action to shout down dissent in the ranks. Fantastic.

      • Mike Bryant

        Susan, you asked a simple question of a gentleman who likes to engage in discussions. I suppose it’s easier to play the victim than to answer a simple question.

      • Paul Freeman

        It’s never a simple question, Mike, and that’s the point. It’s just more fuel to bully, misinterpret, grow belligerent and cast aspersions. Quite shameful, really.

        You constantly claim it’s brave to write poetry you believe the PC brigade will disagree with. Isn’t it also brave to make a comment when you know it will be met by a barrage of aggression, insults and vilification?

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Paul, please let’s clear this thing up. You say my question isn’t simple, yet you came on this post to state the question put to Ketanji Brown Jackson was “dumb”. Marsha Blackburn’s question isn’t dumb, and my question is simple. Please read Dave Etchell’s comment and you’ll see why. Please look at the state of “women’s” sports today, and you’ll see why. The definition of “woman” matters in today’s society, especially in the legal sense. It’s an important question, especially if you are the SCOTUS nominee… and, if you still think the question of what determines a “woman” dumb, ask yourself this:

        If a biological male identifies as a “woman” and rapes a biological woman in a UK hospital and is then exonerated because ‘there were no men on the ward’ – is he a woman? If he is a woman, is that conduct acceptable?

        If a biological male identifies as a “woman”, is he a woman and should he be able to partake in women’s sports?

        Women are in danger because of this line of thinking. Women are not treated fairly in the sport’s arena because of this line of thinking. Marsha Blackburn doesn’t want biological males to pass themselves off as women and to be accepted as such, neither do most of the American people. In this context, is her question dumb or valid?

        As for your bravery on this thread, if you were brave, you’d answer my questions instead of squirming out of them with accusations about others in order to detract from your unwillingness to summon the courage to stand by your convictions… whatever they may be.

      • Conor Kelly

        You are right, Joe. Paul is far too genteel for the rough and tumble where poetry and politics meet. When Tennyson spoke of a ‘louse in the locks of literature” he had people like you and me in mind. We don’t mind calling out the bitches and pricks on the Supreme Court, particularly the sanctimonious bitch hypocritically imposed by Moscow-Mitch and the two sexually abusive pricks, one of them avowedly beer-loving. What a circus in black robes.

  5. Dave Etchell

    Very amusing, but the madness gets 1984ish. You must have heard of the UK hospital where a man who said he was a woman was placed on a female ward. He raped one of the real women there. When challenged about it the nurses said ”A rape could not have occurred because there were no men on the ward’ a reply of such crassness it takes one’s breath away. The real problem here is political cowardice — they need to legislate to solve this ludicrous problem rather than being afraid that they might lose a few votes because they are not woke.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Dave, thank you for the voice of sanity in an insane world. Therein lies the problem. If we cannot define what a woman is, how can we deal with serious crimes like this. Paul Freeman and Frank de Canio, please take note. The question asked was NOT dumb… and this is why.

      Reply
      • Paul Freeman

        I’m taking note, ma’am. No need to patronise. Next time you’re interviewed for, say, a faith-based job and the interviewer asks you questions about king prawns, remind me about dumb questions.

      • Mike Bryant

        Paul, every comment you make highlights your ignorance of America and Americans. There ain’t no native born Texan that has any idea what a “king prawn” is… however I, at least, took the time to look it up… still, I’m guessing that it might be a jumbo shrimp. Maybe Judge Jackson should have taken the time to look up “woman”

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        You’re not being patronized, you’re being asked. Is it okay for a man who identifies as a woman to be exonerated of rape? Give a straight answer for once. The law is being skewed to allow this. To my mind you’re coming across as a misogynist. I am a woman and I know exactly what that means… even though I’m not a biologist.

      • Paul Freeman

        It’s never a simple question, Mike, and that’s the point. It’s just more fuel to bully, misinterpret, grow belligerent and cast aspersions. Quite shameful, really.

        You constantly claim it’s brave to write poetry you believe the PC brigade will disagree with. Isn’t it also brave to make a comment when you know it will be met by a barrage of aggression, insults and vilification?

      • Mike Bryant

        Paul… of course you don’t have to answer ANY question, simple or complicated. I think we all know why KBJ didn’t answer. Not answering IS an answer.

        “Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.” – Confucius

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Paul, please let’s clear this thing up. You say my question isn’t simple, yet you came on this post to state the question put to Ketanji Brown Jackson was “dumb”. Marsha Blackburn’s question isn’t dumb, and my question is simple. Please read Dave Etchell’s comment and you’ll see why. Please look at the state of “women’s” sports today, and you’ll see why. The definition of “woman” matters in today’s society, especially in the legal sense. It’s an important question, especially if you are the SCOTUS nominee… and, if you still think the question of what determines a “woman” dumb, ask yourself this:

        If a biological male identifies as a “woman” and rapes a biological woman in a UK hospital and is then exonerated because ‘there were no men on the ward’ – is he a woman? If he is a woman, is that conduct acceptable?

        If a biological male identifies as a “woman”, is he a woman and should he be able to partake in women’s sports?

        Women are in danger because of this line of thinking. Women are not treated fairly in the sport’s arena because of this line of thinking. Marsha Blackburn doesn’t want biological males to pass themselves off as women and to be accepted as such, neither do most of the American people. In this context, is her question dumb or valid?

        As for your bravery on this thread, if you were brave, you’d answer my questions instead of squirming out of them with accusations about others in order to detract from your unwillingness to summon the courage to stand by your convictions… whatever they may be.

      • Mike Bryant

        Susan, since no one wants to tackle your terribly complicated questions, I’m taking a shot…

        Question 1: “If a biological male identifies as a “woman” and rapes a biological woman in a UK hospital and is then exonerated because ‘there were no men on the ward’ – is he a woman? If he is a woman, is that conduct acceptable?”

        Answer: He is not a woman. I repeat he is NOT a woman – he should be charged with rape.

        Question 2: “If a biological male identifies as a “woman”, is he a woman and should he be able to partake in women’s sports?”

        Answer: He is not a woman. I repeat he is NOT a woman – he shouldn’t participate in women’s sports.

  6. Jeff Eardley

    Susan, we were giggling at your last two, we are now in full guffaw mode at this with, I think, a timely use of the p-word, and a belter of a punch line. Right up there in Victoria Wood territory. Love it to bits, thank you.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Thank you, Jeff. Satire has always served to highlight the idiocy of those who think they know best. They bloody well need to be mocked… especially in these daft days.

      Reply
  7. Cheryl Corey

    Fabulously funny, Susan. If KBJ can’t/won’t publicly define what a woman is, how can she possibly be expected to judge cases that involve women’s rights, equal opportunity, etc.? She can’t.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Exactly Cheryl. You are spot-on, which serves to prove the question was valid and very much needed for the furtherment of women’s rights. Her ridiculous answer sets the women’s rights movement back years.

      Reply
  8. Sally Cook

    Just the fact that we seriously take an absolutely inferior cadidate for one of the highest offices in the land is, or should be, an indication of our descent into bean-counting.
    Certainly Susan’s poem and accompanying illustration are hilarious, but THAT”S NOT THE POINT.
    The point is — how did we get this wsy, and how can we go back?

    Reply
  9. Mike Bryant

    From a website called “Love breeds accountability” I have stolen some of these insights:

    How could Ketanji Brown have answered the, admittedly, easy question better?
    Maybe with a bit of common sense?
    “Women are the ones who are born with vaginas.”
    Or perhaps with a bit of eighth grade science?
    “Women are the ones with XX chromosomes.”
    Here’s another answer that would’ve sufficed from Jackson:
    “I’m not sure how to define it, but I know I am one!”
    What about defiance?
    “How do YOU define a MAN?”
    Anything would have been better than what she DID say…

    I bet any poet on SCP could have come up with an answer that would shut any critic down.
    But… NO ONE can come up with a satisfactory answer for the WOKE.

    Poor Ketanji was in a nine line bind…
    Nothing to say, nowhere to go…

    Reply
  10. Yael

    That’s awesome Susan, I love your poem! It’s about the funniest and most entertaining thing I’ve read this week, and that’s saying a lot, considering that I can’t tell the Babylon Bee Headlines apart from AP and Reuters anymore this year.
    Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is the one who asked KB Jackson to define the word woman. I don’t know if she slipped up or said “word” on purpose (the purpose of plausible deniability or to let Jackson off the hook), but technically she should have asked Jackson to define the “term” woman, not the “word”. Judges don’t speak English in courts, they speak Legalese, which consists of terms which are defined in legal dictionaries. Legalese terms sound and look just like English words, but their definitions are often quite different from the ordinary English dictionary word definitions. I think KB Jackson simply acknowledged this fact with her refusal to “provide a definition” and she obviously understood what Marsha Blackburn was asking, even though Blackburn’s question sounded somewhat ambiguous. The fact that Jackson didn’t tell Blackburn to look it up in a dictionary tells me that Jackson knew exactly what and why Blackburn was asking her. Jackson’s refusal to give the definition portends that the legal term “woman” will be up for grabs at the SCOTUS soon, which your poem so wonderfully expresses.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      I’m thrilled you like the poem, Yael, and thank you for the info on legal jargon. It shows just how careful one must be when posing questions of such significance in today’s warped society. Terms matter. It seems to me as long as one’s own version of reality aligns with the government’s way of thinking, all is good. If you happen to refer to the subject of science, before the government bought it and it became their religion, for your answer – oh dear! XX and XY were once as simple as ABC but are now obsolete.

      Reply
  11. Yael

    I have one little technical observation about line 6: I think the word “where” should be “when” instead. Where refers to space and when refers to time. “In times when…”

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Thank you very much for this – it’s been changed accordingly.

      Reply
  12. Frank De Canio

    Susan thanks for defending me. I truly appreciate it. But as Marcus Aurelius wrote, ‘people can insult us, but they can’t hurt our character’. I love discussions like I like some sports. But rudeness seems to me like kicking someone in a boxing ring, or a pitcher hitting a batter purposely in the head or putting banana peels on a racetrack. Yes, when I see what there is to learn out there in psychology, literature, languages, physics, philosophy, I am a dope and I like to think that way so that I don’t relax. For as Goethe put it, ‘strivng is all’. And when it comes to computers, I like to tell people I’m stupid. But to be called that would just be an expletive that says more about the person saying it, than the receiver. I think a lot is wrong with America these days regarding corporate giants, robots technology taking us back to the stone age in terms of communication, money buying into politics. What we need are serious debates and exchanges of ideas in a civil context. Yelling never helps. And bringing politics as I did into a poetry forum is never helpful. As for race prejudice; as a strict determinist, I take it that the apple never falls too far from the tree. AS to you Susan. your poetry is wonderfully well-crafted and reflects an incredible range of knowledge that surely dwarfs mine. Anyway, I just spent a good hour explaining myself which explains why I’m not on social media.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      De Canio, have you forgotten that YOU were the one to first use the word “stupid” here, in your first posting on this thread?

      And when you say that we need “serious debates and exchanges of ideas,” have you forgotten that you have so far failed to answer a single point raised by Mike Bryant or myself in defense of the question that was asked of Jackson?

      It’s typical of liberals to talk a great deal about the need for debate and dialogue and communication, and then to get offended when anyone actually confronts them with an argument.

      Sally Cook put it just right: If Ketanji Brown Jackson is the best we can come up with for the SCOTUS, we’re really in bad shape.

      Reply
      • Frank De Canio

        Joseph, I was referring to the question being stupid not the person who asked it. OK, stupid may not be to the point. Maybe extraneous is the word. It’s like an employer asking an applicant if she would be ok with a threesome. I am pretty sure she would try to disappear rather than answer yes or no. The woman question? Since I’m not a physiologist, etymologically I would say a WOMan is a man with a womb and a man is a WOMan without one. And of course all of the other biological and physical contingencies that go with that. But my point is a judge is not a physician and his/her job is to assess the constitutionality of laws and decisions handed down by the courts. And please I am not a liberal or a conservative. I believe in civil rights and the law And both of them should be applied rigorously. And apropos of any bent to accuse others from any political spectrum I refer to the this quote: “It is an heretic that makes the fire, not she which burns in’t. ”
        William Shakespeare, The Winter’s Tale (1623)

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Frank, thank you for joining the discussion and giving your opinion. I appreciate that. I think I know where at least one problem lies in us not seeing eye to eye. You say the SCOTUS nominee is not answering the question because it’s extraneous: “It’s like an employer asking an applicant if she would be ok with a threesome. I am pretty sure she would try to disappear rather than answer yes or no.” I can answer this question from my point of view… I would say “Absolutely no way on God’s green earth would I entertain a threesome!” But your premise is confusing. Senator Marsha Blackburn wasn’t asking a personal sexual question. She was asking a question that most of the nation want addressing because the fact that biological men can now identify as women and rape them and get away with it; the fact that biological men can now compete in sports against women and beat them almost every time is a big issue. This question is something pertinent to her job. Her thinking may affect the future of every biological woman. That’s why a straight answer is needed.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        “Well put, Frank.”

        What a brilliant and compelling forensic argument! Just like “Thanks for the read” is a brilliant piece of all-purpose literary critique.

        No one here is trying to silence either you or De Canio. We’re simply asking you to address the points that have been raised. Why, in the light of a savage nation-wide debate on sex roles and gender and the celebration of surgical transitioning, is it unacceptable to ask Jackson the question that was asked?

        Asking people pertinent questions is not “bullying” them. It is inviting them to take part in a dialogue. Isn’t that exactly what you liberals have been gassing about for years now?

  13. Norma Pain

    Absolutely laugh-out-loud funny. Susan, I feel like throwing pen and paper up in the air and giving up writing. You are amazing. Thank you for the funniest poem in years. With your permission, I will share this one far and wide.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Norma, coming from a skillful and highly amusing poet like you, this is wonderful praise indeed. I’m glad I had you laughing out loud. Laughter is a much-needed tonic for these dire days. Thank you very much and never, ever throw your pen and paper in the air… keep writing… you inspire me!

      Reply
  14. Norma Pain

    Actually, I guess I don’t need your permission to share, since this is what this amazing poetry site is all about. My brain is on slow-mode !!

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Absolutely, Norma! And what a lot of wonderful stuff we have to share.

      Reply
  16. Frank J De Canio

    Susan, Joe, et al, maybe I should stay out of his argument to be fair, since I wasn’t privy to the context. And it is a complicated situation we are in and I have neither wit nor way to deal with it. This much I can say: rape is forced sex with a woman and whether the culprit is a man or a woman or a man posing as a woman, it is rape and should punished in a manner that no one would ever think of doing it again. Seven years for rape because ‘after all the woman is still alive’ is what I heard lawmakers say. Let the punishment fit the crime. To be liberal to violent offenders is to be cruel to law-abiding citizens. That’s my take on liberalism. On the other hand, stealing a loaf of bread from a candy store, or passing a counterfeit bill, etc. non-violent crimes should merit remedial education. But since, I’m mostly headline intelligence when it comes to news I need to stay out of the fray. But I still think Susan’s poem (like all of what she writes) is well-crafted and not ad hominem. And as for cancel societies and gotcha politics. As long as speech is not overtly hateful and/or threatening in a commonsense manner, I’m with Voltaire. I may not agree with you, but defend to the death your right to say it. Just don’t mess with my Shamrock shakes at McDonald’s!

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Frank, thank you for taking the time to explain and thank you for your appreciation of my poetry… shamrock shakes? Are they Guinness and Whiskey based? I think a shamrock shake might cheer my day!

      Reply
      • Frank De Canio

        Susan, hi. Shamrock shakes are mint flavored milkshakes McDonald’s sells each year to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. So I stop buying strawberry shakes (to assist in my vitamin pill-popping morning regimen) and switch to the mint-flavored ones. Less the dispenser runs out, even though I have one in reserve, I just bought 2 more just in case. Hey, I gotta have some fun in my droll existence.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        I must say, they sound delicious… shamrock shakes here I come!

    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      … an insidious idiot… an idiot with an agenda… an idiot who doesn’t want to disappoint those who twist truth. Thank you for dropping by, Scott. I’m glad we’re on the same page.

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        It might be said that Biden is an idiot for nominating this woman (who can’t define “woman”) to the Supreme Court. But in fact Biden has no real power of ratiocination left. He merely says yes and rubber-stamps whatever his controllers and managers in the White House tell him to do. Then he says “Can I take my nap now?”

        The last time this happened was in 1919-20, when Wilson was debilitated and his wife Edith ran the show.

        No one has any idea who the real rulers of the United States are at this point. But they are truly sick and evil, without a doubt.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Sadly, Joe, I think this is becoming increasingly evident to those who know their history and aren’t swayed by the mockingbird press.

  18. Shaun C. Duncan

    This is a fantastic poem Susan and you did well to tease out the full extent of the absurdity of the exchange in such a brief poem. I’m also impressed you could turn it out in such short order – I started a sonnet on death of Jeffrey Epstein and it still isn’t finished!

    To weigh in on the political debate: while it might seem to some that it’s simply a manufactured controversy, I think it was actually an excellent question and the response highly disturbing. Jurisprudence, particularly at the supreme court level, is largely about the interpretation of language and appointing a deconstructionist to such a role is a dangerous move. A prospective justice who refuses to define a simple word for reasons of political ideology cannot be expected to interpret the constitution in an honest manner.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Thank you very much, Shaun. Coming from you, that’s a huge compliment. I always channel my angst and anger into poetry, which is how I write so quickly. I pen away furiously until the angst subsides and I’m able to sit in peace with my husband without assaulting his ears. I very much look forward to reading your Jeffrey Epstein poem. I want to write an Ode to Spring, but current propaganda keeps steering me in its direction… I can’t help myself.

      The point you make about language is a valid one we should all take on board. The interpretation of language on the legal front will ensure a biological male is a female and there will be no holds barred when it comes to the abuse of women. Where are those sporting pussy hats when you need them?!

      Reply
  19. Adam Wasem

    I love a great deadpan poem. There should be some kind of award for the most hilariously audacious rhyme or something, so you could get it for rhyming “Venus” and “Penis.”

    I’m so glad you’ve poetically addressed this clown world moment. The fact that the Republicans, through savvy questioning, revealed how, through doctrinaire academic and media political brainwashing, this woman’s brain is now so twisted up in “gender theory” and “critical race theory” knots that she is unable to even affirm her basic identity in terror of being cancelled is jaw-droppingly insane. And then when you see the brainwashed idiots on the left, and even on this very site, actually defending her and attacking Republicans for exposing it, you realize the world is transforming into a Bosch painting. As Orwell so correctly demonstrated, the warping of language by propaganda means 1984 is nigh. Thank you for finding the light in this extraordinarily grim situation we currently find ourselves in.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Adam, I thoroughly appreciate your comment and would graciously accept such an award. “Clown world” is spot on – an apt term for this poisonous circus we’re witnessing. The trouble is, it has absolutely nothing to do with gender, and absolutely everything to do with submission. Those who won’t submit to this idiocy are the enemy. This game has been played throughout history and all those who refuse to see it encourage evils we’ve all witnessed before. Thank you very much!

      Reply
  20. David Whippman

    Brian is right, Susan, you hit the mark. And I have to weigh in on the debate here: I am no expert on USA politics, but I think it likely that Brown’s answer to the question was seriously intended. After all, our own Keir Starmer has said it is wrong to state aloud that women have cervixes and men don’t. This psychosis has a grip on so many people. The question was not a stupid one in a context where men can self-identify as women, and a male swimmer can win fame and medals by defeating women.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      David, thank you very much for this. Language matters. The Senator and the SCOTUS nominee know this only too well. The question was valid and smart as was the stance taken to skirt round the answer. The serious meaning beneath all the hilarity over this sorry spectacle is illustrated in the link below. This is where legal language can lead, which is why it is so important to ask seemingly ‘dumb’ questions.

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-bill-could-legalize-killing-babies-months-after-birth-in-newsoms-abortion-sanctuary-state/

      Reply
      • mia

        Just managed to read some of this. Could not bear to read it. This is actually being proposed as a Bill? In California? Have actually been to California years ago where I met some of the nicest people. Can’t believe this is happening.
        Thank you for highlighting it

  21. mia

    An amazing poem and one that has sparked so much discussion. Yes, it is important because, it is only necessary for good people to do nothing for evil to flourish. Most of us want an easy life so the following is not easy for me. My contribution sounds absurd as I type but hypothetically speaking, if a woman is raped by a woman that was previously a man and she castrates him/them/her would the woman be able to plead in her defence as there was no man in the room therefore no castration could have taken place? Whilst I debate with myself whether I am committing an improper scenario to paper I caught sight of the link about abortions. I think I am going to be sick…

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Mia, thank you very much for your comment. In these ridiculous times, I don’t think your hypothetical observation is absurd at all… I would certainly consider this method of self-defense an option in this surreal scenario. Perhaps if the biological woman raped by the biological man identifying as a woman could identify as a rare toad… any harm to creatures on the brink of extinction comes with a heavy penalty. The sad thing is this seemingly silly argument over the definition of “woman” is evil beyond belief. The SCOTUS nominee wants the meaning redefined for legal purposes. The abortion article was to outline where legal definitions may take us… to hell in this case. Let’s hope women will win on the definition front. Thanks again!

      Reply
      • mia

        sorry, getting so heated up about it all that I am posting at the same time and in the wrong places

      • mia

        Has she actually said that, that she wants the meaning redefined for legal purposes? or was she being cagey?
        I am sorry as I said I don’t know much about her
        the issue though is clear for most people. This trans issue
        is absurd beyond belief. How on earth did the world come to this?

    • mia

      I have just looked up what Ms Jackson actually said. If I am correct she said
      “I am not a biologist”. I think the questioner should have answered with,
      Oh so you do believe that gender is biologically determined ?

      And she might, she just did not say.

      Either way she came across as very cool, calm and collected and solemn,
      I mean she didn’t just laugh the question away as though it was hilarious,
      she might make a good judge.

      Reply
      • mia

        Thank you for not thinking it absurd
        I think I posted my next comment the exact same time as yours
        I suppose I was trying to look at it from all sides but I don’t live in the USA so don’t have as much knowledge about the personalities in politics there.

  22. Conor Kelly

    Susan, your efforts to corral the definition of “woman” must leave you feeling, at times, like King Canute trying the repel the waves encroaching on your native Britain.
    Paul and Frank above are right to question the relevance of the term to the Supreme Court hearings, unless you are of the same intellectual inclination as the Texan politician whose beachside reading in Cancun is not Shakespeare, Joyce or Proust but Doctor Seuss and kindergarten books. Sadly, like many in his party he has not progressed from the children’s section of the library to the adult section.
    Mention of Shakespeare prompts me to recommend you watch a film he scripted for Amanda Byrnes with the apt title, “She’s the Man”, about a woman who transitions temporarily for her own reasons. It even has a locker room scene – woman in men’s space – that would shock the socks off sports-loving Joseph Salemi. Billy Shakespeare was far wilder than Billy Wilder. In many of his scripts he has men and women interchanging roles and identities. Heck, his Lady Macbeth has more genitalia than her husband. Yet even I was shocked by her desire to poison her breasts and treat her infant’s head like an American football.
    By the by, an eminent scholar once told me (in private, mind you) that the dark lady of the most famous sonnet sequence in literature was actually a man. Imagine. Shakespeare as the laureate of the transgender movement.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Conor, my comments aren’t alluding to the study of fictive artifacts and Shakespeare’s works, inspirations, and sexual inclinations are of no concern to me when it comes to questioning a SCOTUS nominee. I’m talking about immutable facts, not something required for composing a sonnet, but something most certainly required for justice to prevail. Where fiction is concerned, reality can be anything the author chooses it to be. That’s exactly why I adore fiction… but, I want to leave fiction where it belongs. I don’t want someone’s vivid imagination spilling over into reality. XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes are an immutable fact.

      Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      By the way, I recommend Orlando by Virginia Woolf if you’re into gender fluidity… the language is luscious.

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        Susan, I cannot believe that you are trying to corral the definition of “woman” next you’ll be trying to tell us what a “cat” “dog” or even a “mouse” is.

        After the article here…
        https://classicalpoets.org/2022/03/25/respected-irish-poetry-journal-publishes-fake-woke-poetry/#/
        and this discussion, I am starting to understand why my great-grandfather left Bantry.
        I think the “pipes” that are calling must be crack pipes.

        King Canute was standing against a demonstrated fact. But Susan, you are standing up FOR truth and against a rising tide of idiocy.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Right on target, Susan. Shakespeare (or any other poet or dramatist) can conjure up whatever gender-bending fantasies he likes when producing a work of fiction. But if Ketanji Brown Jackson can’t define “woman” in a real-world context, she’s simply stupid — or more likely, a tongue-tied captive of her ideological restrictions.

        It’s typical of left-liberal doubletalk to use examples from movies or literature to support existential absurdities like the refusal to give a straightforward statement on facts. No one cares about a film dealing with a sexually ambiguous temporary trannie, Conor. We care about a possible Supreme Court justice whose mindlessness will impact human beings.

  23. Conor Kelly

    Wow. I didn’t think my facetious remarks would inspire such speedy responses. And so, before I deal with each in turn, I would preface my remarks with a quote from the bard: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    To Susan
    Thank you for your respectful response. I don’t fully accept your distinction between fiction and reality. After all Shakespeare said “We are such stuff/
    As dreams are made on…” You want to leave fiction where it belongs but where does it belong? You also say that “XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes are an immutable fact.” But the word woman (and man) is now being redefined and broadened to take account of gender as well as sexuality. (See my comments to Mike below.) You mightn’t like it, but language moves on. It always does.
    Thank you for the Virginia Wolf recommendation. I haven’t read Orlando and look forward to its luscious prose.

    To Mike
    Three things.
    1:
    I don’t know about mice and I don’t want to know about them but dogs and cats can be contentious. Is a lion a cat? (Probably.) Is a wolf a dog or a different species? And what about a coyote? Language, like gender, can be fluid.

    2:
    Spare me the anti-Irish sentiment. I get enough of that. Oddly enough, in a very divisive Congress, one thing Democrats and Republicans unite on is the Congressional Friends of Ireland Caucus. For all their Brexit bluster. it is clear that there will be no trade agreement between Britain and the USA without the agreement of this caucus. That is a consolation to many in Ireland who dread the return of the cataclysmic violence of the past which may, if divisive circumstances in your country don’t ameliorate, engulf the states.

    3:
    There is a saying popular in Ireland about the pot calling the kettle black. For a member of the editorial board of an American magazine often devoted to political poetry to join in an attack on an Irish magazine often including political poetry smacks of hypocrisy. And I say this as someone who has been published by you and not by the Irish magazine. I know the Irish magazine was duped by fake poets but I sometimes wonder, reading some of the poetry here, if the same thing is not happening. There is one poet (BDW) who fits the bill. Is he for real? Or do you publish the work for comic purposes? I enjoy his work, the way you enjoy the fake Icarus poets.
    Careful who you criticise.

    To Joe
    You say “No one cares about a film dealing with a sexually ambiguous temporary trannie …” I do. The film is a hoot. And works of fiction can reveal much more than you and Susan seem to recognise.
    You also say “We care about a possible Supreme Court justice whose mindlessness will impact human beings.” She didn’t strike me as mindless, but we’ll have to agree to differ. There are two other justices whose sexual rapaciousness can impact human beings. Care to comment?
    Also: do you honestly think that the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is anything other than a circus in black robes?

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      To Conor,
      Thank you for your reply. Shakespeare also said; “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. And language may indeed move on. That doesn’t detract from the immutable fact that whatever definition is given to a woman… a woman will still be a woman according to the immutable truth. A woman has two X chromosomes – no quote from Shakespeare will ever change that. Whatever term is chosen by a government to further its agenda, it will not alter the scientific evidence. The consequence of redefining the term woman leads to injustice, as explained in the above comments on rape and sports. You yourself have just asked “do you honestly think that the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is anything other than a circus in black robes?” Sadly, I agree. It’s a circus in black robes, and the latest SCOTUS nominee will only exacerbate that problem. Any evolution in language should come from the streets not a tyrannical government. Most of the people on the streets are sick of the skewing of language to suit a warped ideology that castrates their children when these naïve youngsters barely know the difference between the sexes, let alone have the understanding to choose their gender.

      You asked me where fiction belongs. Fiction belongs in the Arts section. The definition of a woman belongs in the Science section. The minute the two get confused is the minute biological women and the children they have given birth to get abused. You say to Dr. Salemi; “works of fiction can reveal much more than you and Susan seem to recognise.” I find works of fiction most revealing. A scene in Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ springs to mind. Two plus two doesn’t equal five. One X chromosome plus one Y chromosome doesn’t equal ‘woman’.

      I’m sure you will appreciate Orlando. The Jane Campion film starring Tilda Swinton is a poor second to Woolf’s words. Words matter.

      Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      To Conor
      1. And a cat is still a cat, a dog a dog, and even mice are still mice. Call them what you will, you won’t be fooling anyone I know. Yes, language is fluid but DNA is rock solid.

      2. I’m not anti-Irish, I AM Irish. I am anti-woke.

      3. Thanks for comparing SCP to the prestigious Icarus. That pot/kettle thing sounds racist. I hope you’re not going there. SCP was set up to bring rhyme, rhythm and rapture back to poetic prominence. We have our work cut out for us. We are really fighting post-modernism, which is still a rising tide of idiocy. Some people call it communism.

      Reply
      • Conor Kelly

        Mike, just to clarify. The pot/kettle thing is not racist. If you were Irish, as you claim to be, you would know that it refers to how a pot, when left too long on the stove, will burn off the water and blacken. Ditto with a pre-electric kettle. I apologise to you (and anyone else) if you took the wrong inference. But it does make my point that language is fluid. The word “black”, in a politically charged atmosphere, can be as contentious as the word “woman”.
        Like you, I admire rhyme, rhythm and rapture but when you put them in the service of a political agenda – anti-communist, anti-modern, anti-fascist, anti-conservative – the poetry quickly dissipates and all you have left is a toxic mix of politics and bluster.

      • Mike Bryant

        I agree on the poetry front. Unfortunately post-modernism must be condemned wherever it raises its ugly head. Satire IS and always has been a legitimate form of protest in literature. Poetry has become a battleground. Even this comment thread has become a battleground. I believe that the more we can speak to each other, the better.
        I find it a little sad that you think I was offended by your pot/kettle analogy when I was really just joking about the way the woke call everyone racists. So keep your apology and try to regain your sense of humour. Conservatives are not who you think we are.

    • BDW

      as per Lew Icarus Bede:

      note to Conor Kelly:

      It is true. BDW appears only @ SCP. Elsewhere he appears elsewise.

      Reply
      • Conor Kelly

        Many thanks, Lew, for confirming my suspicions and for your comic verse over the years.
        I presume your initials LIB are a discrete clue.

      • The Society

        Dear Conor Kelly,

        You are reaching here I think and have done some misreading of Bruce Dale Wise’s work as well as his comment. He writes in anagrams of his name and would probably be best described as libertarian and probably a Trump voter, if I had to guess, based on all of what we have published and our correspondence over the last decade of my publishing his work (though I think he might actually like that you have come up with your own strange interpretation of him and his work). If Bruce disagrees I’d be interested to hear it whether publicly or privately. Conor, don’t be so obsessed with politics! We publish a lot of poetry and you’ve chosen to focus on and comment on some of the political poetry we publish. People will always disagree over politics. Don’t get so hung up on it.

        And he is only using that particular anagram because it contains the name Icarus, which connects to some of the circulating conversation. Again, an obsession with politics breeds a disconnection from reality and art.

        -Evan Mantyk, SCP Editor

      • The Society

        Conor, if there is still any doubt in your mind. This is what Bruce Dale Wise (aka BDW, aka many other anagrammatic names) wrote to me:

        “I really did not appreciate Mr. Kelly’s comment. Like many others, he is antagonistic to my poetry; but he does talk about it, which is more than most do. Here his accusation is that I am an Ern Malley; but I think Mr. Kelly’s knowledge of Australian literature is shallow at best. But in a wider picture, this generation’s critique of my writing has always been antagonistic and shallow at best. From Elizabeth Bishop in the 1970s, to William Stafford in the 1980s, to Anthony Hecht in the 1990s, etc. So much about my poetry and prose is hated: its classical stances, its traditional realms, its vast canvas, its philosophical avenues, its ultramodern vision, etc.”

  24. Joseph S. Salemi

    Conor Kelly would be well advised to omit the Celtic facetiousness, and recognize that political debates are serious, since they involve real-world policy and life-changing consequences. If Ketanji Brown Jackson is a left-wing “woke” liberal, we don’t want her on the Supreme Court, and it is absurd of Kelly to think that quotes from Shakespeare or lectures on the fluidity of language will have any effect on that commitment.

    His entire approach (from the evidence of his postings) is the postmodernist one: “Things are in flux, language is fluid, meanings shift, uncertainty is all.” That’s a very convenient position to take in forensic debate, as it allows you to wriggle like an oiled pig if anyone tries to pin you down to definitional specifics. The word “woman” is “contentious”? Really? I wonder if Kelly felt that way when he picked his wife.

    He seems to know quite well what the word “racist” means, since he frantically jumped to reassure us that his pot-and-kettle proverb was certainly NOT THAT, with appended explanations about Irish cookware. The word “black” may be fluid for him, but “racist” certainly isn’t — it’s one of those sacralized terms before which even the bravest of left-liberals quake.

    He uses the tu quoque fallacy to accuse us of being just as politically contentious as Icarus, claiming that it is therefore indecorous of us to laugh at that magazine’s discomfiture. But I wonder — he comes here to berate us for our politics and poetry, but has he written any letter of protest to the left-wing jackasses at Icarus about their “woke” editorial policy? Is Icarus “a toxic mix of politics and bluster”? If so, why isn’t he attacking them? After all, they’re much closer to home. But then again, maybe he feels safer lobbing mortars at us.

    What the hell the Congressional Friends of Ireland Caucus has to do with anything escapes me. If the Irish are stupid enough to stay in the E.U. their pals in the American Congress can’t do much to help them. As for the “sexual rapaciousness” of some Supreme Court members (notice that Kelly won’t name any names), how about specifics? Do you mean the exploded charges of that leftist bitch who tries to torpedo Clarence Thomas?

    Plain, glaring, open-and-shut fact of contemporary life Number One: WE ARE IN A MAJOR CULTURAL WAR. If we are to have a chance, everything has to be directed to that reality. All that Conor Kelly is trying to do is to confuse us with misdirection, chop-logic, quibbling, irrelevant quotations, and the same old postmodernist camouflage of gaseous uncertainty.

    Reply
    • Conor Kelly

      Oh Joe. Calm. Calm. Take a chill pill. You sound like a demented, opinionated, tabloid reader in an Irish pub at closing time rather than someone engaged in what you have the comic nerve to call “forensic debate” . I can take the insults and the name-calling, but I have one question in two parts. You might assist me by answering it.
      1: When you say “If Ketanji Brown Jackson is a left-wing “woke” liberal, we don’t want her on the Supreme Court…” who, exactly is “we”? It certainly is not those who are likely to confirm her.
      2: When, like an adolescent using block capitals on Twitter as a shouting mechanism, you say “WE ARE IN A MAJOR CULTURAL WAR”, who, exactly, is “we”?
      Looking forward to an answer.

      Reply
      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Conor,
        As the debate is about the definition of a ‘woman’, as a biological woman who knows the meaning of the term, I’d like to answer you.

        “WE” are the biological women who want to be defined as women. “We” are the women who don’t want biological men in our bathrooms, competing against us in the sports arena, on biological women’s hospital wards etc. etc. “WE” are the biological women who don’t want biological men exonerated of rape because they identify as women. “WE” are the biological women who don’t want the term “woman” redefined because it will lead to injustice. “WE” are all those who know that identity politics is a cultural war. All those women raped by biological men who identify as women will tell you this. All those women who have competed in the sports arena against biological men who identify as women will tell you this. All those parents whose kids are being brainwashed by the gender reassignment brigade will tell you this. All those people who don’t like the craziness of the ‘new normal’ and want sanity restored will tell you this. Please hear us – WE are real, WE are loud, WE ARE IN BLOCK CAPITALS and WE are everywhere.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Conor, you can pose all you like as the imperturbable voice of sweet reason if it suits your Hibernian narcissism. But the plain fact is that you haven’t answered a single one of my arguments, because you don’t have either the skill to do so or the requisite answers. Forensic debate? You wouldn’t have a clue about it if you were in such a contest. And that’s not an “insult” — it’s a cold observation deduced from your postings here.

        You ask about “we.” Well, the “we” certainly doesn’t include you, that’s for sure. We are those thinking Americans who don’t fall for the lies of mainstream media, who are totally contemptuous of the ideological insanity of left-liberalism, who don’t cringe in fear at the word “racism,” who know that postmodernism is an intellectual joke, who actually believe in the Bill of Rights, and who can recognize a “woke” fanatic like KBJ so ideologically constricted that she cannot answer what the term “woman” means.

        And Susan is right — WE are everywhere, and there are a lot more of us than you think, even in Ireland.

  25. Conor Kelly

    Susan
    I asked Joe what he meant by “we” and you answer “biological women”. Well that certainly doesn’t answer my question as Joe is not a biological woman.

    Joe
    Thank you for answering my question. I am heartened to hear that “the “we” certainly doesn’t include you…” Count me out. If you were not so consumed by spleen instead of sweet reason you would have seen that I have, in fact, answered some of your arguments, insofar as there are any arguments among all the name-calling. You just don’t like the answers. It is obvious that someone is losing an argument when he has to resort to insults and invective. I am sure you know enough about logic to know that argumentum ad hominum is the weakest argument you can make. (However I do like your phrase “Hibernian narcissism”.) In the meantime I will rejoin the bitches and pricks in the circle of hell to which you have me consigned.
    Another question for you. Why do so many Americans of your ilk blame what they call “the mainstream media” for all their woes? It is just another variation of the argumentum ad hominum approach. I would have thought that CNN and Fox News offer Americans a diversity of views.
    Enjoy April Fools’ Day tomorrow.

    Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      Conor, you said,
      “Susan
      I asked Joe what he meant by “we” and you answer “biological women”. Well that certainly doesn’t answer my question as Joe is not a biological woman.”

      You must not have read far enough…

      “WE” are all those who know that identity politics is a cultural war… All those parents whose kids are being brainwashed by the gender reassignment brigade will tell you this. All those people who don’t like the craziness of the ‘new normal’ and want sanity restored will tell you this. Please hear us – WE are real, WE are loud, WE ARE IN BLOCK CAPITALS and WE are everywhere.”

      Perhaps you reassigned meanings to those words I’ve copied in bold. That would be a very woke thing to do. Surely, “woke” isn’t an insult. Maybe it is today… or maybe it’s not. Such is your brave new world.

      My favourite words are, “We” are all those who know that identity politics is a cultural war…”
      We do know, and you pretend not to know, but you are still fighting for a future in which every word only means what the elite say it means.

      You can have that world. I don’t want it.

      I understand that you don’t think there is anything special about women. They have lost their spot in the victim hierarchy only to be replaced by transgenders.
      You have been treating Susan very disrespectfully.
      Stop it.

      Reply
      • Conor Kelly

        Stop what, Mike?
        You accuse me of treating Susan disrespectfully when all I said was that her “We are biological women” post did not answer my question as Joseph Salemi is not a woman; unless he identifies as one, which would be an interesting proposition.
        In fact, of my three interlocutors here, Susan is the only one who has (a) treated me with respect and not insulted me; (b) advanced arguments that are worthy of debate and I have tried to debate them; and (c) has a literary sensibility that is capable of appreciating poetry beyond its political resonance. I don’t believe you and Joe are capable of seeing the polished mahogany for the weather-beaten trees.
        In an earlier post you asked me to ” try to regain your sense of humour.” Fair point. So I have been overdosing on American political comedians. I have found Colbert, Myers, Noah, Kimmel and Bee. Can you recommend any conservative comedians that can help me regain my sense of humour?
        One last point. You say that I am “still fighting for a future in which every word only means what the elite say it means.” That reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who said “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” You have chosen the word “woman” to mean what you choose it to mean, neither more nor less. And thank you for elevating me to the ranks of the elite. That’s a promotion I never expected.

      • Mike Bryant

        Stop what?
        Stop disrespecting Susan by lying about what she said. Her answer did not say “we” are all or even only women. My post proved that but you continue to lie about what she said. I think there is more than a whiff of misogyny in your actions.
        Three of the comedians you cite have been slated for misogyny. Kimmel is not only a misogynist but has worn blackface. Is that why you like him?
        There are plenty of comedians. Your choices aren’t comedians, they are toadies for the elite. Oh, I never said you were one of the elite, but you do carry their water.
        No one here has chosen a meaning for “woman” despite your lies. “Woman” has never been a contentious or confusing term. It still isn’t and it will never be. If you’re confused, I honestly feel for all the women you know. Your mother, I assume, was a woman, but in your playhouse mirror world, who knows?

    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Conor, the correct Latin is “ad hominem” (accusative case, singular). It means an attack on the individual person rather than dealing with the arguments at issue.

      I dare you to specify, point by point, where I made any personal ad hominem attacks on you. Come on — let’s hear you tell us.

      Please drop the phony pose of an above-the-fray voice of reason. It’s pretentious and glib, like an Oscar Wilde repartee that is uttered simply to show off. You have refused so far, in several postings at this thread, to give any substantial answer to the arguments of Mike, Susan, or myself. All you have done is posture.

      Here’s the essential gist of what you have said in six postings:

      March 27: I am a “louse in the locks of literature.” There are “bitches and pricks” on the Supreme Court. One of the justices is a “sanctimonious bitch imposed by Moscow-Mitch.” Two others are “sexually abusive pricks.” (I suppose none of these effusions are “ad hominem,” in your opinion).

      March 29: A Texas politician (unnamed) is so stupid that he only reads children’s literature, and the man’s political party and Susan Bryant are in the same class. Susan and I ought to watch movies about trannie freaks, and Shakespeare should be seen as the “laureate” of the transgender movement.

      March 29: You don’t fully accept the distinction between fiction and reality; you believe language is fluid and therefore words cannot be pinned down to specific meanings; you hope the Congressional Caucus for Ireland will prevent a trade agreement between the U.K. and the United States; and you defend the magazine Icarus, claiming that the SCP is just as guilty of publishing bad poetry.

      March 30: You frantically scramble to avoid the charge of “racism,” and carefully backtrack from your pot-and-kettle proverb by explaining how old pots and kettles got blackened in Ireland, while making desperate apologies to everyone right and left.

      March 30: You call me “a demented, opinionated tabloid-reader in an Irish pub,” while still refusing to give a single valid response to any point that I (or anyone else) has raised.

      March 31: You claim to have answered our arguments when in fact you have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is to ring the changes on snide left-liberal rhetoric against conservatives. The one who is getting his arse kicked in this thread is you, with your faux Wildean posturing as the above-it-all voice of rationality and superiority.

      Tomorrow is April Fool’s Day? Wow, what a great argument. Aristotle would have been bowled over by it.

      Reply
      • Conor Kelly

        Thanks for correcting my spelling and grammar. My Latin has gotten rusty over the years.
        You issued a dare. Point out, you said, “where I made any personal ad hominem attacks on you.” Challenge accepted.
        Celtic facetiousness …
        wriggle like an oiled pig ….
        the Irish are stupid enough …
        gaseous uncertainty …
        Hibernian narcissism …
        don’t have either the skill … or the requisite answers …
        ideological insanity ….
        cringe in fear …
        pretentious and glib ….
        faux Wildean posturing …
        How is that for a list? (I don’t deny my own ad hominem attacks, but then I warned you I was a louse.)
        Your comparison of my comments to the wit and wisdom of Oscar Wilde is flattering but over-complimentary.
        One correction: while I certainly criticised the reading habits of a certain Texan politician, I didn’t apply that to his political party en masse and I certainly didn’t apply it to Susan. Learn how to read.
        Also, learn how to read between the lines. If you honestly think I see Shakespeare as the laureate of the transgender movement, then you have no sense of irony. I am aware that you have no sense of humour.
        Cheer up. The apocalypse hasn’t happened yet.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Conor, you still don’t understand what the phrase “ad hominem” means. It refers to a direct personal attack on someone’s character or appearance or lifestyle. An attack on someone’s attitudes or ideas or presuppositions is not “ad hominem.” If it were, all argument would be impossible. Attitudes, ideas, and presuppositions are fair game in forensic debate.

        If I called you a trannie-loving Mick scumbag, that would be ad hominem.

        If I said that you drank too much Guinness at the local pub and your brains were hopelessly ruined, that would be ad hominem.

        If I said that you were a bog-trotting Paddy living in the boondocks, that would be ad hominem.

        Let’s look at your list:

        Celtic facetiousness — this is a comment on your admitted tendency to be humorous and playful and non-serious in debate.

        like an oiled pig — this is a simile, directed not simply at you but at anyone who takes the postmodernist approach to epistemology.

        the Irish are stupid enough — this is directed at ALL those Irish who voted to remain in the E.U., even though it is clearly just the Smiley-Face version of the Third Reich.

        gaseous uncertainty — this is purely descriptive. Postmodernist thinking most certainly encourages vagueness, uncertainty, fogginess, and the incapacity to make clear and unambiguous statements.

        Hibernian narcissism — since your entire rhetorical approach here is to preen in the mirror of your imagined superiority to the rest of us, the phrase is perfectly descriptive. Since I have noticed the trait in many Irishmen (“blarney” is the usual term for it) I wasn’t directing it solely at you. But if the shoe fits, wear it.

        doesn’t have either the skill or the requisite answers — this is purely descriptive of you and your capacities, as demonstrated in this thread.

        ideological insanity — this was said in reference to left-liberalism. Go back and read it.

        cringe in fear — that is EXACTLY what you did when Mike Bryant made the joke about how calling the kettle black seemed “racist.” You got frightened, and all of a sudden your postmodernist theory of the “fluidity of language” disappeared, and you started quaking with excuses and apologies, like a Trotskyite defendant at a Stalinist show-trial. That was a real “tell,” as professional gamblers say.

        pretentious and glib — these are precisely descriptive of your rhetorical game-plan here. You decided you would come and “teach the dumb Yanks a lesson” by your pose as a witty man of reason and enlightenment. It turns out you’ve bit off a little more than you can chew, haven’t you?

        faux Wildean posturing — I said “faux.” I would never compare you to the great Oscar. He was a brilliant writer. As for you, you are just “a louse in the locks of literature” (your judgment).

        One last thing: you sarcastically thank Mike Bryant for promoting you into the ranks of the elite. That is really deceptive and disingenuous. You know very well that you naturally think of yourself as in the “elite,” being a left-liberal who is politically correct and “woke,” unlike all the rest of us poor benighted conservatives and rightists whom you despise.

  26. Mike Bryant

    I must say I find it hilarious that a retired grade school teacher, weak in debate, is questioning the credentials of the Honorable Senator Ted Cruz because he reads children’s books to his children.
    From Wiki:
    “ Cruz studied public policy at Princeton University, graduating in 1992 with a Bachelor of Arts cum laude. While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and, with his debate partner David Panton, Team of the Year by the American Parliamentary Debate Association.”

    Reply
    • Conor Kelly

      I may be weak in debate, Mike, but you are no great shakes yourself. Another case of the pot/kettle/black syndrome. I never questioned the credentials of the senator from Texas. I questioned his obsession with the political ramifications of children’s literature. I have no problem with him reading children’s books to his children. That is endearing. But does he have to read to them from the halls of congress instead of from the home.
      No. The senator does not get his credentials from Wiki (God forbid) nor from his skill as a student debater, skills that are now in abeyance as a recent embarrassing public debate with Tucker Carlson proved. He gets his credentials from the citizens of Texas who, fairly and freely and deliberately voted him into office. It is a pity that he won’t accept the credentials of the current President who was fairly, freely and deliberately voted into office by a greater majority.
      I don’t mind the insults you throw at me. I have a thick skin. But lay off my profession – your snide condescending comment about a retired grade school teacher is an insult to educators everywhere. They are every bit as honourable as senators. And lay off my country.
      As you say yourself: stop it.

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        So, you’re returning to that pot/kettle thing?
        I can’t believe that you recommend Jimmy Kimmel who used blackface in his comedy… yes racism, and his ‘The Man Show’ was unquestionably misogynistic. Trevor Noah has also told racist and sexist jokes. Heck even Stephen Colbert loves him his misogyny.
        That’s three of the five comedians you recommend… you, the paragon of modern propriety.
        Look, I’m no debater, I’m a retired plumber. No one gets more jokes about their job than I do.
        As for being snide and condescending about schoolteachers, I was not. I said it’s funny that you think your debating skills are anywhere near those of Ted Cruz OR Tucker Carlson’s, for that matter. I think Tucker edges Ted, but Dr. Salemi wins today.

        Was the current Resident fairly, freely and deliberately voted into office by a greater majority?
        https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-02-13/majority-of-americans-dont-trust-elections-poll
        That will be for Americans to work out, not you or the untrustworthy mainstream media. The MSM is trusted by less than half of Americans.
        Did I say something bad about Ireland? I love Ireland.

      • Conor Kelly

        Mike, many thanks for continuing to respond to my posts. I thought you would be sick of me by now. Just to clarify, I did not “recommend” Kimmel or any other comedian. I told you I found the five I named funny (they are.) I even asked you then, as I am asking you again, to recommend even one conservative comedian I can add to my curriculum of political comedians. I could do with a good laugh.
        Two things genuinely perplex me about you (and other dogmatic conservatives.)
        1: You rail against what you call the MSM, the main stream media. But, at the same time, you call Tucker Carlson a great debater. From a European perspective, Fox News, like CNN, is a major news organisation with millions of viewers and therefore solidly mainstream. Explain.
        2: Why are you (and other dogmatic conservatives) so convinced that Republicans are legitimately elected but not Democrats? If there was widespread electoral fraud by one side only, surely it would extend to elections other than the Presidential election? You rather undercut your own argument when you reveal that Steve Kovac is a conservative party activist and not an independent journalist. They do exist, you know.

      • Mike Bryant

        1) I said that Tucker, no conservative, more a libertarian, won the debate on that night.
        2) You could have left out “dogmatic” but you still would not have pigeonholed me. As far as public opinions go, the trust numbers ALWAYS change along the lines of party affiliation. You know that.
        Our local democrat leader voted twice. JFK and his rum-running father bought plenty of elections. His father, noticing that costs were getting out of hand in some small election, told JFK, “Dammit, you better watch what you’re doing, I’ll be damned if I’ll pay for a landslide.”
        And, as corrupt as the Kennedy clan is, JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
        If he said that today he’d be assassinated. Maybe that’s WHY he had to shuffle off…

      • Mike Bryant

        Oh… for absolute delight George Carlin is great… not conservative at all and not even alive, but he is still playing on YouTube. His tombstone reads per his instructions, “He was here a minute ago.”
        We’re here for a minute or so too.
        Also Dave Chapelle, The Closer.
        Don’t tell your friends you laughed.

      • Conor Kelly

        Mike, it’s late on a Friday night and I am tired so, excuse me, but I haven’t a clue what your last two posts mean. But it appears that you are recommending a conservative comedian called Dave Chapelle. I will certainly look him up. Thanks for the heads-up.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Conor,
        I withdrew from this debate thinking it was going nowhere. Having read your latest comment, I’d like to mention a few points that might get us back on track. I don’t believe everything should be judged on a political basis. I give much more credence to whether one thinks an idea is just. I don’t believe the government has any business in our children’s sexual development. I don’t trust any authority that serves to gain from a “program” that is abusive. I believe puberty blockers are abusive. I also believe the skewing of the term “woman” leads to unfair, dangerous, and abusive acts where biological females are concerned… hence my satirical poem.

        Many found my poem humorous. It was meant to be, while also making a serious point – just as Ricky Gervais did at the Golden Globes awards. Ricky is left… the old fashioned left… a dying breed. We’ve moved on since the days of left and right. To my mind we live in a world where we mistakenly believe government-paid “experts” and big pharma-paid politicians have all the answers. I don’t believe in their divisive tactics for power-grabbing purposes. I draw upon the wisdom of my research, my heart, and my conscience to come to a decision. My decisions are not always fixed. Living in Texas for eleven years has been an eye-opener… for the better. I am always willing to listen and to learn, but when women and the children they gave birth to are being abused, I’ll stand up and fight their corner. Please answer the questions above that I asked of Paul Freeman. I’d like to hear a straight answer on my valid concerns and I’ll listen with interest and an open mind. It’s only then I might know this exchange has been worth it… for me, at least.

  27. Russel Winick

    THE NOMINEE

    Ketanji Brown Jackson
    In women’s rights actions
    Applies Title IX
    To what she can’t define.

    Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      Perfect, Russel, it looks like definitions really do matter… the question really should be answered. Perhaps she could recuse herself from any case which involves the fairer sex, even tangentially.

      Reply
  28. Joseph S. Salemi

    Just a quick note:

    Conor Kelly has indeed insulted Susan Bryant twice, in his post of March 29. Let’s look at the textual evidence. He writes:

    “Susan, your efforts to corral the definition of ‘woman’ must leave you feeling, at times, like King Canute trying to repel the waves encroaching on your native Britain.”

    (Basic translation: Susan, you are just as big an idiot as King Canute in his foolish compulsion to do the impossible.)

    He writes further:

    “Paul and Frank above are right to question the relevance of the term to the Supreme Court hearings, unless you are of the same intellectual inclination as the Texas politician whose beachside reading in Cancun is not Shakespeare, Joyce or Proust but Doctor Seuss and kindergarten books. Sadly, like many in his party he has not progressed from the children’s section of the library to the adult section.”

    (Basic translation: Senator Cruz and many in his Republican Party are idiots who only read children’s books, and you are obviously of the same intellectual inclination.) Conor Kelly will most likely try to finesse his way out of this one by claiming that the “you” in this sentence is the impersonal usage, and does not refer to Susan herself. But a clearer impersonal usage would have been “one” and not “you.” I think Kelly definitely intended to insult Susan, but he tried to cover his arse here by artfully making the pronoun ambiguous.

    Reply
    • Conor Kelly

      I am not as artful as you suggest and don’t need you to provide a translation, basic or otherwise, of what I write. I stand by my comments and opinions just as you stand by yours and Susan, no doubt, stands by hers. I find it amusing that you, the crown prince of insults, should call out anyone for being insulting.
      By the way, if you paid more attention to the mainstream media that you despise you might not be as ignorant and abusive as to accuse the Irish people of being stupid for voting to remain in the European Union. No such vote ever took place. The referendum was in Britain. Facts matter.

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        I did not write that the Irish had VOTED to stay in the E.U. I wrote that they were stupid to STAY in the E.U. At least the British people had the gumption to force a vote on Brexit, and get themselves out of that sick tyranny of arrogant Germans and snotty Belgian bureaucrats.. Actual words matter.

  29. Conor Kelly

    Don’t lie, Joe. These are your exact words – “this is directed at ALL those Irish who voted to remain in the E.U., even though it is clearly just the Smiley-Face version of the Third Reich.” There was no vote on the matter in Ireland. Actual words matter.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Yes, yes, you’re right. I did misspeak in that second post. My mistake. But the bigger issue is this: It is just as stupid for the Irish to STAY in the E.U. as it would be to VOTE to remain in the E.U.

      But if you like being lorded over by arrogant Germans and snotty Belgian bureaucrats, I guess your Irish have lost a bit of your manliness.

      Reply
  30. Mike Bryant

    Election Watchdog Finds 137,500 Ballots Unlawfully Trafficked in Wisconsin

    10 trillion unique cell phone ‘pings’ were used to reconstruct the movements of ballot box intermediaries in 2020 election
    By Steven Kovac March 29, 2022

    At least 137,500 absentee ballots were cast through unlawful vote trafficking throughout several of Wisconsin’s largest cities in the 2020 election, according to research presented last week to the state Assembly’s Committee on Campaigns and Elections by the public interest organization True the Vote (TTV).

    Ballot trafficking is an activity in which absentee ballots and votes are solicited, sometimes in exchange for money or other valuables. They are then collected through a process called “harvesting” and delivered to drop boxes by intermediaries (someone other than the voter), who are often paid a per-ballot fee by partisan actors.

    “An organized crime against Americans” is how TTV cyber expert Gregg Phillips described to the committee what happened in Wisconsin and elsewhere during the 2020 election.

    Based on his 15-month study of election practices in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Michigan, Phillips estimates that at least 4.8 million votes were trafficked nationally.

    According to the True the Vote report, 242 intermediaries in metro Atlanta made 5,668 stops at drop boxes during elections in late 2020. In its report, TTV said it obtained 4 million minutes of drop box video surveillance tape that helped to document its Georgia findings.

    “Many of the traffickers we spoke with do not recognize what they are doing as being a problem,” TTV spokesperson Catherine Engelbrecht said.

    The study found that in Arizona, 202 intermediaries made 4,282 separate visits to ballot boxes in Maricopa County.

    Several Arizonans have since been indicted for election law violations, with at least one conviction, according to Phillips.

    Phillips told the committee that, in the states studied, TTV purchased from commercial brokers 10 trillion unique cell phone identity signals called “pings.”

    Human rights organization First Freedoms funded the time-consuming and costly project.

    Using a technique called geospatial mobile device signal analysis, Phillips said researchers are able to reconstruct a four-dimensional “pattern of life” of cell phone holders.

    “From these pings, it can be determined where you work, where you sleep, and even what floor you are on within inches,” he said.

    The Wisconsin study focused primarily on the Milwaukee County area, with some partial initial data coming from Racine and Green Bay, where the study will soon be further expanded, Phillips said.

    In those three areas, TTV’s cell phone ping research found that in the two weeks from Oct. 20 through Nov. 3, 2020, 138 individuals each visited the location of a nongovernmental organization at least five times and made a combined total of 3,588 trips to absentee ballot drop boxes.

    “That’s an average of 26 trips per person to drop boxes in the Milwaukee area,” Phillips said.

    “Is this evidence of fraud?” committee member Lisa Subeck, a Democrat, asked.

    “Vote trafficking is being done through the process. It is illegal,” replied Engelbrecht, who stated that every vote cast illegally cancels the vote of a legitimate voter.

    Wisconsin Statute 6.87 (4)(b)1 provides that an absentee ballot envelope, in which the cast absentee ballot is placed, must be “mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.” The Circuit Court in Waukesha County in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, has agreed, holding that use of drop boxes for absentee voting violates Wisconsin law.

    Drop boxes, if unattended by a municipal clerk or in an unauthorized location, are illegal under Wisconsin law. The law is currently being challenged in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

    In her testimony, Engelbrecht stressed that the TTV report was focused on the process and wasn’t attempting to prove the 137,551 votes were illegal votes.

    State Rep. Dave Murphy, a Republican member of the committee, stated: “If you vote in an illegal way, it is an illegal vote. If the process is illegal, the vote is illegal.”

    Earlier in March, the report of special counsel Michael Gabelman on voter fraud revealed that some personnel of nongovernmental organizations are suspected of coordinating the 2020 ballot harvesting operations in Wisconsin’s five largest heavily Democrat-run cities—Milwaukee, Kenosha, Green Bay, Madison, and Racine.

    When asked by Rep. Donna Rozar, a Republican, to name the NGOs in the study that were repeatedly visited by intermediaries, Phillips declined.

    A spokesperson for Micah Inc., a leading Milwaukee nonprofit philanthropic organization, told The Epoch Times that Micah does conduct “voter engagement efforts,” but declined to say more.

    Phillips and Engelbrecht testified that enormous nonprofits, such as National Vote at Home, are promoting voting from home and favor doing away with in-person voting on Election Day entirely.

    “Most countries around the world vote in person on election day, including Ukraine,” Phillips said.

    Engelbrecht argued that some countries have perfected secure blockchain electronic voting and said she thinks U.S. technology is advanced enough to at least ensure accurate election data.

    She said that some U.S. election jurisdictions view inaccurate voting rolls as a “feature rather than a bug.”

    “Our rolls are abysmal. Bad records are the gateway to fraud,” Engelbrecht said.

    “If you can’t verify identity, you can’t do anything else,” Phillips said.

    Rep. Ron Tusler, a Republican, asked if TTV could identify the 138 alleged ballot harvesters (also known as “mules”).

    “We know the names but are not disclosing them,” Phillips said. “Anyone can buy them commercially. However, law enforcement would need a warrant.”

    In the other states studied, government-made video surveillance tapes of ballot drop boxes obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests were used as part of the process of estimating how many ballots were trafficked, along with personal interviews with intermediaries and other tipsters and cell phone ping data.

    Engelbrecht told the committee that in Wisconsin, in September of 2020, her organization set up a hotline to receive tips from informants.

    Unlike other states where video surveillance footage of the drop boxes was made available to TTV investigators, Engelbrecht said that only one of the 17 Wisconsin localities studied provided TTV with video.

    Engelbrecht stated that in the summer of 2020, the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) announced it approved of video surveillance of the state’s drop boxes, as recommended by the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

    “WEC did not follow through,” she said.

    Neither did WEC provide to localities written guidelines based on CISA’s recommendations for the locations where the drop boxes were to be placed, according to Engelbrecht.

    She testified that across the country, the majority of the ballot drops surveilled typically happened between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m.

    Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, in January 2020. (Masooma Haq/The Epoch Times)
    She told the committee that the removal of 234,000 problem names from Wisconsin’s registered voter rolls, as recommended by the Electronic Registration Information Center, was stopped by a lawsuit.

    Forty-nine-year veteran elections attorney James Bopp Jr. came before the committee to provide a legal perspective to the facts presented in the TTV report.

    Bopp has litigated 200 election lawsuits and is currently legal counsel to TTV. He is also representing special counsel Gabelman in several lawsuits against him stemming from his investigation.

    Bopp testified that filing an avalanche of lawsuits was part of a years-long effort by Democrats “to make the whole system more susceptible to fraud and abuse.”

    He said 425 lawsuits were filed across America by Democratic Party operatives or front organizations in the runup to the 2020 election.

    Bopp asserted the suits were designed to ensure ineligible people were maintained on voting rolls; to expand voting to every voter on the rolls, whether active or inactive; and “to tear down every other anti-fraud protection, such as prohibiting signature verification and striking down witness requirements for absentee voting.”

    Turning to Wisconsin, Bopp pointed the committee to what he called “the corrupt and illegal activity and administration of election laws for partisan ends engaged in by your Wisconsin state government and municipalities designed to maximize the number of Democrat votes.”

    Addressing the alleged embedding of partisan get-out-the-vote efforts within local governments in Wisconsin’s largest cities, Bopp said the practice evades federal and state campaign contribution limits of just a few thousand dollars, and gives real-time, hour-by-hour, cost-free access to voter rolls to partisan actors.

    Bopp said the practice disguises its partisan nature, disguises the identity of out-of-state billionaire donors contributing millions, thereby violating the principle of transparency and exceeding contribution limits.

    “Despite clear and unequivocal state law, drop boxes created the infrastructure to accomplish all of this,” he said. “Drop boxes left unstaffed and located anywhere clearly violated state statutes.”

    He criticized what he said was the “grossly partisan, corruptly political, and blatantly illegal” actions of the people administering Wisconsin election laws.

    Bopp asserted that the actions in Wisconsin gave significant partisan political advantage to Democrats, exactly the people the plan was designed to help.

    “Ruthlessly exploited by large-scale organized and illegal ballot harvesting operations, involving not-for-profits and the people working with them, (the scheme) could very well have influenced the outcome of the 2020 election,” he said.

    “What has been disclosed—and, in my view, proven—is that there were sufficient irregularities in the 2020 election that a court, at the time, could have reached the conclusion that the true result cannot be determined. But that time has passed.

    “It’s not about overturning the 2020 election. It’s about the future. The situation is crying for reform.”

    Rozar reminded the audience that numerous election reforms passed by the legislature have been vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat.

    Neither Evers nor state Attorney General Josh Kaul, also a Democrat, responded by press time to requests for comment.

    Steven Kovac
    REPORTER

    Steven Kovac is an Epoch Times reporter who covers the state of Michigan. He is a former small businessman, local elected official, and conservative political activist. He is an ordained minister of the Gospel. Steven and his wife of 32 years have two grown daughters. He can be reached at steven.kovac@epochtimes.us

    Reply
  31. Joseph S. Salemi

    It’s as plain as a pikestaff that the 2020 “election” was fraudulent, and that operatives for the Democrat Party have illegally placed a senile cheat in the White House. He isn’t The President. He’s The Resident.

    But Conor Kelly won’t deal with the facts presented above by Steven Kovac at Epoch Times. He’ll just dismiss them as “fake news,” and cling all the more tightly to the religious dogmas that he gets from the BBC and other mainstream media outlets. After all, left-liberalism is now a religion, and a strong fundamentalist one at that.

    Reply
  32. Conor Kelly

    Okay Joe, it looks like it is time for me to bail out. I have now wandered on to the set of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” This is just to let you know that Nurse Ratched is off duty and the doors are, in fact, open. So you can walk out if you want. I have the feeling you’ll stay.
    You claim that “It’s as plain as a pikestaff that the 2020 “election” was fraudulent…” Well, pikes and pikestaffs are not plain. If you study the 1798 rebellion in Ireland, you will know that they are tainted with history. Seamus Heaney has a wonderful sonnet about it called “Requiem for the Croppies”. But somehow I don’t think you are interested in poetry or history. Nurse Ratched will be back soon with the pills.
    You call me a strong fundamentalist because I take my news from what you derisively call the mainstream media. So you want me to take the word of an avowed conservative activist who works for a news organisation that, according to Wikipedia, is “a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.” And you call left-liberalism a religion.
    Not only do I take my news from the BBC, but also from ITV, RTE, Channel 4 and Virgin Media. But, no doubt, these diverse organisations are all part of the mainstream media and purveyors of fake news. Even conservative newspapers in Britain such as The Daily Mail and The Telegraph, who hate Biden and constantly run stories denigrating him and his policies, have never gone down the road of alleging election fraud. So it looks like you and the Epoch Times are out on a limb here.
    I can tell you, Joe, what is plain as a pikestaff. You are barking in the dark, you are barking up the wrong tree and you are barking mad. Also, thankfully, your bark is worse than your bite.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Yet again, Conor, you are “bailing out” before answering the poet in this debate. You haven’t addressed my poem, only my “King Canute” character. The only waves I’m battling are the waves of idiocy or evil, take your pick. I’m sure there are many on this site who would like to hear your voice of reason on the rape of women by transgenders on hospital wards, transgenders in women’s sports, and the grooming of our prepubescent children before they’ve had the chance to experience the knowledge of their own budding sexuality. Am I as a biological woman invisible, ignorable, and obsolete before the SCOTUS nominee has been appointed?

      Reply
      • Conor Kelly

        Susan, I am not bailing out on you at all. I just can’t take any more of Joe’s mania. I am bailing out on him. I have found your responses very respectful and I owe you an apology. Not for countering your arguments, but for ignoring the poem that inspired this lengthy thread. You say many found the poem humorous but I found it better than that. Let me just pick four things I admire.
        1: I’d give anything to write a line as sharp and as metrically coherent as “The thought of naught is apt to leave me fraught.” The internal rhymes give it a real punch.
        2: I like the way you offer a clever variation on the not knowing your ass from elbow phrase in the line “I do not know my elbow from my penis.”
        3: I like the way you rhyme “dismissed” and “biologist”.
        4: I like your mastery of the sonnet form.
        I have seen your work in SNAKESKIN and I know from certain rejections I have received that George Simmers does not accept anything other than good, well-written clever poems. Just as we have a dispute over the politically charged term “woman”, I have had a humorous dispute with George over the poetically charged term “azure.”
        I am tired. It is Friday night. So you will have to excuse me if I don’t rise to your challenge of addressing the questions you asked Paul. Give me the weekend to recharge my political batteries. and I’ll re-enter the fray.
        In the meantime, enjoy your own weekend in Texas.

  33. Joseph S. Salemi

    I suppose that the publications of the White Rose dissident student group in Nazi Germany in 1943 were also “out on a limb,” and clearly insane, since no news agency in Hitler’s Third Reich would have confirmed a thing that the White Rose students reported.

    In a world run by demonic liars, truth is a lonely voice. But for you, Kelly, truth is always in the voice of the big battalions.

    You know what you are, Kelly? You’re a gutless conformist — what the French call a “bien-pensant.” That’s someone who spouts unthinkingly everything that he reads in mainstream papers, and hears on mainstream broadcasts, and listens to in conversations with his like-minded friends, and who immediately dismisses anything that contradicts the accepted pieties of his comfort zone.

    I’m not interested in poetry and history? Wow. Buddy, I’ve forgotten more poetry and history than you know or will ever know.

    You said in a previous post that when someone stoops to “ad hominum” [sic] argument, it means they’re losing the debate. What have you stooped to here, with accusations of insanity and “barking” madness and “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” references? Is that the best you can do, pal? It’s pretty pathetic.

    But it’s clear that you’re wildly anxious to “bail out” of this catfight. Your above posting is barely coherent, and reeks of desperation. OK, let’s call it a day. As for my bite, there are enough of them on your arse right now to guarantee you’ll remember me.

    Reply
  34. Paul Freeman

    To answer the poet. When you make a comment like: ‘To my mind you’re coming across as a misogynist,’ there is no longer any debate. It’s a clever, some would say sly ploy to cast aspersions on me, dismiss anything I say and unfairly label me. Mike did the same to Conor, with his ‘I think there is more than a whiff of misogyny in your actions’ comment, which came across a bit Witch Finder General-ish (‘a whiff of sin’), I felt.

    It’s a bit like someone making a comment like ‘Is it because she’s black?’ to explain why someone is anti Ms Jackson. It would be stooping very low.

    For your interest I believe that anyone born biologically male should not be allowed to participate in women’s sport because it’s not an equal playing field.

    By the way, there’s a film called ‘The Crying Game’ which looks sensitively at the trans community. There is however a shocking scene when Forest Whitaker, an American, is filmed bowling a cricket ball. The MCC has never recovered.

    That’s it from me. I have to do some writing.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Please don’t take me out of context, Paul. This is how the conversation went:

      “No need to patronise. Next time you’re interviewed for, say, a faith-based job and the interviewer asks you questions about king prawns, remind me about dumb questions.”

      “You’re not being patronized, you’re being asked. Is it okay for a man who identifies as a woman to be exonerated of rape? Give a straight answer for once. The law is being skewed to allow this. To my mind you’re coming across as a misogynist (simile). I am a woman and I know exactly what that means… even though I’m not a biologist.”

      You certainly got your big dig in on the “faith-based” job front (ad hominem) before I made my observation, a fair one having spent much time trying to converse with you on the plight of women and rape which you refused to answer. You flame throw and leave. This happened on March 25th. Eight days have passed. You’re confusing me. Does it take you that long to answer, are you hoping to humiliate me, or are you asking for an apology?

      Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      Paul, you said, “To answer the poet. When you make a comment like: ‘To my mind you’re coming across as a misogynist,’ there is no longer any debate. It’s a clever, some would say sly ploy to cast aspersions on me, dismiss anything I say and unfairly label me. Mike did the same to Conor, with his ‘I think there is more than a whiff of misogyny in your actions’ comment, which came across a bit Witch Finder General-ish (‘a whiff of sin’), I felt.”

      First, you won’t even call Susan by name… “the poet” indeed… hmmm. You’ve been studiously ignoring Susan for eight days… not very gentlemanly… but certainly not misogyny, right?

      Second, “… there is no longer any debate.”? Really, Paul? Conor certainly didn’t feel like that. He’s been debating all the time you’ve been sulking, so… no, you’re wrong about that, aren’t you?

      Third, congratulations on standing up and (almost) calling me a “Witch Finder General” searching out a “whiff of sin” but shouldn’t that be a whiff of heresy? Oh, of course not… heresy’s home is with the easily-hurt woke.

      Fourth, speaking of heresy, Paul, you said, “For your interest I believe that anyone born biologically male should not be allowed to participate in women’s sport because it’s not an equal playing field.”
      That really is heresy, but I’m not the one to sniff that one out. You have disappointed so many caring people with that unfeeling pronouncement. Are you transphobic?

      You don’t have to answer any of my questions… I fear I may have sent you into hiding for another week.

      Reply
  35. Conor Kelly

    You have asked me, Susan, to consider your posts and give you “a straight answer on my valid concerns.” As you know I have been joshing around on this page with an often juvenile hurling of barbs – some of them directed at you – and I have been taking pleasure in baiting a certain member of the flat-earth society and watching him wriggle on my fishing line as I reel it in. But you want me to be serious, so I will try.

    Lat me begin by saying something that will probably stop you in your tracks and may stop you reading any further. I actually believe that Judge Jackson was as wise as Solomon in refusing to respond to the question of Senator Blackburn and the taunting by Ted Cruz. I also believe – as do certain eminent Republicans – that the honourable senator from Texas is a duplicitous, spineless, conniving, smug, self-satisfied, gutless politician, what Shakespeare would call “a whoreson dog”, what Yeats would call “a vainglorious lout” and what I would call, in American slang, “a sonovabitch”. Enough of that.

    Why do I think the judge was wise? If she had answered the question according to what she might espouse (see my comments below) and according to what I would consider her judicial responsibilities, she would have lost all Republican and some Democratic votes. If she had answered as you would have liked her to answer, she would be hypocritically betraying what she believes. So she deflected. Rightly. Let me make one prediction that is already becoming obvious. In time, the judicial, social and political issues surrounding the transgender movement will become as toxic and as controversial in America as those now currently surrounding the pro-choice/pro-life movements. And all the judges will have to confront those issues.

    Now for our differences. The problem is what I would call a Galileo-Church problem. Everything depends on where you start from – the sun or the earth. And you and I start from two very different positions. You are a conservative. And, before I go any further, I assure you that, despite what Mike and Joe say, I do not despise, denigrate, feel superior to or condemn the conservative position. I just disagree with it. (After all Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, mentioned tangentially by Mike in his Icarus attack, was a great and noble Irishman.)

    As a conservative you believe that certain laws are immutable. To you a man is a man and a woman is a woman. And that is that. You mention genitalia in your poem and chromosomes in your post. That leads you to the positions you take on sports, rape, children, surgery etc.

    I think in a different manner. To me most men are men and most women are women. But, and this is where you and I fundamentally differ, there is a small, but significant part of the population that do not identify with their biological status. Their gender and their sexuality diverge. Many simply suffer this. Some deal with it by cross-dressing. And some undergo surgery or other medical procedures to address the problem.

    The Welsh writer James Morris climbed Mount Everest with Sir Edmund Hillary and reported back for The Times of London. Later he transitioned to a woman and underwent sex reassignment surgery. He became she, the famous travel writer Jan Morris, and wrote about his/her transition in the aptly named “Conundrum” which begins : “I was three or perhaps four years old when I realised that I had been born into the wrong body, and should really be a girl. I remember the moment well, and it is the earliest memory of my life.” As you are interested in poetry, you are probably aware of the American poet, translator and critic, Stephen Burt who, in 2017, transitioned to a woman and is now Stephanie Burt.

    I have not the time to deal with all the points you make on this page so I will just consider two of them – sports and rape.

    Sports
    You ask “If a biological male identifies as a “woman”, is he a woman and should he be able to partake in women’s sports?” That question is not as simple as it sounds. What if the biological male has transitioned surgically to a female? There are, as there always are in life, shades of grey. You are British and you understand rugby. The governing body of the sport has said transgender women cannot play women’s rugby. But the ruling is not based on political or social concerns. It is based, rightly, on safety concerns. Many sports are not contact sports and so those concerns do not arise. Swimming, which has hit the headlines recently over one particular swimmer who transitioned with medical procedures, is one such sport. The question I would ask you is this; should transgender athletes be prevented from participating in sports? I would also make two other points. Much sport is participatory rather than competitive. Plenty of people don’t care who wins. The pleasure is in the participation. And when it does come to competitive sports, it is possible to find solutions. Many mainstream (I hesitate using that word in the presence of Mike or Joe) sports have rulebooks that run to multiple pages with clauses and sub-clauses governing all possible eventualities. It should be possible to address the issue of transgender athletes within the parameters of the particular sport. All that is needed is an open mind and a willingness to accommodate everyone: male, female and transgender.

    So, as you can see, I don’t even agree with Paul on this one. He says “I believe that anyone born biologically male should not be allowed to participate in women’s sport because it’s not an equal playing field.” That is far too rigid for my liking. As an ageing teacher I often participated in soccer matches with the flabby over-weight teachers on one team and the fit-as-a-fiddle students on another. That certainly wasn’t an equal playing field. But who cared? It was sport; it was fun; it was competitive; it was healthy. Genuine sports are not about winning; they are about participating. And everyone should be encouraged to pursue some sporting activity no matter what way they identify themselves.

    Rape
    You ask “If a biological male identifies as a “woman” and rapes a biological woman in a UK hospital and is then exonerated because ‘there were no men on the ward’ – is he a woman? If he is a woman, is that conduct acceptable?” You are actually asking two questions here and the first question is not nearly as significant as the second. Is that conduct acceptable? Allow Frank to answer that one: “rape is forced sex with a woman and whether the culprit is a man or a woman or a man posing as a woman, it is rape and should be punished in a manner that no one would ever think of doing it again.” The problem of biological males committing rape in hospital wards is insignificant compared to (note: I didn’t say it was insignificant, per se) the problem of rape on college campuses, the problem of rape on date rapes, the problem of rape within the family and, dare I say it to you, the problem of a former President facing credible accusations of rape. Rape is a serious problem many women have to confront and the culprits are predominantly male, not women or transgender women.

    Also, I don’t see why the statement ‘there were no men on the ward’ could or should exonerate anyone of rape. While rape is predominantly a male crime, it is not exclusively so. It has nothing to do with identity and gender and everything to do with violation. As an Irish person who grew up during the Troubles, I have very little respect for the British judicial system and if they exonerate rapists on spurious grounds, I would not be in the least surprised. After all, Lord Chief Justice Widgery exonerated the British soldiers who murdered fourteen innocent men in Derry on Bloody Sunday. It took years before the Saville inquiry righted that wrong.

    I know you have other concerns, but they all boil back to the Galileo-Church divide. You stand on one side; I stand on the other. We might not agree, but at least we can acknowledge our differences respectfully.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Connor, I thank you for taking the time to consider my questions and for getting back to me so promptly.

      Firstly, it saddens me to hear such venom from you where Dr. Salemi is concerned. It saddens me further to hear that you have been “taking pleasure in baiting [that] certain member of the flat-earth society and watching him wriggle on [your] fishing line as [you] reel it in.” The fact that you’re having to “try to be serious” with me lets me know I’m also a figure of fun – another member of that irksome society of flat-earthers that you are putting yourself above.

      I am, however, happy to answer you. I would like to start with your analogy of perceived differences. You say it’s a “Galileo-Church” problem. You say “You stand on one side; and I the other” yet, you don’t make clear what side that is.

      As you’re speaking to my character without knowing a thing about me, I’ll let you know exactly whose side I’m on. I don’t have a church or a political party. I left them. I’m on the side of God and Galileo, and I’ll hazard an intelligent guess here, I think you’re worshipping at the altar of Wokeness – the new global religion. So, we agree on something – it is a Galileo/Church problem.

      I have sympathy for those with body dysmorphic disorder. I have sympathy for those whose personal choice of gender doesn’t agree with the settled science. I have no sympathy for a government-funded program that brainwashes, drugs, and mutilates our children. I have no sympathy for a law that allows biological men to take advantage of women in sports, on hospital wards, in bathrooms, or anywhere for that matter.

      Galileo Galilei was a scientist who believed in God. He was a man who was up against the inevitable tide of church power, propriety, and piety. Anyone who wishes to embrace immutable truths such as chromosomes is up against the new religion of Wokeness. A religion that embraces puberty blockers, sexualization and castration of children, identity politics, and the list goes on. This church is aligned with global governance and anyone who doesn’t believe that the Woke church is at the center of the universe is a heretic. So, there we go. We’re not going to see eye to eye, because, as I’ve learned, today’s Woke churches have no room for God and no room for science. In the Woke church 2 + 2 = 5 and one X plus one Y chromosome equals whatever the hell you want.

      Thank you for your time and your thoughts. I hope next time we meet we’ll have the wonders of literature to discuss. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

      Reply
  36. Conor Kelly

    Thank you for your speedy response. But I find some things a little odd.

    Why is it acceptable for you to use satire (and use it more successfully than me) when you cleverly attack Judge Jackson, but it saddens you when I take a satiric approach to someone whose views and beliefs I find as ridiculous as you find those of the judge? Is that not hypocritical? Why does it upset you that I have a small amount of fun at your expense, when you have a large amount of fun at the judge’s expense? Is that not hypocritical?

    You accuse me of “speaking to my character without knowing a thing about me.” I haven’t said anything about your character. I don’t know you. I have addressed my remarks to your poetry and to your views. I have not tried to mischaracterise you, yet you extrapolate from my views a picture of my character. “I’ll hazard an intelligent guess here,” you say. If it is a guess, it is a hazard and it is also a slur and it is not intelligent. (Don’t worry; I am thick skinned.) And then instead of acknowledging that I am a traditional liberal or leftist you say that you “think you’re worshipping at the altar of Wokeness.” I don’t really know what that means, but I do know that it’s meant to be an insult rather than a political point. Again, I don’t mind, I’m thick skinned. But I don’t think it advances the argument.

    And talking of arguments, you completely ignored them . You asked me to address your points and I did, specifically with regards to sport, to rape and to justice. I discussed the points you made, but you totally ignored the points I made on those topics. Why did you ask in the first place, if you didn’t wish to engage?

    You completely misunderstand the point I was making when I talked about the Galileo-Church distinction. But that is entirely my fault as I didn’t make it clear. It has nothing to do with either religion or science. It was all about perspective. Let me see if I can make it clearer. The Catholic Church believed the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun orbited the earth. Galileo believed that the sun was the centre of the solar system and the earth orbited the sun. Two entirely different perspectives. So your penultimate paragraph about Galileo, the Church. God and religion is redundant. But that is my fault for not being clearer.

    In conclusion, do me one favour. Stop using that trite insulting word “woke”. George Simmers believes that no self-respecting poet should use the word “azure” as it is overused and therefore drained of any poetic resonance; I believe the same applies, in political argument, to the word “woke”.

    Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      woke adjective
      \ ˈwōk \
      woker; wokest
      Definition of woke (Entry 1 of 2)
      chiefly US slang
      : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
      But we will only succeed if we reject the growing pressure to retreat into cynicism and hopelessness. … We have a moral obligation to “stay woke,” take a stand and be active; challenging injustices and racism in our communities and fighting hatred and discrimination wherever it rises.
      — Barbara Lee

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/

      Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Connor,
      I don’t want this thread to end on such a sour note, especially in this divisive day and age. I am not a hypocrite. I am a fan of satire and I have a sense of humor. The fun you poked at Dr. Salemi’s expense doesn’t come across as satirical to me. As for the term “woke”, I didn’t mean it as an insult, I thought it apt with this thread of conversation in mind just as you thought it apt to call me a “conservative”. I am hoping we can move on from this distraction to the bigger picture. In this area we may have a couple of things in common.

      I’ll start with rape – that’s my main concern. The term “rape” has gone through many changes, but I agree with you and Frank in that a woman can be raped by another woman. Rape is a problem in society. It always has been and always will be. Holding up transgenders as oppressed victims of society who need to be protected by the law and given rights that allow a biological male to take full advantage of a biological female’s vulnerability, will lead to further rapes. This is already evident in schools, on hospital wards, in bathrooms etc. It is why I am having this conversation. It’s not because I’m “conservative”. It’s not because I’m prudish. It’s because I care for the future of women and children. If a transgender has a penis, the women’s prisons, hospital wards, and any other place where those with vaginas are vulnerable should be off limits. Yes, as we’ve agreed a woman can rape a woman, but man is more inclined to do so and stands a far greater chance of overpowering a woman. This is why the definition of “woman” in the legal sense is so important. You are right when you say KBJ was wise to avoid the question. The American people wouldn’t have liked her real answer, and it would jeopardize her chances of becoming a Justice. But she certainly wasn’t as “wise as Solomon” – his response was in the interest of fairness, right and wrong, justice – call it what you will.

      This brings me to another important point. You say you “have very little respect for the British judicial system, and if they exonerate rapists on spurious grounds, I would not be in the least surprised.” I share your concerns. Many criminals worldwide have been exonerated on spurious grounds down to a corrupt judicial system. Why then do you hold up this SCOTUS nominee as being ‘as wise as Solomon’ when she won’t answer a question that’s important to the American people? If she believed wholeheartedly in her ideology, why not tell the people how amazing it is? I’ll tell you why. It’s because her answer would upset and appall many people worldwide for the reasons I’ve outlined above.

      As for sports, professional sport is a business like any other. People buy tickets to see a fair game on an “equal playing field” (I agree with Mr. Freeman wholeheartedly on this matter). Watching “flabby overweight teachers on one team and fit-as-a-fiddle students on another” may well be fun, but not if you want to sell tickets. There is no fun in seeing a biological male overpower and beat a biological female senseless in a boxing ring, winning only because of their physical differences… unless you happen to have a warped outlook.

      The global powers that be have made it clear that they want the powerless to be frightened, compliant, and few. We’re well on the way. They never do anything out of care. Funding transgender programs in kindergarten is as far from caring as one could possibly imagine.

      We are not going to agree, but I hope as you said previously, we can acknowledge our differences respectfully.

      Reply
  37. Courtney

    The humor of this poem is lost on me, but then I’ve never been very good at laughing at someone else’s expense.

    If you ask 1,000 people to define love, you may easily get 1,000 different responses.

    This question says more about the complexity of modern society than it does about any specific person. Trying to make this woman the scapegoat for that complexity is textbook New Jim Crow. Thinly veiled racism is just that, thinly veiled and painfully obvious to those that are willing to acknowledge the weaknesses of the United States as well as its strengths. In trying to make a fool of her, they have made fools of themselves.

    On April 7th, 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of The United States Of America.

    Signed,

    She Who Laughs Last

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Courtney, thank you for your comments – I appreciate your viewpoint.

      This poem is pure satire. It is a look at the ridiculousness of a society that can no longer define the term “woman”. It is a look at a tragic subject through a comic lens. It has nothing to do with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s sex or color. It has everything to do with her attitude towards society’s view on what it means to be a woman and the impact her attitude may have on the future of biological women. Her reaction to the question is of significance to me and society in general for the reasons I’ve already highlighted above (please read the comment just above yours to give you an idea of where I’m coming from). I NEVER judge a person on skin color, only on the content of their character. Color didn’t enter my head when I created this poem, just as it didn’t when I wrote all my other satirical poems. When I mocked Joe Biden, I didn’t once think of his color, only his behavior and how it impacts all of us.

      By reducing my poem to a racist slur, you have missed the most important point. I am fighting for the future of biological women – women in society who are getting raped on hospital wards, in bathrooms, in prisons, etc. by biological men who identify as women. I’m also fighting for biological women in sports who are no longer able to compete fairly.

      The term “woman” should NEVER be politicized in the interest of an agenda that is detrimental to biological women. Many would like to think a Supreme Court Justice (regardless of color) had the same views – sadly, this is not the case.

      The majority of biological women are far from laughing now. They are wondering what the future holds in a post-truth era where chromosomes count for nothing. I am one of those women… aren’t you?

      Reply
  38. Evan Mantyk

    Dear Susan,

    Thank you for this poem! I think when the history of this period is one day written in the future, the issue of transgenderism and people in places of power seeking to redefine what genders are will be a defining mark as to when our civilization had really reached the bottom.

    A limerick for you…

    Susan Bryant knows women from men
    And can count on her fingers to ten;
    She’s more qualified
    To be glorified
    Than those at 1600 Penn.

    Reply
  39. Susan Jarvis Bryant

    Evan, you are most welcome. You’re spot-on with your civilization reaching the bottom observation… how low are we all willing to go? And, your limerick gift has made my day! Thank you!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Conor Kelly Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Captcha loading...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.