I don't do GDPR. I don't have a mailing list, pop-ups, click bait or advertisements. I do not do "current events" as I like to wait until facts come out and I have to grok on it until fullness is achieved.

This is a one-man operation that I get to after my day job and family. I post every Monday, Thursdays when I can. All comments are approved to prevent spam.

Please, like and share my Facebook Page.


The hatred of the left

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

When I say hate in the context of the title of this article, I am not being hyperbolic, nor am I exaggerating. Let me explain why.

An adage I follow is "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." When Air America was on the air, I listened to it. In small doses, mind you, but I did regularly tune into that radio station. A couple of weeks ago, I added The Young Turks into my podcast list. I listened for an hour for three consecutive days, and I haven't activated my podcast app since, I was so revolted by the hate, the ignorance, the distorted mindset and the vitriol that spewed from my speakers. Two "events" came to mind as I was thinking about this post.

The first was one of TYT called Mitch McConnell "evil." I don't know about you, but "evil" implies a lot of things. When Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader of the Senate, I can hardly think of a subject or stance I could find common ground with him. I think Reid was a devious, underhanded, unscrupulous, kind of guy, but I would stop well before I would use the term "evil" with Senator Reid. But TYT had no problem using it. By applying that label to someone who only has a political or philosophical difference with you, that cheapens the value of the word. I'm sure that we can all agree that people like Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and a few others really are "evil." When you throw Mitch McConnell into that group, you actually make the others sound 'not so bad.'

This is the second one. I actually found a video of it:

It should be understood that Aero Mexico wouldn't show someone who said no, because that would undercut their ad. In fact, there were 4 individuals and one couple asked at the beginning. The two people that expressed interest, one wasn't asked if they would go to Mexico. He didn't explicitly say "yes," it was an implied "yes" because he asked if his wife could go. The second person to imply a yes put a condition on it, "if there were Taco Bell's on street corners down there." I don't know if this gentleman knows there is very little in common with real Mexican food and what's on a Taco Bell menu. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he knows there are no Taco Bells south of the border. To say what he said, knowing there are none down there I can only interpret as a big "screw you" to anyone who believed he would go there.

I am more concerned with how Mark Thompson, Helen Hong and Brett Erlich (L to R, as they sat facing the camera) spoke of and judged these people. Mark said, "These people don't have passports, they're not going to the next state over where Bubba lives." While Helen said, "Those people live within a 20 mile radius from where they were born." Later on, she mocks them (in a forced Southern accent), "The only thing I love more than my racism is discounts." I couldn't take it after, "I've been to Mexico and the best thing about Mexico is those people are not there."

This is not funny, this is not political commentary, this is an intentional and repeated mocking of people who live in "flyover country" and who don't agree with the talking heads.

Quite frankly, it's this attitude and mindset that sickens me. This is what I fight against, the belief that these elitists know better for other people, even better than the people know themselves. I am all for personal choice and personal responsibility of accepting the consequences of their choices. Why Leftists can't accept that, I guess I will never know.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Housekeeping

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Just a bit of clean-up behind the scenes. No post this week due to hectic swing shifts over the weekend. I promise multiple articles next week.

My "Memes to Consider" over there to the right has grown to almost 200 items. I was feeling bad that you might not be seeing all of them, so I have set it up so a smaller group of about 30 memes for each weekday and another 30 for the weekends.

I will also update my linkroll with some more podcasts, stand by to stand by!

Write comment (0 Comments)

A case study for stupid laws

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

To paraphrase Darth Vader, "The idiocy is strong in this one."

The Hawaii State Legislature is considering H.B. 1509, introduced by three legislators, to increase the minimum age required to legally buy cigarettes, until you have to be at least 100 years old. I did not mistype that. One hundred years old. IF enacted (and it's a pretty big IF), the legal age to buy cigarettes would jump to 30 on 1/1/2020, then every subsequent year it would jump to 40, 50, 60 years, then all the way to 100.

Now let me explain to you the Aircraft Carrier-sized holes in this law:

  • This only affects the sales of cigarettes from stores.
  • It does not regulate possession.
  • It only restricts cigarettes, not pipes, cigars and so on.

So, I can see 60 year old people profiteering (because the only state law on profiteering relates to gasoline; I checked) by buying cartons of cigarettes and selling to their family and friends. I can see vacationers flying in with multiple cartons to sell. I can see family and friends on the Mainland Fedexing cartons. Then you have all of the people just switching over to the other forms of tobacco usage to keep their nicotine levels up.

Then we will also have the black-market running a healthy profit. My wife's grandfather was a stevedore and she has told me some stories about him. In-line with this, I found the Hawaiian Libertarian, and specifically this post: The Illusionary Rule of Law.

The long-term effects of this are numerous. Another law that will have a drastic negative effect primarily on small businesses, a big boost in sales (and profits) for the already rampant black market, an exploding gray market, a drastic fall off in state revenues from the "sin tax" on cigarettes, a further disregard for the rule of law by the people, do I really need to go on?

This clearly illustrates the point of "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong."

Write comment (0 Comments)

The hypocrisy of #BLM

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

I wholeheartedly suggest you watch this video first, all 12 minutes and 37 seconds of it. My comments will be below the video.

This young man explains very clearly a deep and glaring hole in the Black society. Kudos to him. If you didn't watch the video, let me summarize:

A child is killed in a drive-by shooting. Grieving Mother points out "White man with blue eyes" as the shooter. The community marches, demanding justice. Famous People Get Involved. The Young Turks and other Leftist talking heads lament about "hate crimes" and "racism."

Then the police investigate and arrest two YBM's (Young Black Males), one for driving the car and one for pulling the trigger. Further investigation shows the mother and the shooter are connected through Facebook and the event that caused the shooting might have been drug related.

That's when the marches and calls for justice die away. The Young Turks delete parts of their show related to this incident. Because "Black people don't snitch on Black people."

Let me get this straight. If a Black child is killed by a White person, the Black community marches and demands for justice are made. When a Black child is killed by a Black person, the Black community closes around the killer with a ring of silence. Not snitching on a YBM is obviously more important than making sure another child doesn't die in the crossfire of people who can't resolve disputes without gunfire. Matthew 7:3-5 and all that. For those of you who don't study the Bible, that's the parable of "Why do you want to remove the speck of sawdust in your brothers' eye but ignore the plank in your own eye?"

And people actually wonder why thousands of YBM's are killed by other YBM's every year. Get a grip people. Unless and until the killer YBM's are taught violence is not an acceptable first response and expelled from the Black community, and society as a whole, the mounting pile of bodies will not stop growing.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Abortion done correctly

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Last week, Governor Mario Cuomo signed into law a bill from the New York State Legislature implementing what he calls "a full Roe v. Wade". I find this admiring and reprehensible at the same time I find this admirable because I believe that this is about how the issue of abortion should be settled. I mean this should be a state level issue that is voted upon by either the representatives of the people in that states legislature or by a referendum of the people directly.

I find this method far preferable to the method of how we arrived at Roe v. Wade. Just in case you don’t know, Roe v. Wade is the 1973 landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion on demand throughout the United States. It was a decision for one case of one woman who wanted an abortion and couldn't get it because the laws in her state made the practice illegal. The matter was decided by nine judges who were not elected by the people and “by precedent” forced upon all 50 states.

I support New York's action to do this legislatively because I think each state should, either through the legislature or by popular referendum, decide as a state on passionate issues like this. So while New York may pass something like this, Nebraska may not and it should be perfectly fine either way. I support this because this is an ideology consistent with my position that the states are actual independent countries and need to decide internal issues such as this on their own and not have the federal government, which is supposed to regulate the states and not the actions of the people in the states. So I applaud New York for taking such a step.

I personally find the the action of aborting a child to be reprehensible, spiritually, morally  and ethically. I can and do moderate my position because I do not have the power and I do not want the power to regulate a woman's body or any aspect of any other person’s life. I will always advocate for the woman to deliver the child, however in the end, that decision (and the karmic debt) is hers to bear alone.

When you look at the New York abortion bill, the particulars of it are a total abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for any reason. Which means that pretty much as long as the baby is not in the process of coming out on their own (i.e. the mother is in labor), the mother can decide to destroy the child.

There are three general exceptions under which most people agree that abortion is acceptable. They are:

  • In cases of rape or incest;
  • For the life of the mother;
  • The child would be malformed (a known severe mental, developmental or physical birth defect)

According to Gallup, public support is in the majority for an abortion in the first trimester if one of those conditions are met. Down Syndrome is at 49% (and within the margin of error), but “for any reason” is at 45%.

In the same poll, the people were asked the same questions about the third trimester, respondents still gave a majority support for life of the mother and rape or incest. Everything else dropped under 50%, with “for any reason” at the bottom at 20%.

While a proper full term white pregnancy is 40 weeks, medical technology today deliver a baby as young as 25 weeks with a 50% chance of survival. That baby will have many lifelong medical conditions because it is not fully developed. A child can be delivered at 27 weeks (which is seven months, the beginning of the third trimester) with a 90% chance of survival and very little if any medical intervention or life-long medical issues.

The current dividing line between “fetus” and “child” is, “The child is ‘completely expelled’ from the mother” and one of these conditions are met:

  • Breathes;
  • Has a heartbeat;
  • Pulsation of the umbilical cord;
  • Voluntary muscle movement.

Which leads us to the “late term” or “partial-birth” abortions. I'm sorry to be gruesome here, but in a partial birth abortion, the doctor induces labor and brings the baby out feet first, leaving the head still inside the vaginal canal (so “it” still meets the first condition above and is legally a fetus and not a child). While the head is still within the mother the doctor pierces the back of the “fetuses” skull to scramble and destroy the brain, then removes the brains through a suction tube.

As of this moment, in the state of New York, that is perfectly legal, all the way up to the second before the child wants to come out on their own.

I now have a question, very serious question, because this has happened at least once that I can find. If, during the initial stages of a partial-birth abortion, the “fetus” pops out all the way, be it through its’ own random movements or the doctor flubbing it, could the procedure continue and the “clump of cells,” now a child is terminated? I guess in New York State, the answer is “yes.” Now, do the people of New York agree with this law? I don't know. I do know we will find out during the next state election cycle when the legislators who voted for it are either ejected from, or returned to office

Writing this article wounded my soul. My soul cries out against the action while my mind praises the process it was arrived at. This has been one of the hardest articles I have ever had to write and I’m angry and sorry it had to be written in the first place.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Who's the obstructionist here?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

No one is blameless in this matter. I blame the feckless Republicans of the 115th Congress that couldn't carry out their Constitutional duty to create an annual budget, I blame the 116th House for being stubborn and obstructionist because Trump is breathing, and I blame Trump for trying to uphold the duties of his office and protecting our national security.

Now that the shutdown has entered its' 31st day, unless you read past the headlines of "TRUMP REFUSES TO SIGN BUDGET," you won't see that Trump has extended multiple compromises to Nancy Pelosi, all of which have been refused. He has offered to reduce the amount of funding he has asked for, as well as temporary protections for DREAMers (which was an Unconstitutional program by Obama, BTW).

So now I have to ask, "Who are the real obstructionists here?" Trump is asking for physical barriers along "high priority sections" of the border, and what he is asking for is, compared to the totality of the federal budget, a "rounding error." Look at it this way: $5 Billion is 0.5% of the deficit, and 0.12% of the total budget.

I respect both President Trump and Obstructionist Pelosi (I'm using that title from now on instead of "Speaker") for making their respective stands for what they think is right and important. They are also teaching most every American exactly how much they "need" the federal government. Yes, many families are affected (including my own and those close to me) by the restriction of federal government operations. The good news is, many will learn just how much they (don't) need the government. In reality, the longer this shutdown goes on, more and more Democrat voters will realize they can get along just fine and maybe better without government assistance. When those people discover this, they have a good chance of leaving the Democrats.

I also found out while writing this post that after 30 days (which was yesterday), the government can permanently lay off furloughed workers through a Reduction In Force (RIF) program. Why is this critical? Because the bureaucrats who are interfering with President Trump from advancing his agenda aren't in the office screwing things up.

This article from The Daily Caller from a "Senior Trump official" says the following:

Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.

Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.

Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the vast majority of "the swamp" that have interfered with Trumps agenda has been out of the office for the past month. And thanks to Obstructionist Pelosi, most of them are now gone permanently. Pelosi has just drained the swamp for Trump by being stupid and goadable.

In the long term, "Obstructionist Pelosi" is hurting her own power base and her desire of the expanding power of government more than helping it. So, keep holding out Nancy, you'll only destroy any chance the House will remain Democrat or win the White House in 2020.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Busy on things

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

I have been overly busy on multiple fronts the past week. I have been working on a deep dive article, but because it's heavy with math I'm trying to write it so it's not a "TL;DR" kind of article. Please keep visiting and remember, this is a one-man operation in his spare time.

Write comment (0 Comments)

The 116th House is off the rails already

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Well, that didn't take long.

On the first day after being sworn in to office, the House of Representatives for the 116th Congress has already spewed forth as how Shakespeare said it in Macbeth, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I say that because with a Republican controlled Senate, even if the House passes these bills, they will go to the Senate and be ignored. Kind of like when Harry Reid sat on 420 bills passed by the House.

So, here we go:

"For the People Act", a mishmash of House procedural rules and moves to "protect" the Mueller investigation and the ACA.

Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), who has been elected in three different Congressional districts (not at the same time, of course, but you never know) sponsored H.Res. 13, Articles of Impeachment on President Trump. The heinous crime? Firing Comey, and thus "Obstruction of Justice."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (an admitted Socialist to the Left of Bernie and Trotsky) wants to introduce a "Green New Deal" that would wreak havoc on our economy, and finance it through a doubling of the income tax on our highest wage earners. Which, if you look at things like the Laffer Curve or even history, where you see high tax rates actually curtail government tax income.

My own Congresscritter, Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted bill H.J.Res.7 to eliminate the Electoral College. This truly would introduce the Tyranny of the Majority because almost half of the population are concentrated in cities, most of which are Democratically controlled.

I will be consistent and support Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) on her stance when she refused to take her oath on a Bible. She is the only person in the Senate to not identify as a member of a religion. Instead, she took her oath of office on a copy of the Constitution. I can support that. Taking an oath on a book you don't believe the teachings of is not an oath. It would be like taking an oath on the Yellow Pages. When you do take an oath on a book, for that oath to be binding, you need to respect and try to live by the words in the book.

I do have an issue with her doing that while tacitly supporting violent groups with a "wink-and-a-nod." Here is a 2002 email from her "community organizing" days:

“When AAPJ [Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice] attended May Day (sponsored by the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition), we knew that their guidelines differ from ours,” Sinema emailed a fellow protester. “They are okay with weapons and property destruction in some instances, and so those of us who chose to attend the event knew that it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not destroy property or to carry a weapon.” [Square brackets mine]

Knowingly letting people who have no problem with carrying weapons and causing property damage to "a peaceful protest" is kind of counter productive, don't you think? Unless you secretly agree with their methods and/or objectives. Like I said, "a-wink-and-a-nod." Peaceful and passive protestors can be ignored. Protesters willing to break property and bust a few heads aren't so easy to ignore.

And there you have it. A Sanitarium truly run by the Inmates.

Write comment (0 Comments)

"We're not them"

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

I am beginning to think that the major problem is not excessive government, rather SJW-led corporations. We already know about Facebook, Twitter, et.al., banning people whose political views don't agree with management. And in ideas developed through Operation Choke Point, the financial strangling of people who have jobs or businesses deemed "undesireable" by the government. The latest effort to silence "undesireables" has resulted in accounts for Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, James Allsup, and Milo Yiannopoulos being banned from Patreon.

The result of this is Dave Rubin and Jordan B. Peterson leaving Patreon (where they both derive a substantial portion of their income) and starting their own payment service. This, I believe could be the start of something that's been looming on the horizon, namely a "Conservative economy."

In 1986, Rupert Murdoch founded Fox Broadcasting Company. Murdoch did this because he saw the "Big Four" (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) being unabashedly Liberal in their reporting and views. So, Fox has made a serious effort to present both sides of an issue. They are clearly Conservative, however they do have real Liberals on their panels and they are allowed to voice their opinion. If there are any non-Leftists on panels on the other four, they are milquetoast centrists who couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag and are frequently shouted down. Fox became very popular very quickly because of a simple advertising strategy: "We're Not Them." By being a voice different from the Big Four, FOX attracted almost half of the country because up until then, the needs of that half of the country were not being met.

Now we are starting to see alternative platforms crop up. I discovered MeWe a couple weeks ago. It's a Facebook competitor who openly states they don't collect your information to "provide you with targeted ads." We anxiously await the Ruben/Peterson alliance (whatever it's name will be), and there are other websites and services who tell you, "We're Not Them."

I like the idea of platforms being platforms and not arbiters of what is good and proper speech.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Qualifications vs. Diversity

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Social Justice Warriors, I don't know why, seem to lack a basic grasp of reality and observational powers. Combined with their recursive thinking that "if they want it badly enough, it will come true," if they can get their "inclusive" agenda, the result will be staggering numbers of dead and disabled people. This will also lead in directions that *I* see, but obviously they don't.

I speak specifically about this article, Making U.S. Fire Departments More Diverse and Inclusive by Corinne Bendersky.

She starts with the first paragraph:

Picture a typical firefighter. Who comes to mind? If you imagined a white man, that’s understandable: 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white. This homogeneity is striking, especially when you compare it to the U.S. military, which is 85% men and 60% white, and local police forces, which are 88% men and 73% white.

To which my response is, "Aaannnnnnnnndd?" Because there are two distinct factors in play here, both conveniently ignored by the author. They are 1) the prospective firefighter must apply for the position (they must want to do it) and 2) there is a set of physical and mental standards that must be met to adequately and safely perform the job at hand. Those physical requirements, by the way, are written in blood. The blood of those who could not physically perform the job and those killed or disabled because the first person could not do the job.

In 2015, I wrote about the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force in my article, Women in Combat. Included in my post was the article Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat.

Sergeant Major Justin Lehew, who was part of the GCEITF and wanted it to succeed, had this to say:

With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train everyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. [emphasis mine]

The report sent to the Secretary of the Navy had this to say, (page 79):

  1. The female Marines integrated into the closed MOS units demonstrated that they are capable of performing the physically demanding tasks, but not necessarily at the same level as their male counterparts in terms of performance, fatigue, workload, or cohesion.
  2. Integrated units, compared with all-male units, showed degradations in the time to complete tasks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target. The size of the differences observed between units and tasks varied widely. The more telling aspect of the comparisons is the cumulative impacts. The pace, timing, and accuracy of any singular task is not necessarily important, but taken together, and in the context of actual combat operations, the cumulative differences can lead to substantial effects on the unit, and the unit’s ability to accomplish the mission.
  3. Gender and MOS type are the best predictors of occupational injuries. In particular, we found that females are more likely to incur occupational injuries, resulting in reduced readiness compared to their male counterparts. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to incur non-occupational injuries. Additionally, Marines in vehicle MOSs tended to have lower injury rates than those in MOSs that march (i.e., foot mobile) or Artillery MOSs.

Let me spell this out for you: The best female Marine is outperformed by 19 of 20 male Marines. In combat, the slower unit will likely lose in a fight. Integrated units are slower than non-integrated units. This ends only one way: more flag-draped coffins than there should have been.

How does this apply here? I can't say this enough: In physically demanding jobs where lives are on the line, the physical standards to those jobs are written in the blood of those who didn't meet those standards. If a firefighter cannot haul a downed fellow firefighter (or policeman, oil rig worker, et.al.) to safety in time, both will die.

Just in case, if you're reading "women can't be firefighters/Marines/Whatever," you're stupid. If a woman can meet the physical standard (not the women's standard, the same standard as men) and wants to work in that job, I have no problem with it. My day job consists of me routinely loading 40 and 50 pound bulky equipment boxes into and out of my work van. Out of the 40 technicians in my group, 3-4 are female. They can do the job and I don't have a problem with it.

To force gender equality in jobs like this will end very badly. But here's a worse dimension.

About 1975, I read a book, This Perfect Day by Ira Levin. It's the story about a dystopian society, where the computer "Unicomp" (Universal Computer) made most of your life decisions for you. I remember this passage quite clearly, just not word for word. The scene was where Chip (his actual name was Li XE 4827143) was lamenting that Uni had decided that he was to be a molecular geneticist when he really wanted to be something else, I forget what.

"Chip," the counselor said, "You know Uni always makes the best decisions, right? Uni has read all of your test scores and your teachers' notes about you to select the best possible work for you. Can you imagine if everyone wanted to be an actor but no one wanted to work in a crematorium?"

I clearly see that, not too far into the future, if SJW's can force this "gender equality" into any job (not just the physically demanding ones) then not too long after that, you won't get a choice about what you do to earn a living. You will be told what to do and that's that. Think about this: If the job openings for a given job type are to "equally represent" all racial and gender groups, how is that fire department going to find a mixed race Black/Asian lesbian that wants to be a firefighter? Because, you know, if a position requires that specific racial/sexual demographic, how easily can that position be filled?

Forcing diversity, be it racial or gender, without regard to the physical and mental demands of a job will end in failure, the only question remains is, "how catastrophic?"

Write comment (0 Comments)

The reason why

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

This may seem counter-intuitive, but the proper way to tackle the issue of “hate speech” is to have more speech, not to silence the speaker. I have to put that term into scare quotes because it is often invoked for any kind of contradictory speech. By the massive overuse of the term, it destroys any impact it would normally have. Overuse almost normalizes real racists, like Louis Farrakhan, who compared the Jewish people to termites, or Sarah Jeong, recently named to the New York Times Editorial Board, who has Tweeted things like:

  • “Dumbass f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
  • [It’s] “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
  • “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?”

You can find even more of her best Tweets in the article Racism, Revised.

Can you imagine the outrage if Jeong had said “Black” instead of “white”?

Please, spare me the “it can’t be racism if the race of the person has no power,” implying minorities can’t be racists. Which, of course, defies how Merriam-Webster defines it: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

To defeat true hate speech, both factually and sociologically is to allow more speech to fight the hate speech. If we do not curtail the speech of these haters and we let them prattle on long enough, there's multiple things that are going to happen.

First of all we're going to see who they are. We won’t need to doxx them, they will proudly step out into the open and say who they are. This means social conformity pressure can be applied to them.

Second, left to their own devices they will eventually counter their own arguments just through ideological inconsistency. My favorite example of this is Leftists say, “we should remove soda and snack machines because teenagers can’t make good food and lifestyle choices by themselves.” Then they turn right around and say, “Pregnant teenagers should be able to abort their unborn baby without parental knowledge or consent because they should have the choice.” Any rational person will rightly think, “You can’t have this both ways. If teenagers aren’t mature enough to handle the decision on to buy a candy bar or soda or not, how can they be mature enough to decide about aborting a pregnancy on their own?”

Third, the longer we let them shout their hate, the more extreme they will inevitably become. They will instinctively get more and more radical, looking for how much they can get away with, just like a child who tests the limits and resolve of their parents. The good side of this is people who initially followed this person out because the ideas “sounded good” (or maybe a morbid “train wreck” curiosity) will leave in droves as this person becomes less and less rational.

Fourth, I will never condone any governmental control over speech other than the minimum. Right now these types of speech do not enjoy a Constitutional protection:

  • Obscenity (Using SCOTUS’ Miller Test)
  • Child Pornography
  • Incitement for imminent lawless action
  • False alarm (shouting “Fire!” when there is none)
  • Libel/slander.

Those are all well-defined and socially unacceptable in any context.

Now, if a committee (A committee is a life form with eight or more legs and no brain) were appointed by the government to decide on what is hate speech or not, would not the opinions and decisions of that group change over time? If scrutinizing statements A and B to determine if they were hate speech, this year they might decide A is the hate speech and B is not. Yet next year B might become the hate speech and A is acceptable.

I only have to point to the recent “Net Neutrality” regulations as a clear example. The regulations were made official one day, then a few months later after the administration changed, the regulations were rescinded. Would you really want your freedom of speech Rights subject to such whims of men and government?

I will never call for the restriction of a persons’ free speech outside of the already declared terms above. If I were to call for the speech of any person to be curtailed, be they Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan or Sarah Jeong today, tomorrow I might be the one who is silenced. That will just not do at all.

I for one do not want to be the next Maximilien Robespierre, who orchestrated the French Reign of Terror, the march of thousands to the Guillotine during the French Revolution. Robespierre did that job so well he eventually made that march himself. We should all learn from that lesson before we lose our heads, both freedom-wise and literally.

Winston Churchill defined a fanatic as, “Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” If you get into an argument with a fanatic, be they Left, Right or Center, always remember that you most likely are not going to win them to your point of view. It would be easier to turn a Cleveland Browns fan into a Baltimore Ravens fan. You will not win despite your best reasoning and most persuasive arguments. I admit, while winning the fanatic to your side would be a wonderful thing, your real target and victory goal is convincing everyone who is watching the discussion and may not be decided on the subject.

Here’s the most important point. If we as a society silence anyone, we are all damaged. That silencing of someone, it doesn’t matter if you agreed or disagreed with what they said, that act will cause you to pause ever so slightly in what you have to say from then on.

Or as I saw on the Web a while back:

Q: How do all Soviet-era jokes begin?
A: By looking over your shoulder.

To silence any person, for whatever reason, puts us all on that path. Think on that very carefully.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Flynn was set up

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

If you don't detail read and analyze the MSM over a long period of time to catch the right snippets to understand what's going on, you have no idea why the postponement of Lt.Gen Michael Flynn, USA (Ret.) is such a big deal. Let's start off with the facts.

1. Flynn was part of the Obama Administration and was a vocal opponent of Obama's Iran Deal.

2. Obama advised Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor. Trump told Obama to pound sand and hired him anyway.

3. In late December 2016, during the transition, Flynn went on vacation with his family to the Dominican Republic, where Flynn did not have access to secure phone services.

4. During this vacation time, Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the US, which prompted a call between Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the US and Flynn, as part of his role as the US National Security Advisor. Talks like this are part of the job. Flynn took the call because he would be the NSA in 3 weeks and the present NSA would be out of a job.

5. This call was recorded and transcribed by a US federal agency, I don't recall which one (NSA is internal to the US, CIA external). This could not have happened (recording of the call) if it had been on a secure (encrypted) line. This is why the expulsion happened when it did, when Flynn did not have access to those lines and could be monitored. The transcript was made available to the FBI before the next point.

6. On January 24th 2017, 4 days into the Trump Administration, two FBI agents interviewed Flynn in his White House office. Flynn was told "he didn't need a lawyer" and the White House Council was not informed of the interview. There are already a couple of violations of procedure here, namely the FBI not telling the White House (and the WH Council) that they were coming over to interview Flynn.

7. The 302's (FBI paperwork forms for reporting the interview and the particulars) indicated the FBI agents "detected no deception" from Flynn.

This is where things start to happen. Think about this: You're on vacation and trying to relax. You suddenly have to take an unscheduled high-level call mid-vacation and over an unsecure line. Truthfully, do you have the ability to take notes and would you remember every detail of what was discussed during that call? No, most people wouldn't.

Now, almost a month later, you are asked to provide exact details about a call you may only superficially remember, and the people asking the questions already have a transcript of what you said. There is also no lawyer telling you to "shut your pie hole." Wouldn't you call that an unfair advantage?

Because you don't have perfect recall of the conversation and you give an inexact recollection of the call, you are charged with "lying to federal investigators." And when I mean inexact, I mean something as minor as, "during the call, you spoke about the subjects of this, that and the other. In your statement just now, you said the sequence of the subjects were the other, that and this." Flynn was also threatened with being prosecuted under the Logan Act, a law passed in 1799, OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO and a law that no one has ever been prosecuted under. The Logan Act prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. What FUCKING PLANET MUST YOU BE FROM to even conceive that the incoming National Security Advisor is unauthorized to speak with foreign governments????? That's his job.

Then, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller (I am invoking the "short bus" meaning of the word "special" for that title) promised to bankrupt Flynn by legal fees that will be run up defending himself from these charges, then prosecute and imprison Flynn and his son for this heinous act of not keeping his story straight... unless he "cooperated" with Mueller's investigation. Flynn was already bankrupted from legal fees by this time, because no private citizen has the resources to defend themselves from the unlimited resources and prosecutorial powers of the United States government.

So it comes out a couple days ago that the 302 used to charge Flynn for the process crime of "lying to federal investigators" was discovered to be dated August 2017. For an interview that happened in January? What sort of chicanery is this?

This certainly raises the specter that possibly this 302 is somehow different from the January 302.

Here is my take on today's events: Judge Emmet Sullivan understands the charges are totally bogus and is trying to help Flynn retain his integrity and honor by refusing to accept the guilty plea. The sentencing has been delayed until April 2019 to give Flynn's legal team the necessary time to fully uncover the truth about how a trap was set specifically for Flynn. This trap was set by people who want to destroy every aspect of Flynn's life. Personally, financially and professionally.

Here's the good news: The truth is already starting to come out. People know things and suspect more things. Otherwise Sullivan would not have postponed the sentencing. When (not if) the truth comes out, Mueller and his minions will be liable for a massive libel/slander lawsuit from Flynn and serious criminal misconduct charges from federal investigators. Like a couple orders of magnitude above what happened to Mike Nifong.

Stay tuned people. Things are going to get interesting....

Write comment (0 Comments)

Platform vs. Publisher

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Our major Social Media sites, for all intents and purposes, is committing a slow suicide. I am speaking specifically about Facebook, Twitter, Google and their various subsidiaries. Let me explain why.

There are laws out there that define and regulate “platform” and “publisher” differently. They have different purposes, different objectives and different liabilities.

A “platform” by its very nature has no agenda, no bias and on its’ own no regulation. Think of a stage in a park or the town square, where anyone can get on it and proclaim to all the world whatever they want to say. It is a true state of freedom-of-speech. You can say whatever you want to say and everyone in the area can pay attention or ignore you as it pleases them.

A “publisher,” however, is a totally different thing. A newspaper is a publisher. It provides a product that others can purchase. The owners of the newspaper, because they front the money for the printing press, the ink and the distribution, has the absolute right to control what goes into their product. It is within their power to publish or not publish anything they want. They have the legal ability to negotiate a contract with someone who wrote an article and obtain an “exclusive-right” license for that article, if the author agrees to that contract. “Exclusive-right” meaning only the publisher can use it, the author can no longer decide when and where it is published. If the publisher has that “exclusive-right” for that article, they can publish it in the newspaper… or never publish it, effectively silencing that author on that subject.

If the author were to take that article (or a similar one) to another publisher, then legal entanglements might abound over copyright, Intellectual Property and contract laws. You might want to read the story of “Famous Amos” and his cookies. Because of licensing issues, he cannot every use his name or likeness on any products he makes now.

In summary, platform == no control, publisher == total control.

Facebook, Twitter and others have repeatedly proclaimed “WE ARE A PLATFORM!” The facts, however, indicate otherwise.

Twitter has admitted that they “shadow ban” Conservatives, YouTube has curtailed Conservative channels, Facebook routinely not publishes and bans Conservative pages.

By performing these actions these Social Media sites have crossed that line from platform to publisher. Publishers do not enjoy the same the legal protections as platforms. When Social Media claims to be a platform but acts as a publisher, the end will not be beneficial to those companies.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Been Busy

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

If you have been frantically waiting for a new post from me, my apologies. Between working 50+ hour weeks, family and home stuff, I have been taking night classes to upgrade my skill set. That will be over soon and I'm (slowly) working on several deep dives as well.

Sorry to make you wait, I should be posting new content soon after Christmas.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Hey Dad, I miss you bad

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Yesterday marked the 17th anniversary of the passing of my Dad. It was a Sunday morning, I was in the hospital, he was in Hospice at my Sister's. I wanted to talk with him one last time when my nephew told me he had passed in the night. From the time I left home in 1979, my parents and I talked by phone at least once a week. It didn't matter if I was in Illinois, California, Hawaii, Japan or Guam.

My Dad was many things in his life. I know he was proud of me for joining the Navy to be a Sailor like him. I sure he would have been proud of me when I became a Master Mason, then Worshipful Master.

There is a whole lot more that I wanted to tell you about my Dad, but I can't. The tears won't let me see the screen. This pretty much describes how I feel about my Dad.

Write comment (0 Comments)