One of may Markisms goes like this: "A gift is something to give to another person that they want but would not get for themselves. A present is something you give to a person that you want them to have. Know the difference" (this is important later).

I found this the other day: (Here's the link if I can't get it to play)

https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz/video/7327628729058856223

A young woman, a random media person, is lamenting on camera that the entire news media, across all networks and websites, are laying off most, if not all, of their work force. If you didn't notice, Sports Illustrated is no more.

This is what happens when you try to run news/journalism as a for-profit venture. Because profits had to be shown, news coverage had to go from balanced and in-depth, to the loud, salacious, grandstanding, inflammatory "be first now let the facts catch up later." The viewer was forced into a state of near-panic, kept on the edge of their seat, anticipating the next and new detail or word. And because when you're loud, salacious, grandstanding and inflammatory, each new story has to be even more so. And it's at this point the lies start.

Leftoids have been told for seven years, "WE'RE ON THE VERGE OF GETTING TRUMP!" and all of the other lies the other way, like "Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation." Up until now, when even these Leftoids are waking up, realizing that they've been lied to on a daily basis. Tens of thousands of proud, faithful Democrats are now collectively going, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

In certain professions, integrity is beyond critical. Without a clear an unquestionable level of integrity, professions like journalism cannot exist. A lie once discovered, can be passed off as "an honest human mistake." When the lies go on and on, continuously repeated, unapologetic, getting exponentially bigger to cover the pile of lies already out there, the trust and integrity of those who spread the lies are destroyed permanently.

This is what happened here. The hubris of these news networks, newspapers, magazines and all the others lost sight of their true purpose. That purpose is to inform their consumers about important events. Inform them with all the facts, with as little bias as possible. Instead, they have mutated into people who think their consumers are imbeciles who need to be told what to think. They lost sight of what the consumer wanted.

I bring up Sports Illustrated to put an exclamation point on this. Since SI started in 1954, it reported the major events in all of the various sports. The primary purchaser of the magazine were men. In 1964, SI started publishing an annual Swimsuit Issue, dedicated to showing off the beautiful curves of female athletes and supermodels. In the past few years, SI lost sight of their primary consumer base and what content these men were looking for and thus their reason for buying SI to consume. In 2019, the models started having "different body types" (plus-sized), and in 2020, SI started having transgender women in the swimsuit edition.

In case you didn't know, the vast majority of men want to see healthy (i.e., thin), beautiful women in skimpy suits. Men in matters of sexual drive are visually driven, so this should be an obvious given. Men are not interested in or even repulsed by "washe" females, or women who are overweight. So, the primary consumer of this product stopped consuming it. The editors of SI were producing content that their consumers did not want.

The #1 rule of Capitalism is, "Make something people want. Make it better than anyone else and sell it cheaper than anyone else." These journalists have stopped making gifts of their product, namely giving people what the people want. They now present us with what they want us to have, which most of us didn't ask for and don't want.

So I found this article by The Guardian, What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month? and had to say something on it.

According to The Guardian, this was,

A study that paid viewers of the rightwing cable network to switch shed light on the media’s influence on people’s views.

According to dictionary.com, the 2nd definition of "study" when used as a "verb with an object" reads, "to examine or investigate carefully and in detail."

This is not a study, it's a chilling propaganda piece. First of all, here's the actual study the article references. The bias of the "researchers" who ran this study is blatant and appalling.

The basis of the study was to pay people who normally watch FOX News to watch CNN. There was a control group who remained watching FOX, and at the end of the study, the participants were questioned, including questions that you had to be watching CNN to properly answer. The results found that the views of the people who switched to CNN had changed significantly.

All this proves is CNN has great marketing and delivery of their "version" of the news. Much like in a Coke/Pepsi blind taste test, more people go with Pepsi, but still buy and drink Coke. I think there should have been a study the other way as well, Have a group of CNN viewers (if you can find any with their viewership being down 90%) and pay them to watch Fox and see what those results would be.

Now, here's the two things that should chill you to your spine, no matter your political views. First, the assumption by the researchers and The Guardian that FOX News is wrong and CNN is correct in all things. Second, that no matter who, facts and opinion are blended together and you can no longer separate them.

When I was growing up, my Dad watched Walter Cronkite almost exclusively. Rarely the Huntly-Brinkley Report. I still remember watching Walter Cronkite on January 22nd, 1973. They came back from a commercial break and Walter was on the phone, something I had never seen before. He remained silent, occasionally giving sideways glances at the camera, but mostly downwards and to his left, probably taking notes. After a couple of minutes (it seemed like an hour), he hung up the phone, looked at the camera and reported the passing of former President Johnson. The thing of it is, you never knew the personal politics of Cronkite, Huntly, Brinkley, Jennings or any of them. They reported the news and let you decide for yourself.

Today, you are given your opinion if you like it or not, and that goes for most every news outlet. Which is why I get my news from The Babylon Bee. Just kidding. I read multiple sites on both sides, go directly to the source when I can and link to mostly Left-leaning sites to perform Political Judo on them, using their own words against them.

And CNN can't catch a break, even on their home court...

I’ve been to Kenosha. The C&NW (Chicago & Northwestern) commuter rail line ran past the Great Lakes Navy Base from Chicago and all the way up to Kenosha. When I was there in 1980, Kenosha saw a lot of Sailors because at that time, in Illinois you had to be 21 to drink alcohol, but 18 was the legal age in Wisconsin. Kenosha is a working-class town, middle-class and below. Nothing flashy or special about it.

If you haven’t heard, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on November 19^th of all charges against him for shooting three people, two of whom succumbed to their injuries.

There are no winners here. Two men are dead, leaving grieving friends and family. One is missing an arm. Kyle himself will live with that fact for the rest of his life that he did that. The circumstances or level of justification do not matter, ending the life of another person changes you. I pray for everyone involved to heal and get past this.

This was not a criminal trial. This was a political trial. It was political because all of the Pravdas and the Leftists actively encouraged and supported the riots like the one in Kenosha. Since Kyle stood up to the riots by saying “Not in my community” he had to be excoriated to discourage anyone else from trying this ever again. Kyle had to be demonized, ridiculed, and destroyed.

To objectively look at this through the lens of the law, Kyle should have never been forced to fight for his future in the courtroom because of this. He obeyed the law and acted appropriately all the way through it.

He had a legal right to be there (he worked and had family in Kenosha), and was legally armed (17-year-olds can carry a rifle in public in WI). He was there with a first-aid kit to help wounded people, rioters, civilians and police alike, he was cleaning up the damages and graffiti from the riots, and was protecting property by standing guard.

When it came to the actual shooting, Kyle attempted to deescalate (shouting “Friendly! Friendly! Friendly!”), and retreated until he fell. The people he shot were attacking him and from every indicator, an immediate and a grave threat to Kyle’s life.

But you never heard about any of that from the Pravdas.

Why was Kyle protecting property? Let Nelle Bowles tell you from Bari Weiss’s Substack:

A note on Kenosha in light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Until quite recently, the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy. Burnings allowed for the expression of righteous rage, and the businesses all had insurance to rebuild. 

When I was at the New York Times, I went to Kenosha to see about this, and it turned out to be not true. The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots. It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered. Beyond the financial loss, small storefronts are quite meaningful to their owners and communities, which continuously baffles the Zoom-class.

[…]

If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher. The proper response — the only acceptable response — was to see the brick and mortar torn down, to watch the fires burn and to say: thank you.

Read this to learn the true aftermath of the riots: Skyrocketing demolition costs for riot-damaged Minneapolis, St. Paul properties delay rebuilding.

One day after rioters destroyed the Sports Dome retail complex in St. Paul, a construction crew hired by the city knocked the building down because it was dangerously unstable.

Then the city presented the property owners with a $140,000 bill for what it would cost to haul away the debris.

“We were really upset about that,” said property owner Jay Kim, whose insurance policy covers a maximum of $25,000 in demolition costs. “We thought that was high. But we didn’t know how much demolition would cost at the time.”

Of course, after the rubble was removed, a new building would have to be built, furniture would have to be purchased, installed and stocked. And there was no money to do so. And these stories are repeated every time a Leftist-controlled city burns. If you want to know why inner cities look like warzones, answer this question: “Why would anyone want to invest their life’s savings into a small business that’s in an area likely to be burned to the ground if there’s a riot?” The answer should be pretty clear.

Back to Kyle. The DA must have been pressured to press these charges, because they should have never been filed in the first place. I can’t tell you if the prosecuting attorney is inept beyond all relief or intentionally threw this case. The defense had no reason to present their side of things, as the prosecution never met the burden of proof and actually validated the defense’s claims of self-defense. The prosecution committed every possible strategic and tactical blunder you can commit in a courtroom. From asking questions of their own witnesses they didn’t know the answer to, charging Kyle with offenses that they should never have (failing to measure the rifle to determine if it’s a “short-barreled rifle” before charging him with having a SBR), to berating Kyle to dare to exert his Fifth Amendment Right to not self-incriminate. Then you have the “hiding and distorting of exculpatory evidence” thing, by texting a critical exculpatory (proving innocence) video rather than hand-delivery of the video on a USB drive or DVD, thereby destroying the quality of the video and destroying its’ value to the defense. And there’s more, a lot more. This case will end up in a book for potential lawyers, “Egregious Courtroom Fuck-ups: What Not To Do as a Prosecuting Attorney.”

Despite Leftist fears of armed people showing up to counter-protest and mow the protesters down under the pretext of “self-defense,” That’s not what this means.

What this does mean is we have been inspired by a 17-year-old man, who had the testicles to wade into a volatile situation, a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other, who was not content to let those who sought to destroy lives and his town not get away with it. He was there to help and prepared for the worst. May we all have the moral character he has.

Kyle will also never have to work a day in his life again. After all of the Pravdas and President Biden viciously maligned Kyle and maliciously distorted the facts to fit the agenda, there will be many multi-million dollar settlements coming shortly. The Covington Kid should team up with the Kenosha Kid to start or fund a news agency that actually upholds journalistic standards, that doesn’t write opinion and present it as hard news, that upholds truth and accuracy over “breaking news” and an agenda.

I’m sure you’ve heard of Occam’s Razor, but you might not know exactly what it means. If you do, good for you! If you don’t, here you go:

A scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

Simply put, “The simplest explanation is almost always the most correct.”

Let me put the story up here before I get any farther. Fauci admits US sent $600k to Wuhan lab at center of Covid ‘leak’ theory – but defends ‘modest’ virus research funding.

To refresh your memory, in late 2019, three scientists at the Wuhan virology lab came down with a “mysterious illness.” This facility was located across the way from a “wet market” where food such as produce, animals and seafood are sold. These scientists likely stopped at this wet market to pick up food on their way home each night, giving this “mysterious illness” to other people at the market while they were in their contagious and asymptomatic state.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), not wanting to “lose face” by letting everyone know that this escaped from a lab performing “gain of function” testing (i.e., weaponizing it), said in essence, “this came over from bats sold and consumed at the market.”

Of course, the Domestic Pravda totally swallowed this line (just because Trump said the opposite) and in a magnificent case of Stockholm Syndrome, decided to squash and suppress any differing viewpoint from the CCP Party Line. Those of us who applied Occam’s Razor to the facts in evidence, were branded “Conspiracy Theorists!” and actively silenced.

So let’s look at the facts here. These facts are not in dispute.

1. A virus we now call COVID-19 had its’ “Patient Zero” at that wet market in Wuhan, China.
2. There is a laboratory in Wuhan within a stones’ throw of the market that was performing virology research into various virii, including COVID.

Now we have two possible scenarios for the outbreak:

1. This strain of Corona spontaneously jumped from bats to humans at that specific particular wet market out of the thousands across China,
-OR-
2. The virology lab across the road from the market had an accidental release and the first people not part of the lab staff that were infected worked or shopped at that market.

Occam’s Razor clearly points to scenario #2, because it is much more likely to occur. Scenario 1 is plausible and possible, just not very likely. Like betting on 00 on the Roulette wheel versus Black. You’re going to hit Black a lot more times (47.3% of the time) than you will 00 (2.6% of the time).

There is no “conspiracy” here. Yes, Fauci raised money for the Wuhan lab and gave it to them. Did Fauci give that money specifically to fund that project? I don’t have any credible evidence to point for or against that point. Occam suggests the lab took the money and spent it on what they wanted to research. They could have spent it all on hookers and blow, I have no evidence either way.

And because I keep an open mind about things and research over a wide range of websites, I had seen documents stating that Fauci was involved with funding this lab before the lockdown was put in place.

The bad news is, the people who still don’t believe this was from a lab-leak still believe “The evidence to impeach Trump is right there in the Mueller Report.” But when asked to point to the page and paragraph with their “evidence,” they just fall silent.

In the end, Occam’s Razor always points to idiots and blundering people that cause bad things to happen way more than any coordinated group of people carrying out a nefarious conspiracy. The more suppositions, conspiracies and leaps of logic and faith it takes to explain something, the more and more likely that isn’t the explanation.

The term "business model" refers to a written plan that identifies what a company sells and how they intend to make a profit out of selling it.

Here are some examples:

Movie Theater: In case you didn't know it, the theater makes no money off ticket sales. The $17+ you paid to watch a movie all goes to the studio who produced it. The theater makes its money from concessions. All the profits from that hideously expensive popcorn, hot dog, candy and soda is what keeps the theater showing movies.

Social Media: If you didn't know it, YOU'RE THE PRODUCT. Actually, your eyes and attention, and by extension your money. You are sold the concept of "keeping in contact with friends and family, groups, etc." by browsing through Social Media (Facebook, YouTube, Parler, Rumble, Twitter and so on) and when you do so, you see advertisements in your stream. This is why they use a variety of methods to give you recurring dopamine hits. That rush of excitement you feel when you see a notification that someone liked or responded something you said? That's a dopamine hit.

I gave these examples so you can understand the next one.

Advertising has been explained to me as "The science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it." And yes, it is a science. A lot of behavioral science studies are conducted to determine colors, layout and every microscopic detail about how to maximize the impact of an advertisement.

The news networks (ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC, et.al.) sell you panic and fear disguised as "information." Just the term "Breaking News" elicits a massive dopamine hit. Pay attention to the adjectives used as well. Here's an example:

A group of patriots stormed the Capitol on January 6th, attempting to stop the Senate from certifying the Electoral College votes. These patriots believe that several states .

You feel a strong urge to stop what you're doing to see what it is, even though you're late getting your spose to the hospital for an operation. The longer they can keep you glued to whatever you're watching them on, the more advertisements you see and when it comes time to make a purchase of whatever kind, the advertising has convinced you to buy that particular brand or model.

While the term "clickbait" is relatively new, the concept is not. I remember a story from the 50's about a Dwarf Gypsy fortune-teller who escaped from a county jail. The local newspaper's headline the next day was "SMALL MEDIUM AT LARGE."

Printed media does the exact same thing. The covers have "clickbait" headlines in an effort to grab your attention, get you to pick up their magazine/newspaper. At that point they have you. From that point it's a very small step to throw the magazine into your cart and buy it. The actual chances that you'll read it when you get home are small, but you bought it and that was the point..

.

Most of you aren't programmers, so in basic terms the "!=" means "not equal," as in "Projected is not equal to Won."

To have heard so many people over the past four years lament about how the presidential election was "stolen" on 2016 (and in 2000, don't forget Bush v. Gore). that with the vote manipulation, ballot box stuffing and entire graveyards voting that nary a peep has been heard from the Left on this issue.

Here's one of many stories: "Election Watchdog Finds 350,000 Dead Registrants on Voter Rolls In 42 States." The question is, "How many votes were cast under these names?" We will likely never find out, as election monitors associated with Trump are prevented from any checking or verification of any votes.

Then you have Pennsylvania. Last year, the state legislature passed the "PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77" which amended the Pennsylvania Election Code (P.L.1333, No.320).

Section 1302.1 (8) of the Pennsylvania code is amended as follows:

(8)  No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than [eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election] the deadline for its receipt as provided in section 1308(g).

Going to the "PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE" Act of Jun. 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, No. 320, we find in section 1308(g) (ii):

(ii)  An absentee ballot cast by any absentee elector as defined in section 1301(i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (n), an absentee ballot under section 1302(a.3) or a mail-in ballot cast by a mail-in elector shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if the absentee ballot or mail-in ballot is received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.

There was a bit of an uproar when the PA Supreme Court said "Friday after the election is good enough." There's a challenge to that in the hands of SCOTUS right now, and "supposedly" the ballots received are being held separate from the ballots that did make it in time. There is a hard choice to be made here. Because there is no severability clause in this law, the clear choice before SCOTUS is between "not counting the ballots received past the deadline" or "invalidate the entire law, and thusly all mail-in ballots." The PA Supreme Court has no authority to rule on this, especially the way they did. Look up Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution about who sets the laws for elections (and it's not the Judiciary).

Then there was the kerfuffle over Mail-in ballots. To be secure, there's two envelopes securing the ballot. the outer one is used by the USPS for delivery. The inner one is first scanned and the signature is verified electronically to validate the ballot. Except in PA. There, a ballot received is a vote cast, they don't care who signed it. Don't believe me? Pa. Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots will count even if signatures don't match. Don't blame the Court, this was a failing in the law as written, so I believe the Court ruled correctly.

Then we have stories like this: UPDATED: Analysis: Five Milwaukee wards report 89% turnout in 2020 presidential vote; Biden nets 146K votes in city. Since I was a teenager, voter participation in elections have been in the 30-55% participation range. To have 300+ districts reporting voter participation of 60% and 120 districts reporting 80% or higher is statistically improbable to an absurd degree. Not impossible, but there's a better chance that someone gets hit by a meteor and lightning at the same time than any district reporting 80% participation, let alone 120 of them. The one district that reported 125% had a total of five votes. That means one voter more than the number of registered voters. I'll let that one slide.

Between everything above, plus things like inaccurate voter rolls that have thousands of deceased people still listed as on the voter rolls, there is enough smoke to suggest a through review of the entire election process in ALL states.

Personally, the simpleist way to minimize voter fraud is everyone shows up on election day, where they show acceptable Identification, and before they vote they dip their finger in an inkwell. It visibly stains their finger and is not easily removed in the few hours the polls are open. It will wear off in a couple of days with no ill effects. No databases to hack, no double (triple, etc.) voting and so on. You can show twelve ID's with different names all you want, that ink on your finger says you voted.

.

.

No, this isn't a law firm, they are three Liberal journalists with some very rare commodities: integrity and journalistic standards.

Up until recently, journalists were supposed to be (but not always) neutral observers of events, who would journal their observations, then report them to an audience who was educated about government and the affairs of the world. The journalists presented their observations and let the reader/viewer make up their own minds about the subject. When I was growing up, we had three TV networks. I don't remember who was on ABC (Dad never watched ABC), but NBC had Huntley and Brinkley, while CBS had Walter Cronkite. These were men of integrity and had journalistic standards, which included never letting their own political views shade or distort the news they reported on.

Today, "journalists" have the mindset of "we have the responsibility to shape the public to our opinions, not tell them the facts." Sadly, they are very effective in that task. Trump's achievements include (but are not limited to) setting governmental policies that resulted in a 50+-year-low minority unemployment, negotiates multiple deals bringing peace to the Middle East that 70 years of "diplomats" have failed to do, helped the United States become a net exporter of energy instead of the biggest importer, and got fellow NATO allies to share the cost of defense instead of letting the US spend the vast majority of resources to do so. If the press has reported on any of these at all, it's in the vein of "No Social Distancing During Signing of Peace Accord Between Israel, Bahrain."

I am glad to report that there are Liberal journalists out there who have upheld that foregone thought of "journalistic integrity," namely Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi. Glenn recently resigned from The Intercept, a news source that he co-founded. As part of his contract, he had a "no editorial oversight" and an "absolute right to publish." The "no editorial oversight" means that no editor (the gatekeepers who decide what gets and doesn't get published) could "spike" Matt's articles and keep them from being published. The "right to publish" means that the news outlet the reporter works for owns everything the reporter writes on their time. So, the reporter can't write an article written on News Corp A's time that was spiked and sell it to News Corp B and have B publish it.

Glenn had written a story on the recent Biden scandal, and his own company, The Intercept, refused to publish it despite the stipulations in his contract. In response, Glenn did the only thing open to a man with integrity, he quit and started his own news site (again).

Bari Weiss was brought on to The New York Times in 2016 to help diversify the points of view and reporting at the paper due to they got the 2016 election so wrong. She quit last year, citing in part:

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. [emphasis mine]

She was harassed, browbeaten, ostracized and ignored. Like Glenn, Bari kept her integrity and resigned with her self-respect and journalistic standards intact.

Matt Taibbi is a honey badger, he just don't give a shit. When I used to listen to my local morning DJ's Drake and Zeke on my way to work in the morning, they often interviewed Taibbi on various articles or books he wrote. While he hasn't quit in a blaze of glory like Greenwald or Weiss, he has integrity. His politics does not limit the direction he points his pen, a real journalistic flamethrower.

So, a sincere kudos to all of them, you have my respect and admiration. We need journalists who put their ethics and integrity ahead of their politics, not the other way around. Check them out, I added Greenwald and Taibbi's sites to by link roll, Bari is only writing books now.

As I write this on the morning of April 5th, the world-wide total is 1,218,000+ confirmed cases of COVID-19/SARS-2 and 66,542 deaths. In the US, those numbers are 312,250 and 8,503.

I am referring to information in two articles, Coronavirus patients over age 80 have a death rate of 15%. Here's the death rate for every age bracket. And The 2019-nCoV Statistics Are Misleading: Why Everyone Already Knows And Acts Like This. I am also referring to CDC data on the H1N1 Influenza pandemic we had a couple of years ago.

Before I get into numbers, let me tickle your brain with this:

For the 2009-2010 H1N1 “Swine Flu” pandemic, plus from March to November 2014, we had several people appear in the US with the Ebola virus. Thankfully, the Ebola did not turn into a pandemic. In each case, the media took the path of “inform, downplay, do not induce panic.”

COVID-19 is admittedly different. “The Common Cold” is caused by several strains of viruses, namely rhinovirus, coronavirus (other than -19), respiratory syncytial virus, influenza and parainfluenza. The (rightfully) scary part of COVID-19 is that it is contagious before you are symptomatic, which is not usual.

Back in January, the media (and Democrat leaders) were in a “dismiss” mode, telling people to “go to Chinatown, get out and mingle,” and “Trump is a racist for calling this “the Chinese Disease” or whatever. Yet, why are the media in a “panic, upplay, misinform” mode today instead of doing what they did for H1N1 and Ebola? Because by and large the members of the media hate Trump. The media realized in February and March that they can use this crisis as a weapon against Trump to make him unelectable in November.

Do I think this can turn serious? Yes. Do I think it’s time to panic and or respond reflexively? No.

Now we can talk numbers.

For the H1N1, 76% of the fatalities were between 18 and 64. For COVID-19, 80% of the deaths so far are from people who were 65 and older.

If we take the deaths and divide them by the number of confirmed cases, my calculator shows a 2.71% fatality rate. Having a certification as a Project Manager, I am aware of a term used in risk management called “known unknowns.” This means “we know this thing is a risk to the completion of the project, but we don’t know how big the risk actually is.”

The second article uses math to explain a “known unknown” about disease, which is “how many people contracted this disease but recovered without specialized medical treatments”? Basically, if someone got sick, used OTC medications to address the symptoms and got better without seeing a doctor, they would fall into this “known unknown.”

This article came up with an admittedly very loose supposition that for every confirmed case, there’s an average of 4.3 cases that went unconfirmed and unnoticed. But even if that number is 2 undiagnosed cases for every confirmed case, that would change things drastically. In that case, including our known unknown of 2:1, that’s now 8,291 deaths against 917,460 infected, and we now have a death rate of 0.9%. And if we went high on the estimate, say 6:1 known unknowns, that’s 2.14 million infected and that death rate drops to 0.4%.

So here’s what we have to realize, then ask ourselves.

• COVID-19 is here to stay. Just like the cold, influenza, Conjunctivitis, AIDS/STD’s, we will never be rid of it. An annual vaccine might be developed, but get used to it folks.
• We really don’t have to change our behavior to keep it under control. What stops the spread of viruses in general are frequent hand-washing and not touching our eyes/nose/mouth/face after we touch potentially infected surfaces. We just have to do it all the time now, not just when we’re symptomatic.
• COVID-19 disproportionately affects the elderly and those with serious issues, especially respiratory-related conditions.

With those points out on the table, and now knowing what we know about the modality, methodology and fatality profile of this disease, do you think it’s justifiable to shut down the entire United States, or maybe just insulate/isolate those at the highest risk of dying from this?

Looking at the fatality rates, if you’re under 50 with no co-morbid conditions, you have a 1% chance of dying from this, if you even contract it at all. Statistically, you have a higher risk of dying in a vehicle crash commuting to work and home every day.

Knowing all of this, which sounds like the rational choice?

Shut down the entire US economy and everyone self-isolate for the foreseeable future?
-OR-
Get most people back to work, use appropriate anti-viral protocols (hand-washing, no face touching, etc.) and minimize exposure to those most vulnerable to sickness, namely the elderly and those with pulmonary issues.

I’m going to take the reasonable risk and go with the latter.

I started writing this post about article that was spawned by the mass shooting at the Garlic Festival, but as I have been writing this, another mass shooting has occurred in an El Paso Wal-Mart, another mass shooting in Dayton, OH and a mass stabbing in Orange County, California.

The article is Angry young men continue to be America’s greatest threat by Maureen Callahan.

Ms. Callahan laments that:

"From those mass shooters who have attacked the innocent before, we know it’s a specific strain of anger — deep, repressed, biblically vengeful — felt most commonly by young men, almost always white, who report feeling alienated, dispossessed, misunderstood, victimized and all too often rejected by women."

All I can say, Ms. Callahan, it is way more than that. She lays the blame on:

"...first-person shooter games, violent pornography, through racism and a fascination with guns and violence..."

[...]

"...a president who may be our angriest ever, who unleashes daily a fusillade of threats and name-calling and sexist remarks and racist dog whistles."

Then Ms. Callahan calls for

"...a collective dedication, from the White House on down, to figuring out why young men in the world’s greatest, most prosperous country are so goddamn angry."

I can tell you exactly why, Ms. Callahan, young men are angry. You can see the biggest contributors to this anger, you and all of your ultra-radacalized feminist sisters, by looking into the nearest mirror.

It got a slow start in the 70's when the roots of feminism grew. Feminism, the belief that women are equal to men in every way, is bullshit. I hate to break the news to you, women aren't equal to men. Women are different from men. There are many things men do that are superior to a woman's capabilities in those areas. Just like there are many things that women to that are superior to a man's capabilities in those areas. We are meant to work together, as a man-woman team. If they work together, the team is vastly superior to the individual.

In the 80's, Murphy Brown brought forth and normalized the concept that "a single woman can raise a child just as well, if not better than a mom and a dad together." The 90's brought us the concept of "all male-female sex is rape" and "all men are potential rapists."

Up until the 70's, if a couple got married, they stuck it out for life. Divorce was a social taboo, and it was widely recognized to be detrimental to the kids. Divorces were rare. They usually happened because the man was abusive to the wife and/or children and it was a get-out-or-die situation for her. Today, if the woman decides "I'm not in love with him anymore" she gets to leave and basically take everything and get alimony too. I'm being slightly hyperbolic here, but for the dad to win custody of the children, the woman would have to be smoking meth while pulling a train in the courtroom in front of the judge. A man loses all custody of his children on the word alone of the wife and the inertia of the divorce court system. For the dad to get custody, he has to provide reams of documented police reports, CPS notes, and statements from family and neighbors against the woman that clearly shows her irresponsible behavior towards her children. I have seen multiple friends and acquaintances get divorced. Every time, she gets the house, the kids, at least half of the retirement and alimony, while he gets the credit cards, paying the alimony, child support and every other weekend with the kids.

This terror-inducing state of living in a minefield where the man is in constant fear that at the woman's whim he can lose his children, his financial assets and his major possessions has rightly spooked men away from any long-term or serious relationships with women.

WARNING! STEREOTYPICAL AND SEXIST LANGUAGE AHEAD. You have been warned.

Women want a man to be "Handsome, virile, strong, sensitive, attentive, a good provider, someone she can talk to and confide in, good with kids, and can fix things and change flat tires."

Men are looking for women who are "breathing, naked and offering them alcohol." Men want someone whom they can provide for and who is happy to see them when they come home exhausted after a hard day at work. Give us just that and we will happily work 60 hour weeks to make sure the family does not want. A system, by the way, that has existed throughout most of recorded human history.

A man does things. He solves problems, builds things, fixes when when they break, breaks other things and in general gets things done. He has built society. A woman communicates. She talks with others, shares information, builds relationships and encourages man. She is the glue that holds society together. Both jobs are equally important and very different.

END OF STEREOTYPICAL AND SEXIST LANGUAGE.

Men are by default confused and scared when it comes to women. We simply do not understand how women work. When women tell men, "I can do anything you can do just as well!" to a man, he takes her totally at her word, says "Go ahead" and gives no further consideration to the subject. When the woman demands he do the difficult jobs (changing a tire, killing a spider, moving heavy furniture, etc.) that she doesn't want to do, this causes a mental 38-car pileup in our heads. "Wait a minute. You can do this, you just demanded that I let you do this, but now when you find out what that really means, you don't want to do it and want me to do it instead?" To be totally honest, this confuses men to no end.

I refuse to lay the blame on women themselves. The feminism movement, the driving of societal force that drives women out of the home and into the business world because the "Feminist Movement" incessantly tells them, "You can be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company!", but doesn't tell them about the 60-100 hour work weeks they have to put in to get there. Constant time away from home and family that doesn't leave time for child-rearing, being their for your children and husband, building relationships and keeping society together as a whole. This bill of goods they are being sold conflicts with their base nature and (IMO) contributes to the erraticness of women in general. No, I do not think women should be kept barefoot and pregnant. I fully believe that women should do what they want, either stay at home and raise kids, or climb the corporate ladder. But they're not fully taught the consequences of climbing the corporate ladder.

This attitude and inconsistency by women has laid the groundwork for the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement to gain traction. It has also spawned the term Incel as well.

In the end, we have a lot of men, who are lonely, terrified of women and with zero chance of interacting with a woman in an emotionally healthy way. This fear can turn over time to anger. In some, it can lead to violence.

How to solve this? Simply (not easily) walk women back from the edge. Explain to those that don't understand, that women are not in competition with men. I am not saying or implying that woman are to be submissive and obedient to the man. The woman should use her skills and strengths to cover his weak spots, and let the man use his skills and strengths to cover her weak spots. That's how we got society to this point. Why tear it apart now?

Okay folks, the Leftist groupthink is out of hand even more than usual. Leftists are now arguing about skin color. Will Smith catches backlash for colorism after being cast as Venus and Serena Williams' father.

First of all, Will Smith was offered and accepted a job. The Producers of this film thought he is the best "bang-for-the-buck." So if you want to accuse someone of "colorism" you might want to look at the director, producers and casting staff first.

Second, does this fall under the banner of "Black enough?" Seriously, you inbred nimrods are openly discriminating against a man, not for his politics, not for his character, not for his race but the shade of his skin. At least you can pick on something he has some control over.

Not too long ago, there was fan talk about Idris Elba being the next James Bond when Daniel Craig steps away from the role. Even though Ian Fleming described (and drew) Bond as a White man of Scottish descent, l I personally have no issue with it. If the producers think Elba would bring in more revenue than their second pick. However, recent events have shown that a "drastic recasting" of hit films does not translate into profits *cough*Ghostbusters* *cough*Oceans Eight*.

How can we move past racism (which the Leftists demand we do) when those same Leftists demanding equality are discriminating against a man over the shade of his skin? This is beyond the pale. Even my loquacious vocabulary lacks the words to adequately describe the idiocy going on here.

With two notable major media stories going south (for the MSM) it only shows their lack of integrity and willingness to sacrifice any ideal (or person) on the altar of "DESTROY TRUMP."

First, we have the Nicholas Sandmann incident, where he and his fellow Covington High School classmates were wearing MAGA hats after a pro-life rally. Sandmann calmly stood his ground as he was approached and berated. The media, taking out-of-context video segments from a larger and continuous video that did show the context, vilified Sandmann and his classmates as the instigators and aggressors in the incident, when the opposite is true when you see the interaction in context. The MSM's insistent efforts to provide a distorted attack on this young man, and Trump by extension, has showed me their disgust on anyone who is even remotely a Trump supporter.

This has now come to bite them in the ass.

Through legal representation, Sandmann is currently in the process of suing the Washington Post (I like G. Gordon Libby's term for them, the Washington COM-Post) for $250 Million in damages. I hope he wins, because hopefully it will scare the MSM away from the "being first to break the news," to "let's take a day or two to get it right" kind of journalism.

The second story encompasses the phony "hate crimes," the most recent of which involves Jussie Smollett. It starts off bad, with someone allegedly at Jussie's direction committing a federal felony (sending threats through the US mail is a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 876), then Jussie paying two men to "attack" him, then lying about it to the police. For his efforts, Jussie has been charged with "disorderly conduct for filing a false police report," a Class-4 felony (maximum 18 months in a state facility), As soon as the FBI gets through with their investigation, Jussie may face to to 10 years in the federal system.

All the way up 5 minutes before the Chicago DA announced the charges against Jussie, the MSM was adamant that he was "a victim of a vicious and heinous hate crime."

Compared to the "hate crime" hoaxes, the true crimes where stereotypical hate is involved are invisible. Has there been any real, documented assaults where the victims racial or sexual preferences played a significant reason for the attack? I can think of none. If you know of any, please comment them below and I will update this post with them.

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.

This came out last week, and I had to sit on it for a few days so I could temper my words.

The "Senior Administration Official" who wrote this unmitigated piece of horseshit is a moral and physical coward. He has no testicles, no guts, no spine, no moral conviction and most of all, no loyalty. And to all of my Leftist friends, if this had happened during Obama's (or Hillary's) presidency, I would have said the same thing.

Every person who works for another has a societal obligation to do their best for whomever they are working for. To not do your best or even interfere with that your boss/customer has told you to do is a betrayal of trust that goes beyond all forgiveness. It is the highest violation of trust you can visit upon another, and it does nothing but destroy your own word and integrity. The consequences of this one action should result in your being unemployable, let alone having any position of authority for the rest of your life. No one will ever trust you again. If you pass on to your reward homeless and broke, you got off lightly.

I fully understand that there is private "in-fighting" with any group of people. Behind closed doors there will be loud words, hurt feelings and sometimes even blood spilled (metaphorical, not actual). That being said, if you cannot present a public face totally supportive of your boss, then don't be there. .

I can say this because this is what I did.

You can read my prior posts under Masonry to get the full story. When the Grand Master of Masons in Tennessee suspended two brothers for the heinous crime of loving each other, I stood to be counted to abolish this rule. When working within the system failed, I spoke out publicly. I did not hide, everyone who needed to know who wrote the words I posted here and on Facebook knew without a doubt who I was. Those words earned me a private meeting with the next Grand Master, who gave me the options of shutting up, quitting the fraternity or being expelled, I chose to be expelled.

I have completed my thoughts on the insipid, milquetoast, craven, turncoat coward who wrote this. Now it's the New York Times' turn.

To the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of the New York Times: Jane you ignorant slut.

I seriously have to ask, how many journalistic ethics boundaries did you ignore, break or bypass? To publish something of such a salacious, unverified, undignified and disturbing matter speaks volumes about your lack of integrity. The Press is supposed to have standards and integrity, that what they report is true, correct and complete. That the reporting of events are clearly separated from opinion. That we can discuss points of opinion with the author. The trust and integrity you build while doing this is why the customer decides to part with some of their money to purchase your product. If your customers can't trust what you say to be true, why should they purchase your product?

I'm sure your aim in publishing this bullshit was to hurt Trump. A man who was elected on the premise that Washington is hurting the rest of the country. A man who has made great strides in returning freedom and money to the American People. While you have increased the volume in your Leftist echo chamber, you have done nothing more than further alienate half of the country. In my eyes, the Weekly World News has more credibility than you do.

The other day it came out that Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys had a "toe-the-line" policy that no Cowboy will kneel during the National Anthem. I fully support that. It's his team, he signs the paychecks and If a player doesn't like it, he can play somewhere else. It's a free country. Or is it?

When Dak Prescott, the Quarterback for the Cowboys released this statement, Liberals went berserk:

I’d never protest during anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such a peace, and I think it does the same for a lot of people – a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game, a lot of people that have any impact of the game. So when you bring such a controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game, it takes away ... from that. It takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people. For me, I’m all about making a change and making a difference. I think this whole kneeling, and all of that, was all about just raising awareness, and the fact that we’re still talking about social injustice years later, I think we’ve gotten to that point. I think we’ve proved it. We know about social injustice. I’m up for taking a next step, whatever that step may be for action and not just kneeling.

I’ve always believed in standing up for what I believe in, and that’s what I’m going to continue to do.

I find this statement to be thoughtful, full of personal emotion, a respectful recognition of other viewpoints and a call to action.

How was this regarded by Carron J. Phillips (Facebook, Twitter)? I took a screen cap of his tweet:

I have no idea why Mr. Phillips pulled that particular punch. After all, Mr Phillips and Mr. Prescott are both African-Americans, so Mr. Phillips' would have been within his prerogative to use the term "house nigger," because Blacks can use that word with Blacks. If you are not familiar with this particular pejorative, the slaves who worked in the fields did not like the slaves that worked in the house and served the Masters, because the "house niggers" received better food, slept in better conditions and didn't have to work under the hot sun in the fields all day long.

After such a Tweet, was Mr. Phillips apologetic, perhaps slightly amenable to moderating his position? Umm, no. Recalcitrant as ever, this was the follow up Tweet:

Like we have "Moore's Law" and "Godwin's Law," I thought about naming this as "Carron's law," then I realized, every radical leftist does this. If you disagree with a radical leftist, even if the difference is by 0.0001%, you will be name-called everything in the book and they will seek to destroy you. Personally, professionally and ideologically.

Then we have this incident, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA were having a quiet breakfast in public when they were without provocation attacked by about 50 Antifas. Kirk had water thrown on him. Let me make something perfectly clear, if I see someone approaching me with a glass containing a liquid and they seem intending on throwing it on me, I will ENGAGE WITH DEADLY FORCE BEFORE THEY CAN THROW IT. Why? Can you tell from 10 feet away the difference between a glass filled with water and a glass filled with hydrochloric acid? Here's a couple of pictures of the results when acid gets thrown on people. It's not pretty:

With this being a possible outcome having an unknown liquid splashed on you, would you want to wait until it's on you to find out what it was? I didn't think so. If you think that anybody deserves this for any reason, you are lower than an animal.

When a response to a differing opinion is extreme epithets, personal attacks, threats of violence or actual violence, then there can be no reasoned exchange of ideas. This threat of violence and "mock violence" will escalate and inevitably lead to someone getting seriously injured or dead. And let me tell you Leftists, those of us on the Right have more guns than the police and the military. If it comes down to shooting, which I hope to God it never does, we will run out of targets (i.e. Leftists/Antifa) before we run out of ammunition.

I wrote this in 2014 when I was using Wordpress for the blog software about an "emotional index." I have not imported that post into Joomla (yet) so here is the important part:

Words have what is called, for a lack of a better term, an "Emotional Index." This means that a word or term will cause an emotional response in the person hearing or reading the term. The word "Friend" produces a positive index because we think of our friends and our connection with them when we hear or see the word. Likewise, "Enemy" produces a similar number but in the negative direction.

So, when Liberals try to convince you to like something you don't like, they will change the terms, from words that have a strong negative index, to words with either a less negative index, or even a positive index. If they can, they will use words outside of the vocabulary of a average person, then define the word how they want it defined, rather than what it really means.

Case in point: "Illegal Aliens," used to denote citizens of other countries who are entering the United States without following the laws and procedures established for the orderly processing of people who wish to become Citizens of the United States. Liberals don't like that term, because, "People are not illegal." So, they want you to use the term "Undocumented Immigrant." When we use the term "Alien," we are talking about definitions like,"a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living," or "relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government." To prefix the term "Alien" with "Illegal" you are stating that a citizen of one country has moved to another country and is now living in the second country without going through the process as defined by law to renounce their citizenship of their former country.

Now let's take a look at the second term, "Undocumented Immigrant." Both of these words have way lower negative index scores than the first term. After all, the United States is a nation built on immigrants, wasn't it? So, we switch from "Alien," which also means unfamiliar, while also invoking at least some fear, because people instinctively fear that which is unknown, or alien to them. Thus we change from a big negative index, to a neutral or even a positive index. Then the prefix adjective, "Undocumented," which means "not supported by documentary evidence." We can rationalize this by saying, "If I'm driving my car and don't have my drivers license when I get stopped, I'm undocumented." Or you can think about that "undocumented expense report" because you didn't provide the necessary paperwork to justify your claim. You can almost begin to think that the Undocumented Immigrant belongs here, they just haven't made it through the bureaucratic red tape to become full citizens yet. Again, when comparing the indexes between "Illegal" and "Undocumented," the index is way lower for the latter.

I bring this up because if you haven't noticed the MSM has decided to change the words used to describe President Trumps actions to undue the Socialization of the United States.

Case in point: Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers.

Do you see it? The word "protections" is used rather than "Executive Orders." When you actually read the article, it says this:

On March 27, Trump revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.

So this Obama EO merely mandates that agencies contracting out for goods and services follow the law instead of going with who pays the better bribes. Because if the agencies performed their due diligence in screening bidders, this wouldn't happen, right?

Now if I were to write the headline to be more accurate, it would say "Trump Revokes Obama Executive Order For Women Workers." Reading my version, your reaction is probably either "meh, so what?" or "Hell yeah! Get rid of those Obama Executive Orders!" Reading the original headline gives the impression that Trump actively hurt women workers. Which is BS, because Obama's EO merely reminds government agencies that for contracts over $500k, the agency must make sure that the bidder is in compliance with existing law.

(Side note: In doing research on this, I found a whole bunch of juicy stuff on the gender pay gap that merits its own post. Stay tuned for that! But I digress)

So, "Rolling back PROTECTIONS" is a lot more inflammatory than "Rolling back EXECUTIVE ORDERS." See what I mean? Of course, if this were 2009 and Obama was rolling back Bush EO's, would the headlines say the same thing? I think it would be quite the opposite.

Journalism is what used to be news reporting. People witnessing historic events or interviewing those who had seen it first hand, then transcribing it into such a form for all people to read and learn from. It is meant to be an account from a neutral viewpoint, all facts presented equally to let the reader decide on the matter.

The term "Yellow Journalism" was developed by Erwin Wardman who at the time was the Editor of the New York Press, and was meant to describe the fight between Pulitzer's New York World and Hearst's New York Journal. The "classic" Yellow Journalism ran at its heaviest from 1895-1898. While the concept or practice was not exclusive to New York or these two newspapers, this particular "feud" did not extend beyond New York, simply because the communications network did not exist.

After the turn of the 20th Century, reporting the news returned to being a serious business where reporters realized that there was a great level of trust bestowed upon them by the public who depended upon them for an accurate recounting of events. I remember watching men like Water Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley give the evening news. My Dad was a Cronkite man all the way, but sometimes NBC came up on our TV tuner at 6:30pm.

It was in the 70's that some network executives wanted the news bureau to "make a profit." I think that's pretty much the start of the groundwork for our current news climate. It was the launch of CNN on June 1st, 1980 to start the 24-hour news cycle. Since then, that news network addiction of "being first" (not being correct, or truthful or accurate) let the drive to live and die by ratings. The MSM has also artfully blended actual news with opinion pieces since the 90's makeing them very difficult to tell one from the other. Since the concept and term of "clickbait", most of the news media in the United States has had a resurgence of Yellow Journalism and "fake news."

I bring all of this up because I hear the MSM and everyone who believes their narrative hook, link and sinker, is yelling about "THE RUSSIANS HACKED OUR ELECTION."

To which I say:

The reason why I say this (and use that meme) is because when you use the term "Hacked the US election" (or some other derivative) this implies that somehow the Russians changed the outcome of the election by changing the vote totals. Just to dispel that notion, elections are conducted and certified at a county level in each state, which is transmitted to the appropriate State government and on to the MSM to provide "election coverage." Currently, there are 3,143 Counties (called Boroughs in Alaska, Parishes in Louisiana) in the US. The "Russians" (or whomever is to blame) would have had to penetrate at least 90+% of these counties and on demand votes. Not to add votes, but to record Hillary votes for Trump. Since "they" couldn't know which counties would go which way or how far, this could be pulled off only if the vast majority of systems were successfully penetrated.

What the hackers actually did was penetrate the email system of the Democrat National Committee and pass those emails to Wikileaks. These emails, private communications between high-ranking members of the DNC and their minions, show how they rigged the primary elections against Bernie Sanders so he never had a chance, and worked with major MSM players to provide as many pro-Hillary and anti-Trump "news" articles and opinion pieces disguised as news as possible. Enough of the information in these emails surfaced in the American Collective Consciousness through the truly neutral and Conservative-leaning media to make a difference in changing public opinion enough to put Trump in office.

The US would never, ever do that to another country, right? According to a L.A. Times story:

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

[...]

Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

And of course, we see the US meddling in Israeli affairs and actively trying to oust Netanyahu, the current Israeli PM.

Goose, meet Gander.

This article isn't outrageous, it's plain stupid. Nursery rhymes put kids 'at risk', where it talks about 'first responders' to Humpty Dumpty. Indeed.

These "Canadian Researchers" need to go and find something better to do. These nursery rhymes were written several hundred years ago and reflected contemporary themes. Humpty Dumpty referred to a king who had fallen from power. I don't remember who or when. The part about the kings men and horses meant they couldn't return him to power. "Ring around the rosie"? That referred to bubonic plague. And so on.

To try and bring a modern context to these tales is ridiculous. They are historical similes to talk about terrible events and nothing more. They are songs or short stories that have lost their meaning in the sands of time and it should stay that way. If a child is very inquisitive on the subject, look it up together on the internet. I'm sure the answers are easily Googled.

This article, Local News, Shameful Tactics, shows everything that’s wrong with “sweeps week.”

If I was a watcher of this station, I would have immediately written them a letter telling them I would never watch their station ever again. I would determine what local merchants were advertising on their station and write them as well, advising them to pull all advertising. In this case, the station was WABC, which is directly owned by the network, so sending a letter to the network would have been a duplicate effort.

This effort to boost ratings would backfire big time with me, and with permanent consequences. I can’t tell you how enraged I am over this. I am glad the only ABC I watch is Monday Night Football, and I am considering stopping that because of this incident.

A major trust was broken. I hope they lose big time over it.