I don't have a mailing list, pop-ups, click bait or advertisements. I do plant a tracking cookie, only related to this site.

This is an Opinion site. Unlike Leftists, I back up my opinions with verified facts and the consistent application of personal morals. 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. Currently posting only sporadically due to the time it takes me to make a post vs. the demands on my non-computer life. All comments are approved before posting to prevent spam. Coherent comments of differing opinions are welcome.

Trying to post pertinent articles on Mondays, Economic Left mockings on Thursdays.

Cancel Culture == Bullies

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

This has got to stop.

Just in case you missed it, last week both Dr. Seuss and Pepe Le Pew were cancelled for some stupid reason or another. In classic and predictable fashion, the spineless appeasers (but I repeat myself) immediately banned said books and cartoons.

If you haven't made the connection, Cancel Culture (and leftists in general) are BULLIES. This means they use (or threaten to use) physical force to get you to comply and to control you. It doesn't matter if they're after your lunch money, getting you to put your fist in the air, disavowing children's books that have been revered by parents and children for over 50 years, or a cartoon that is a parody of 40's and 50's culture. If the bullies can get you to go along, then they control you. After that, it's just a Milgram experiment to see how far you will go.

To be clear, there will be no end if we let them continue. Because these people are (emotionally) children, they are looking for limitations. But because they are physically adults, we think they are emotionally adults as well.

Children want and need to have boundaries if they are to mature into rational and considerate adults. They become terrors when they get to do whatever they want to do and no one tells them "No." Children don't have the capacity for self-discipline. They don't even have the conceptualization of discipline because their still-developing brain functions by default off the amygdala until their 20's Think of a candy store. An adult will go in and buy a measured amount of 1-3 kinds of candy and pay for it with their own earnings. A child will want all of everything, then want the parent to "do their thing" so the child can have it.

To prove my point, look at what these Leftist radicals actually want. Don't listen to the talking heads or the soundbites, listen to what the websites say and what the people themselves say. I mean destruction of the nuclear family, destruction of our system of government, destruction of any police forces, destruction of our economy, destruction of any kind of masculinity, installing a "nanny state" kind of government and so on. If you open your eyes, it is terrifying what these children want.

And there is only two ways a bully will stop. The first (and most unlikely way) is to wait for him to self-mature and realize he's doing a "bad thing." That could take years, and might never happen at all. The best, surest and fastest way to stop stop him is to stand up to him. Yes, your first time (or even the first several times) you will probably get beat. The first time you actually get to kick him in the 'nads, knock him down and then proceed to beat the snot out of him will be the last time you'll have to do it. Once the bully knows it isn't worth it because you're willing to wail on him, he will either leave you alone to pick on others, or stop bullying entirely.

Most people just want to be left alone. And they will only take so much SJW's in their face until people get fed up and punch them in the face. Metaphorically of course, unless they start the waltz.

If you're as sick of this as I am, read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and do a Trump. For every ration of shit that comes your way, throw three rations back at them.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Socialism from Teen Vogue

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

In concert with my deep dive “What is Capitalism,” I have decided to Fisk this article by Teen Vogue, What 'Capitalism' Is and How It Affects People.

Let’s skip the history lesson, and dive right to this part:

A capitalist nation is dominated by the free market, which is an economic system in which both prices and production are dictated by corporations and private companies…

No, no and no. Prices of non-essential goods and services are driven by consumer demand. This demand then determines production. If something is priced at $100, but most people would only pay $50 for it, the choices of the business is to find a way to sell it for $50, accept that very few people will pay $100 for it, or not make it at all. This is the bedrock of Capitalism, the law of supply and demand.

Believe it or not, it is the first people who buy the product at that $100 enable the economies of scale that brings the price down to $50. Just think about flat-screen TV’s. When they first came out, a 48” flat-screen cost $2,000. Today, they are $200. Not only are the $200 TV’s 10% of the price of the original, they have better resolution and has more features.

Then there’s this paragraph:

The kind of impact that capitalism has on your life depends on whether you’re a worker or a boss. For someone who owns a company and employs other workers, capitalism may make sense: The more profits your company brings in, the more resources you have to share with your workers, which theoretically improves everyone’s standard of living. It’s all based on the principle of supply and demand, and in capitalism, consumption is king. The problem is that many capitalist bosses aren’t great at sharing the wealth, which is why one of the major critiques of capitalism is that it is a huge driver of inequality, both social and economic.

That’s a lot to unpack. Let’s get this straight. “many capitalist bosses aren’t great at sharing the wealth,” but what about those Party members who allocate the resources in a Socialist economy? You would be a fool if you think they wouldn’t “take a cut of the action.” For any business that has employees, payroll is the first expense to be paid. Because no employees means no goods or services produced, which leads to no income and very quickly no company. As far as pay goes, you are paid directly proportional to how much income you generate. If the company receives $10/hr of income due to your work, does it make sense for them to pay you $15/hr? And you are not “stuck there.” You can improve your skills and as a consequence generate more income for the business and yourself.

Another thing is the owner is the person on the hook for everything. If the business closes, the owner is still responsible for the building and equipment leases, along with any the loans or other obligations. A good owner takes enough net profit to live off of and continually pours the rest back into the company.

If a worker wants to be paid more, they have to improve their skills. There’s always a high demand for people in the HVAC industry. You can get your certificate in 8-24 months, pay averages around $23/hr and as long as there are air conditioners and freezers, you have a job.

The downside is you’ll be outside a lot, winter and summer, in hot attics, or crawling under houses. You’ll be lifting heavy things constantly, dealing with angry customers and more. Most people don’t want to put up with that, so they don’t get the pay for it either.

We continue:

Capitalism’s supporters believe in several key points: Economic freedom leads to political freedom and having a state-owned means of production can lead to federal overreach and authoritarianism. They view it as the only sensible way to organize a society, insisting that alternatives like socialism, communism, or anarchism are doomed to fail. As former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, whose pro-capitalism stance is said to have devastated the British working class, once put it, “There is no alternative.”

The proper quotes by Thatcher which the author ignores are.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.

And

Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay - that 'someone else' is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money.

I’ve done some research, and the earliest society that I found that practiced Socialist ideals (“From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”) was the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620. Everyone gave the fruit of their labors to a “company store” then received equal shares. They starved under that system with everybody giving to and drawing from a “communal stock.” They didn’t start thriving until the colonists had control over the land and what they produced. This manifested as people growing food for themselves and could sell excess goods to others.

William Bradford, in his journal “Of Plymouth Plantation” related this:

So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family.

My task for you Anti-Capitalist/Pro-Socialist readers, is to remark in the comments below, any group of people, large or small since 1620, who successfully practiced Socialist principles and didn’t eventually commit Democide. I know of one (not telling), and it didn’t outlive the founder.

To show Marx and Engles in such glowing terms like this shows you how much of a sell job this is:

The essential anti-capitalist argument is that “the hallmark of capitalism is poverty in the midst of plenty.” They say the immense suffering and violence that has been forced upon the laboring classes, the ruthless emphasis on profits over people, the proliferation of wage slavery — in which people have no choice but to sell their labor…

Think about it this way. In order to survive, a person must have:

1) Enough good food and clean water to be healthy and strong enough to be able to carry out the rest of this list.
2) Have a warm and safe place to sleep.
3) Have the tools to make labor easier (try chopping a tree down with a stone axe).
4) Stockpile food and fuel to get you through the winter.

Now, that’s what you need to survive. To accomplish those tasks alone is nigh impossible. You are doing what needs to be done from dawn to night. However, one mistake will probably kill you. A scratch can turn septic, a broken limb means a slow death from thirst or starvation. To flourish, you need time to rest from your labors and think about things, make things that will comfort and enhance your existence, etc. That takes a group of people, each doing different jobs and exchanging the fruits of their labor with each other.

That may sound Socialist, but it’s not. To be Socialist (meaning a command-controlled economy), “someone from the community” (a single person or committee, rarely the whole community) has to decide who will do what, what goods or services will be produced and how those goods will be distributed. Under a free-market Capitalist economy, each person decides what and how much they want to produce. If no one produces one thing that is needed, someone will see the need and demand for whatever “it” is, and make a profit.

And frankly, you’re going to be a “wage slave” under both Capitalism and Socialism, because someone has to make the goods and services no matter who’s in charge.

This is the part that chills me to my core:

There are many forms of socialism, but at its core, socialism is an economic system in which a whole community — not just bosses or private companies — control the means of production equally. It assumes that people are naturally cooperative, instead of competitive. The goal of socialism is an egalitarian society run by democratically elected representatives for the benefit of all in accordance with a set of collectively determined parameters; unlike under capitalism, industry and production is run by the state, and the acquisition of private property is seen as counterproductive. [Emphasis mine]

Consider this very, very carefully. The first piece of private property every person owns… is themselves. As long as you own yourself, you control what you do and what you produce. The dictionary definition of a slave is someone is “chattel” (property) of another person. The economic definition is a person who does not control or own the fruits of their labor. So, under the concept of “the owning of private property is counterproductive” means you don’t control your labor, you don’t control the fruits of your labor, and you don’t own yourself. You do what the State tells you to do, not what you want to do. As the article says,

“…a whole community — not just bosses or private companies — control the means of production equally.”

So now I have to ask, define “community.” Is that neighborhood, city, county, state or country? And define “control the means of production.” Does this mean everyone stops working and we hold a communal meeting to debate the merits of producing Windows phones instead of iPhones, along with the 378 other things the city produces? How long will that take? Days? Weeks? And while everyone is doing that, nothing gets done.

Maybe we just need to elect committees to make these decisions for us. Which would make the committee the de facto owners of the company and make them our bosses/leadership. In a free market, you vote for who your bosses are by applying to different companies.

Now I’m going to jump back to the beginning of the article. Right after the first quote I gave, there’s this point:

[Capitalism] and places a heavy focus on private property, economic growth, freedom of choice, and limited government intervention.

Notice how the author doesn’t mention “freedom of choice” or “limited government” as positive aspects of Socialism, just that private property is ‘counterproductive.’ I can only infer from these omissions that in a Socialist society, you don’t have freedom of choice or have a government that follows the will of the people.

And before you ask “What about Democratic Socialism?” it’s not a pig with lipstick, it’s a wild boar with lipstick. It’s a pig, with different markings, but a pig nonetheless. The only difference that I see between Socialism and Democratic Socialism is that you think you’re voting for who’s in charge of things. There will still be a committee for everything that needs a decision and you will still be a wage slave, with the major difference being if you don’t like your boss or the working conditions at your job, you can’t just quit without permission from the Labor Board (or whatever it would be called).

And the best argument against Socialism is expressed in one word: Democide.

One hundred million (100,000,000) people died by government action (or lack thereof) in Socialist countries last century. Most of the deaths were by starvation, but more than a few were executed for things like having ideas that weren’t approved by the Politburo.

To give you an idea about the hunger I’m talking about, imagine being so hungry that you make a literal mud pie and eat it. The bad news is, the dirt basically solidifies in your intestines blocking everything and you die, slowly and in tremendous pain. All because some asshole in Central Planning slipped a decimal point and your village got one truck of food for the month instead of the ten that it needed.

Korea is an interesting microcosm of Socialist vs. Capitalist ideals. It is a genetically homogenous gene pool (very little immigration) that has been under an A-B experiment for seventy years now. North Koreans are on average about 1.5” shorter than their cousins in the South. This is from multiple generations of near-starvation diets. Those people never got the nutrition they needed. And on the few occasions that food agencies personally gave food to the people of the villages, the Army came along and gathered the food up as soon as the aid workers were out of sight. And anyone who ate even a handful of food, you know, because they were hungry, they and their family were dragged out to the center of the village and executed to serve as an example.

And if Socialism becomes the law of the land in our time, we will probably not see atrocities like that, but our grandchildren will. It’s happened every time Socialism gets a stranglehold on a people.

Let that stew in your consciousness as you go to sleep tonight.

Write comment (0 Comments)

The case against violence

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

If you're like me right now, you are angry and scared. You solidly believe that this election was altered to make sure Biden won. You see Leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) advancing massive gun control, critical race theory, white supremacy, the altering of the language and more.

All I can say is I don't have all of the answers. Hell, I don't even have all of the questions. But I do know this:

Individual violence is not the answer. If someone gets it in their head that if they assassinate the president, or a cabinet member, or even a group of Congresscritters (or even all of them) to solve their perceived issue, it won't work. Let me explain why.

First of all, a meme I've had for a few years:

nottheproblem

The problem lies not with the President (or whoever you want to aim for), but with almost all of us. Things did change somewhat once Trump took office, but what happened? He was met by resistance from not only Congress, but from the bureaucracy as well. Thousands and thousands of bureaucrats, who didn't like him did not carry out his orders. Or they "slow-walked" what Trump told them to do.

Another thing you may not recognize, any figurehead is, to one extent or another, a stalking horse. If there is someone controlling the president (or whomever you decide "to take out"), then if you manage to succeed, the person running the show just puts another pawn out for someone else to take out.

A third thing is, the system is "robust," which means if you could take out the president, vice-president and all 535 members of Congress, our system provides for everyone's replacement. We would have another president, VP and Congress in 90 days or less.

It still doesn't end there. Over 81 million people voted for Biden. But really, it was just about 123,000 votes spread out between in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia that swung the election. It took swinging 0.08% of the total votes from Trump to Biden in order to swing the election. Entirely doable. But that leaves the other 80+ million legitimate votes for Biden that weren't forged.

So my question is, who would you take out? Because you're not going to make a dent in changing anything until you've taken out at least several hundred thousand and probably a couple million people. And you can't miss a single one, because they'll just restart a whole new infection.

When armies meet on the field of battle, they have uniforms to tell each other apart. Not so here. You can't tell which side another person is on by just the bumper stickers on their car, or the words they use.

My bottom line here is, don't start or escalate. You don't have a clear target. When you do have a clear target, do what you need to do. In the words of Malcom Remolds in Firefly, "If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.".

 

Write comment (0 Comments)

Biden's removal is on schedule

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

I've said from the start, "If Biden is elected, he will be out of office by Easter." The three most likely ways he will be shown the door is a) Removed via the 25th Amendment, b) Resigns due to a scandal, or c) Resigns due to "health issues."

And the signs are all there. Pelosi was talking about the 25th Amendment option even before the 2020 election. The other day this article came out, Dozens of House Democrats Call on Biden to Give Up Sole Nuclear Launch Authority. Of course Kamala is already handling the President's duties interacting with foreign leaders as well. Old Joe is not helping things when he does things like his "stable Jesus" kind of speeches either.

Now, the article is couched with the quote, "The worry is not about Biden, but more about Trump or another future Trump-like president..." but the reality is, why are you worrying about a possibility 3 years in the future? They're not. They're worried about right now.

Now the good news.

We have (or at least had) a "no first strike" policy. IOW, the only time the US would launch our nuclear missiles would be as a response to an incoming nuclear strike. The fact that we are moving away from that policy to "consider the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide set of circumstances" is terrifying. Here's more on it and the process.

I seriously hope that if a president even considers a nuclear first-strike the 25th Amendment would immediately be invoked. There is no scenario where if we opened that can of worms, we could not expect a nuclear retaliation from somebody.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Another one bites the dust

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

If you remember, in 2007, Hugo Chavez, as President of Venezuela announced “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized.” Chavez was talking about nationalizing (government control) companies in the telecommunications and electricity industries. Of course, the major oil company was nationalized soon after.

If you were taught factual history instead of the whitewashed bullshit, you would have seen this is where Venezuela started declining. The bottom dropped out of their economy when the oil prices fell and the bureaucrats didn't know what to do. It started getting bad when Venezuela couldn't pump and refine enough oil for domestic use, let alone to the rest of the world.

You should know the rest of the story. In 2016-2017, Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds because they were starving. Bakers forced to make bread at gunpoint because they wanted to make pastries. Hyperinflation, worthless currency, massive refugee crisis and all that.

The other day, Bloomberg reported that Venezuela has given up on their "Socialist Utopia" and started privatizing businesses and industries again.

What this means is another example of failure to heap upon the dumpster fire known as "Socialism."

Write comment (0 Comments)

Then vs. Now

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

This is way late, I started it at the end of 2020, but I didn't get it to where I liked it until now. Better late than never...

In 2016, as a response to Trump's win, there were cries of "RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!" The Pravdas (Pravda, a Russian word meaning "truth," was the major news paper of the Soviet Union, along with Izvestia, and my new term for the US Mainstream Media) breathlessly exclaimed every night for almost two years, "Evidence proving Trump stole the election will break soon!" My Leftist friends repeatedly told me, "The evidence that Trump is guilty is in the Mueller report!" but couldn't show me when I asked for page and paragraph.

Especially after I quoted the Executive Summary of the Mueller Report, pp.1-2:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. [emphasis mine]

So then we come to November 2020, the first "It doesn't matter" election. I mean that in the "Now that the technology is in place and the methodology has been refined, in any close race the victor will invariably be the Democrat candidate" context. In the words of Joseph Stalin, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." The graph below is of the January 5th 2021 Georgia Senate races, total vote count per hour. Notice the two Democrat candidates were trailing until about 11:15pm, then in the space of a few minutes, they jumped from far behind to just ahead. We can surmise that something fishy (i.e., it doesn't pass the smell test) to have both Democrat candidates each have 150,000 votes tallied and almost zero Republican votes in the same time span, which was about seven minutes.

When we look at the chart to see how fast the ballots are being counted, I see an average of about 18,166 votes total (all four candidates together) per minute. So, to have a sudden seven-minute surge of over 42,800 votes per minute, 99% Democrat and equally for both Democrats, if you don't go "hmmm. that's strange...", then you're a delusional Democrat to "see nothing wrong here."

Occam's Razor would indicate that "those who do the counting" saw the trends in votes per hour and issued an "adjustment" to put the Democrat candidates on top. Any investigation or recount would yield little difference, because, you know, the whole "We have investigated ourselves and have found that nomistakes were made" kind of result.

Georgia vote count

The point I want to bring up is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and other states all experienced similar jumps in vote tallies between Trump and Biden. While Pravda kept reporting "NO WIDESPREAD FRAUD FOUND!!!", you have to be cognizant of two things: Their choice of words and the fact that the Pravdas didn't look. In fact, Pravda either ignored the claims or actively explained them away.

The term "widespread" is a worthless word without a context. If we're talking across all 50 states, I'm sure no "widespread" fraud would be found. If we look at just Michigan, the answer would likely be "No" as well. Wayne County Michigan, which has Detroit? Now we could probably get some traction on that word.

Imagine this election as a Jenga tower. If you kick a log out one way, it falls in one direction. Tap on the one next to it and it falls the opposite direction. Those people who caused this alleged fraud to occur only had to target 8-10 counties out of the 2,000 counties in the country. They concentrated on inflating the vote count (which can be done in a variety of methods) in a deep Blue city in a battleground state to "bump up" the vote count so Biden won.

Along with the Georgia machine that counted some Trump votes as Biden votes. Then there was the "signature verification of mail-in ballots will not be conducted," and the "We will accept mail-in ballots up to three days after the law says we must stop accepting" issues in Pennsylvania, and a few other "minor incidents" like those. Kind of like the "mostly peaceful" rioters kind of thing.

What really separates 2020 from 2016 is the people. For the 2020 election, hundreds of people gave sworn depositions of their own free will of many "irregularities" that viewed individually seemed insignificant, but viewed in the aggregate pointed in a very specific direction. The 2016 election didn't have individuals voluntarily coming out to give sworn statements (that have a 5-10 year penalty of perjury if the statements are found to be lies) standing on their own pointing out irregularities, but 2020 did. Don't for a moment dismiss them out-of-hand either. Even if these people are never charged or face trial for Perjury (the penalty for lying under oath, which is what a sworn deposition is), their personal lives were wrecked. Disowned by their families, fired from their jobs, excoriated on social media, these people faced a severe price for speaking out.

Then we have what are known as the "Bellweather Counties." These are 20 counties scattered across the US, that have all been 100% accurate in voting for the winning president since 1980. In other words, these twenty counties all voted for the winning president, regardless of party, ten times in a row, from 1980 to 2016. Vigo County in Indiana has flubbed it twice since 1888, in 1908 and 1952. That's thirty-one correct, and two wrong, and the last sixteen presidential elections have been perfect, until 2020. Well, this time 19 of 20 got it wrong by voting for Trump. Given this record of two hundred correct choices with zero mistakes, I can understand changing demographics, or any of a dozen other reasons, for up to about half of them. To have 95% of these counties simultaneously screw this one election up is statistically improbable to several decimal places. Kind of like the "being struck by lightning, then getting hit by a meteor, only to have your body obliterated a minute later by an aircraft that crashed on top of you" odds.

And the Democrats are doubling down on this travesty by the House rolling out HR 1, the very misnamed "For the People Act of 2021." If I can drive a tractor trailer through the holes of the 2020 mail-in balloting, cruise ships will get though the holes in this "plan," and I mean that in the context of "Custer had a plan."

"This was the most secure election in US history!!!" Oh, pish posh.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Indian Giver

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active

Back when I was in Elementary school many, many years ago, the worst insult one child could throw at another on the playground was the term “Indian giver.” It was a serious accusation, not a term quickly or commonly bandied about like “Racist” and Nazi” are today. It was a literal “top of the mountain” insult and if proven, stuck with you for a while. This meant the other kid promised you something but then broke the promise. It was a real Scarlet Letter for an eight-year-old.

In case you missed it, on January 8th, Twitter banned Trump from their platform. This resulted in a lot of people “jumping ship” to Parler, where you weren’t banned merely for having a different opinion than the corporate staff. As a result, on January 9th, Parler became the most downloaded app in both the Apple’s AppStore and GooglePlay.

Then, within a few hours, both Apple and Google banned that app from their respective stores. At 11:59pm on January 10th, Amazon Web Services (AWS) stopped hosting the website and service entirely.

Parler has been down hard ever since. There’s a “placeholder” website back on the web to show you it’s there but there’s no user functionality for it. The bad news is the website code was specifically designed for AWS and is not easily copied over to another hosting service.

Now that I’ve set the table, let’s get into the meat of things.

First, in discussions I’ve had on this, my argument of “businesses can refuse service” (e.g., Masterpiece Cake Shop) was tossed in my face. To refresh you there, the man who owned MCS refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple. They were free to buy a standard cake, but the owner would not, under his personal religious morals, use his skills for them. Just to show he doesn’t selectively apply it, he also won’t do stuff like Halloween cakes either. I firmly believe MCS had the option to refuse to serve this couple’s request. He offered his cakes without his talents and referred them to other bakeries who would have been happy to serve them with customized cakes.

But there’s a big difference between MCS and AWS: a contract. AWS was under contract with Parler to provide web services.

The important parts are:

1. If AWS tells Parler that there’s “offensive content” that AWS doesn’t like on Parler, which started a 30-day clock for Parler to remove the stipulated content. The contract can be cancelled if the contested content is not modified or removed after 30 days.
2. If AWS cancels the contract for whatever reason, Parler has 30 days from that moment to move their website to another hosting service.

AWS notified Parler on January 8th and 9th of “offensive content violations,” on Parler. These were deleted within hours of Parler receiving the notification. By doing so, Parler held up its’ end of the contract. By removing the “bad” content, this act in contract terms “healed” the issue. So AWS had no viable complaints against Parler.

With no active issues, let alone any that had gone unresolved for 30 days, AWS still gave Parler only a thirty hour (not day) notice to get off AWS.

So this is where I start calling AWS an “Indian giver” because AWS promised a 30 day notice if they were going to cancel the contract and they broke that promise. What’s worse, there were no active grievances, only AWS’s animus over healed issues.

There are a lot of other issues and facets of this particular case that are not important to my point (namely the Sherman Antitrust act) and I’m not going to cover. As long as Justice is blind, Parler will most likely win and AWS will owe Parler lots of money for loss of income, reputational damage, penalties for breaking their contract and so on.

THIS is my point: By AWS making this a political/ideological decision instead of a profit/loss business decision, who from this point forward will want to do business with a company that breaks their contracts? Amazon got to where it is because they made win/win contracts with other companies. That built a solid reputation. From now on, many companies will look very hard at doing future business with AWS and Amazon overall because these companies will worry that they’ll get “Parlered” if AWS/Amazon takes a dislike to them.

Here’s the video that caught me up to speed on this:

Write comment (0 Comments)

A Perry Mason Moment.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

I don't know how this is going to turn out. While I would prefer Trump to win, my goal is every legal ballot be counted a single time and no illegal or questionable ballots be counted. There is too much happening out of my view to guess which way it will turn out. But I can see that no matter who is sworn in on 1/20/2021, there will be a lot of bodies (metaphorical, hopefully not actual) strewn about in the aftermath.

It's beyond obvious that there has been a coordinated effort to alter the outcome of the presidential election. If you don't at least agree that something was going on, you are either totally uninformed, willfully uninformed or straight up delusional. Too many people (Democrats and Republicans) have made sworn statements (which carries a 5+ prison term for perjury if they lied in their statements) to dismiss this out of hand.

Here comes the fun part: Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell (both former federal prosecutors) have been in front of the press letting us know what's going on... without actually telling us anything. This is where it gets evil fun: The Pravdas (my new term for the US MSM). Have been demanding the "evidence" that these brilliant legal minds have, and dismissing them out-of-hand when the "evidence" is not forthcoming. Rudy is smart, because if this evidence is released to the press, the lawyers on the other side of legal battle will know what to expect and can work out how to minimize or even discredit the evidence used by Rudy.

If you never saw the TV series Perry Mason, it was a 50's and 60's courtroom drama about a lawyer. His client had been caught involved in a murder or other serious crime dead to rights. In court, the evidence all confirmed the guilt of Perry's client... Until Perry put someone on the stand and through brilliant legal maneuvering, got the person on the stand (to the sound of astonished gasps and the clutching of pearls) to confess in open court to have committed the crime. As long as the judge isn't in on the fix, I'm reasonably sure something like this will happen, within the boundaries of actual legal procedure.

There are a couple of ways for Trump to win:

1. Electoral College victory: The current EC count from states that have certified their elections as I write this is Trump 232 to Biden's 227. If Trump can get enough states to get him over 270, he wins. His electors can either come from the popular vote, or if the election cannot be certified in a state, the Legislature would select the EC voters.

2. Punt to the House: If neither Trump or Biden can get 270 votes (a side-effect of a state not certifying and the state legislature cannot/will not send their selected Electors), then, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (modified slightly by the 12th Amendment), the House will vote, with each State getting one vote and the Senate breaking a tie. In case you haven't looked at the map, there are more Red states than Blue States and the Senate is Republican controlled.

The EC vote (and the House vote if necessary) will happen on December 14th. That date cannot be postponed except maybe in case of a nuclear exchange, and I'm not even sure that would cause a postponement.

If Trump proves a coordinated effort by Democrats to rig the election, I sincerely hope that federal prosecutors will be very busy for the next few years putting people in prison for vote tampering.

No matter what happens, the Leftists will rip this country apart. If Trump wins, the riots and destruction we saw from "Summer of COVID" will pale in comparison. If Biden wins, he will be eased out by Easter through the 25th Amendment and Kamala will wreak vengeance on every Conservative, then by Executive action she will destroy as many freedoms as she can, the RKBA especially.

 

Write comment (0 Comments)

Projected != Won

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

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.

 

.

.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Greenwald, Taibbi & Weiss

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

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.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Enforced Hiatus

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Greetings all [Insert obligatory "I'm not dead yet!" comment here].

In case you didn't know, It really takes me several days to make a post. Once my subconscious selects what I'm going to write about, I must do research and Grok on it until fullness is achieved. Only then do I get to sit down and actually start hitting the keyboard.

The main issue is I have been writing more for a book I publish on my other site, and working on the next version of the application for that same site. That and home maintenance, day job, family time and more have prevented me from doing the Groking necessary to make me happy and proud of a post.

The other issue is this extremely polarized political environment. I have lost several friends over the differences of our political stances, and my time on Facebook has left me angrier than ever. In response, for my own mental health, I have stepped back from FB. I have stopped following all my friends (even those whom I agree with) and my feed is now only game-related.

I have decided to step back from here as well, knock some major projects IRL out and regain my center. I will be back, timetable unknown. I won't even speculate because something could change and destroy that schedule. As I like to say IRL, "I'm always here except when I'm not." If I can post, I will. But keeping to a set schedule is impossible for me right now.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Burning it down

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

In the next day or so, President Trump will nominate someone to take the seat on the SCOTUS vacated by Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on her death. There will be no hearings to vet the nominee, it will likely go straight to a floor vote and enough Senators have already expressed support to make sure the nominee is confirmed.

And this is all the Democrats fault. Let me retrace the steps so it makes sense.

Cloture is a procedural term used by the Senate to force the end of discussion on a bill. It's covered in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Cloture is not a vote on the bill, just a vote to end the debate and send it to the final vote. It is used to prevent or end a filibuster. Since the Senate was first constituted, cloture was set at a supermajority of 2/3rds or 67 votes. This was to force both parties to work together to accomplish the objective.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a contentious piece of legislation. Southern Democrats held a filibuster that lasted sixty days. It lasted that long because it was difficult to get enough votes to force Cloture. Due to that bill, in 1974 the Senate voted to change the Cloture votes from a 2/3rds majority to a 3/5ths majority, or from 67 votes to 60. There was also an amendment for a "Two-track" system, meaning that a filibustered bill would not bring the entire Senate to a halt.

In the late 1990's and early 2000's the Democrats (who almost always vote as a monolithic block, very few "rebels") started taking advantage of the narrow Republican majority by threatening a filibuster on anything the Democrats didn't like. Since the Republicans didn't have the votes to invoke Cloture (and they wouldn't get any Democrat support), it was either hold firm and let the bill die, or the Republicans had to negotiate with the Democrats to change the bill until both sides could agree on it. Frankly, this is how it should be to prevent the "Tyranny of the majority" as referenced by our Founding Fathers. It is also the polite way of doing things.

Well, that came to an end in 2013, when a Democrat-controlled Senate decided to eliminate Cloture for Cabinet appointees and non-SCOTUS judgeships. A simple Democrat majority could now enact the "tyranny of the majority" and ram those nominations through and Republicans couldn't do a thing about it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." When Republicans got control of the Senate again a few years later, they changed the rules, eliminating Cloture for SCOTUS nominations.

Then came Kavanaugh. A man of impeccable character and unquestioned reputation. Who was accused by a woman who appeared out of nowhere and accused Kavanaugh of a crime thirty years prior when he was a teenager. She never filed a police report and remained silent as the Senate vetted and confirmed him for lower federal judgeships. The people she listed as witnesses to this act publicly stated that they don't remember the party in question where this assault allegedly occurred. Kavanaugh had over fifty female staffers and clerks who had worked with him over the years publicly state that there wasn't even a hint of impropriety from him.

Kavanaugh could never have been convicted in a court of law for the crime he was accused of, but he was accused, tried, found guilty and executed in the court of public opinion based on one fact: he was nominated by Donald Trump.

In the end, thanks to crybaby Democrats who throw a temper tantrum every time they get told "No," from now on it will be likely that any such votes will be held, up or down, by the majority party without giving the minority party a say at all.

Think of this as a street fight. Both sides initially agree to "Marquess of Queensberry" rules, but then one guy pulls out a pipe instead of his fists and whacks the other guy. Later on in the fight, when the pipe guy is knocked down, he drops the pipe and says, "can we go back to the original rules?" What do YOU think would be the prudent course of action? Drop the issue, be sporting and continue to go by the rules, or take that pipe and beat the cheater with it hard enough that the cheater will never think about cheating again?

We must not have beat them enough yet. Senator Chuck Schumer has publicly stated that if the Democrats gain power of all three branches of government, they will a) grant statehood to Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and maybe even create the State of Jefferson (splitting Oregon into two states). This will give the Senate six more Democrat Senators, as all of the named areas are deep Blue territory. Once they have done that, they will "pack the court," which means increasing the size of SCOTUS from nine Justices to at least fifteen, then appoint hard Leftist Justices that would have made RVG blush to make sure that any strict Constitutionalist Justices are in the minority for at least the next century.

Until Democrats show contrition, apologize and reinstate the 3/5ths Cloture rule while they are the majority, the Republicans will play by the Democrats rules, which is to say there are no rules.

Write comment (0 Comments)

REAL helping

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

When I worked in the healthcare field, I worked with (and even for) a lot of organizations that had a pretty Liberal mindset for the director and the staffs. They did wonderful work, no "but" involved. Okay, so there is a "but," that's related to the symptom vs. the disease (in a general, not a medical way). The director and senior staff of these organizations spent a lot of time fundraising. Organizing and holding events, getting donations from corporations, philanthropists, etc.

So I'm watching an interview of Kim Klacik (Republican running for US House MD7 covering Baltimore) and she started talking about having a non-profit to help young girls who had a plan to go to college or to work and not pop out babies and live off Welfare. Klacik's organization got these young ladies prom dresses so they could celebrate Prom. She managed to acquire a bunch of donated prom dresses, and the girls said, "Eww. 1982 wants their prom dresses back!"

At this point, most Liberally-minded organizations would have pretty much said, "Pick one or get your own." What Kim did was sell those dresses on-line. That raised not only enough for the young ladies to get dresses they liked, but there was enough left over to get a whole makeover.

But wait, there's more! Kim was talking with one of the mothers of these ladies, who said, "I want to go back to work, but I don't know how." It turns out that the young lady was regularly doing homework by candlelight because her mom couldn't afford the utilities. As a result, Kim's organization pivoted and helped women fresh from incarceration, rehabilitation and homelessness get proper clothes and makeovers for job interviews for women referred to her by non-profits working in these areas. She finished off with, "We've helped over 200 women become gainfully employed and over 30% have obtained financial independence."

Why this is critically important is simple. If the single mom is barely surviving on public assistance, she can't afford to send the daughter to prom, or many other things. But to help the mom, that's another issue entirely! An employed mom through budgeting and saving CAN afford prom, utilities, better clothes and all of the other things that moves their lives from "surviving" to "thriving."

Compared to my experiences with the Liberal non-profits, Kim's direction and shift is inconceivable. Again proving the adage, "Liberals count how many people are on their assistance, Conservatives count how many people no longer need their assistance."

BTW, here's her campaign ad:

Write comment (0 Comments)

Arrogance and Stupidity

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

In the TV series Babylon 5, the character Londo Molari once said, “Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in one package. How efficient of you.”

I got turned on to this video over the weekend. It’s Reggie Cannon, a Soccer player for the FC Dallas team. He was “disgusted” at the fans reaction to him, both teams and the officials kneeling during the National Anthem before the game. “You got fans booing at you for taking a stand for what they believe in.”

So Mr. Cannon let me explain this to you in simple terms.

You are an employee of the soccer team. You are paid to kick a ball around a field. The soccer team has the money to pay you because fans buy tickets so they can sit in the stadium and watch you play in-person. Your team also gets income from commercials sold during the game and the sale of merchandise with the team logo. You personally get cash for every purchase of your team jersey.

In case you didn’t know, the first rule of business is don’t anger your customers, especially if the customers spends discretionary cash for your services. Why shouldn’t you anger your customers? Because, silly boy, they stop attending your games. The stop watching your games on TV. They stop buying team merchandise. No customers == no income == Billy boy is unemployed.

You have the right to protest for or against any ideal, organization, whatever. That’s your right and government cannot interfere in that exercise. I’ve consistently said that since Kapernick started taking a knee. If you want to go out into the streets, attend rallies and so on to advance your cause, go for it! I have no problem with you doing that.

However, when you introduce politics into the one thing in my life where I don’t want politics, I’m not going to watch you. I used to watch sports to get away from politics. Now that baseball, football, basketball and now soccer has decided that the players can throw politics into my face, I no longer watch sports. At all. I wouldn’t watch a game of anything even if you paid me $1,000 an hour.

So, Mr. Cannon, I suggest you SHUT YOUR EFFING PIEHOLE AND LISTEN TO WHAT YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE TELLING YOU, before you don’t have any customers to listen to. Grow some humility and respect for others while you’re at it.

Write comment (0 Comments)

Memes to Consider


Warning: stristr(): Empty needle in /home/haveneri/public_html/libraries/src/Document/HtmlDocument.php on line 315

Search

Contact Me

Give me an earful. I may not respond, but I read everything.

Markisms To Live By

I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is the victory over self. - Aristotle