It's already here! We just have to make it official.
Trump's been impeached and he needs to be removed. Now, that's not likely to happen given the fact it's a Moscow Mitch led senate that would do the deciding and they've already stated the fix is in, but he can be beat in November even though Moscow Mitch is working on keeping that from happening too. They definitely need Trump to get a second term for them, but after that they really don't need him.
I'll say it again that Trump was the only republican that could get close enough to Hillary Clinton to make an Electoral College *victory* look legit. Cruz or Kasich could not have pulled that off. Remember: She beat Trump by THREE MILLION votes in the popular vote. Ours is the only nation on earth that would let him be leader by finishing second- via a leftover relic of the founding days of slavery. All this fucking mope has to do again is place again and- if he *wins* the Electoral College, Moscow Mitch and Putin get four more years... I think Trump wants a landslide like Putin gets whenever he holds a vote so, it could get weirder this time. I mean- we don't know his opponent yet but we know who it isn't. It isn't Hillary, who- in case you did know this- BEAT HIM BY THREE MILLION VOTES LAST TIME- but fuckheads keep insisting was the lesser of two evils and they had to hold their noses while voting for her, and stupid shit like that.
So, no HRC this time. And no- if he ever really had it- new car smell about Trump. All that punditry about him being a businessman and an outsider who can clean up the DC Swamp can't be said with a straight face by anyone but the most reichtarded idiots on the internet, and in congress.
People are on to Trump now. He's never had 50% approval. Not even on Day 1. In my estimation, *the media* did more to elect him than Putin did. Since then he's done nothing but heap abuse upon them. They could have- and should have- Gary Hart-ed him for his obvious sex crimes but I think they kinda held hope that there was no real chance that he'd win, but if he did...what a ratings bonanza that would be... So, he's not exactly got them in his corner.
He's done nothing to expand his minority base by winning new friends and influencing people. There's that not getting near 50% again. Even to cheat you need numbers to make it look good. He's acting like he knows the numbers don't matter.
But, I digress. This is about Royalty, isn't it? Sixty two million of the nations dumbest motherfuckers voted for Trump and those 62 millions love him more today than yesterday, but, darling, not as much as tomorrow. Those still aren't leader numbers though. We shouldn't accept second best as president. Once was bad enough. Twice would be the death of us.
So, let's make Trump King! Titular, of course. Make it like Great Britain with their Royal Family- just for show and tourism. And I mean the entire Trump family. Ivanka could be a princess and the boys can be princesses. Barron could maybe be a Baron.
From the day Trump got the EC, his minions have been plotting the family's ascension to the presidency and that's not really how this country does things. I assume they were talking about legitimate 2nd place finishes resulting in an Electoral College victory- no, who are we kidding? These un-American fucking assholes were talking about Trump kids being appointed to the presidency. They don't think we need elections anymore- if we are to remain free, that is... That's the way they *think*.
Give them a Trump monarchy. Let them pretend the Trump's are the royalty they already pretend they are. Just put them out there for show like Britain does with their royals. Let the minions worship them. Just don't let our royals have any say in our government. It's a win/win for all! Blimey! What a jolly good idea! Give the stupid cunts something to do that won't hurt us.
Friday, January 10, 2020
Monday, September 23, 2019
Twitmo
Well, damn. I got a week's suspension from Twitter. Know what I did? Evidently I mocked the Saudi Kingdom. In a post to Tim O'Brien, I said that the Saudis should get all their suicide pilots and bone saws ready for war with Iran. That was pretty much it, verbatim. I had previously done about 12 hours in Twitmo for insulting Tomi Lahren, something tens of thousands of people do to that stupid cunt. Twitter is kinda Catholic in it's punishments, rapping you on the knuckles and making you remove the post so you take a proactive role in your punishment. Yeah, sure, fuck whatever. They did the same this time and advised me that bullying would not be tolerated- wait- bullying Saudi Arabia? Is Iran banned too? They attacked Saudi oil fields. All I did was point out (in my own way) that most of the 9/11 hijackers were suicidal Saudis and they murdered an American journalist with a motherfucking bone saw. Well, not in those words. I merely implied and referenced those two incidents.
Tim O'Brien, by the way, probably had nothing to do with this. He's a good guy, very anti-Trump and you've probably seen him on MSNBC talking about Trump. He was sued by this president* for a book he wrote about him. He did not lose. Like most people who are blue-checked on Twitter, it's doubtful Tim ever saw my post. I imagine most are like Chris Hayes. He has his settings adjusted so that he only sees the replies to his posts from the few hundred people he follows on Twitter. Know how I know this? A couple years ago he posted on Twitter that that is how he avoids trolls or any troublesome commenters. He never sees the posts. He's got like a million followers, I think. I never cared for the guy and rarely watched his show back then. I found him to be smug and pretentious. But, one day I was on Twitter and saw that he was a Cubs fan. He was tweeting while watching a Cubs playoff game, complaining about the calls and fan stuff, in real-time. I joined in. I think I posted the pic of me with Ernie Banks. Anybody who calls themselves a Cubs fan would appreciate such a photo and probably be jealous. Didn't even get a like from Hayes! I thought that was odd until 6-7 weeks later I saw his post explaining his settings policy.
So, that explanation not only absolves Tim O'Brien of any possible tattle-telling on me, it also absolves that dumb cunt, Tomi. I don't think for a minute that Tomi read my post and got hurt. I completely get that anyone who is Twitter famous cannot possibly find the time to read even 1% of the comments to them. I've got no problem with that. I only mention Hayes because he's dickish enough to have publicly boasted about how he ignores fans. He proved me right about my initial assessment of him.
The thing is, the people getting offended when you insult or taunt a celebrity- or a kingdom- are not the actual victims. They are minions. Proxy complainers. Evidently there's A LOT of that on Twitter and Facebook. I don't know why I posted that as if it were a surprise to me, as if social media being tribal was something new. Boy, you'd think a Ferrerman who defeated Dregs, Cliques and Unspankables in immortal combat would know that... Gang-reporting is nothing new. One of the more offensive aspects of Twitter is the "Twitter- Do Your Thang" lynch mobs where someone outs someone for being a dick to minorities or something socially wrong. Those people are often kinda deserving but, who is some random Twitterer to be organizing a lynch mob for anyone? I saw "The Ox-Bow Incident" in grade school and it helped mold me into the Ferrerman I am today. Doxxing people on the 'net is not a thang I want to be a part of. Truth be told, I rarely ever participate in the less sinister gang reporting of anyone either. I figure there's usually plenty of other folks up to doing that. I prefer to block or deal with people as I see fit. If somebody annoys me, I block them. Subsequently, I don't mind if someone blocks me. Chris Hayes has effectively blocked me and 7 billion other people. OK. An apparent liberal site- LOLGOP- blocked me long ago. Though I'm decidedly in favor of gun control, Shannon Watts blocked me several weeks ago. She was complaining about mansplaining and I jokingly suggested that she was womansplaining mansplaining. Only cause she was. Kinda knew she'd bounce me for that but, it had to be said. She does good work but, she's wrapped pretty tight. I followed her but, frankly I muted her a lot. On my Twitter bio I noted the irony of being blocked by both Shannon Watts and Dana Loesch. I might be alone in that spectrum.
I don't know if I'll return to Twitter when allowed. The @Jack fuckhead that owns it might deem me OK (as if he cares...) but, what about the offended minions of all things Trump? I'm not a people-pleaser and those are not really people, or people I need to please, at least. They are like Chris Hayes's followers are to, um, Chris Hayes- just sorta there, whether he sees them ot not.
Tim O'Brien, by the way, probably had nothing to do with this. He's a good guy, very anti-Trump and you've probably seen him on MSNBC talking about Trump. He was sued by this president* for a book he wrote about him. He did not lose. Like most people who are blue-checked on Twitter, it's doubtful Tim ever saw my post. I imagine most are like Chris Hayes. He has his settings adjusted so that he only sees the replies to his posts from the few hundred people he follows on Twitter. Know how I know this? A couple years ago he posted on Twitter that that is how he avoids trolls or any troublesome commenters. He never sees the posts. He's got like a million followers, I think. I never cared for the guy and rarely watched his show back then. I found him to be smug and pretentious. But, one day I was on Twitter and saw that he was a Cubs fan. He was tweeting while watching a Cubs playoff game, complaining about the calls and fan stuff, in real-time. I joined in. I think I posted the pic of me with Ernie Banks. Anybody who calls themselves a Cubs fan would appreciate such a photo and probably be jealous. Didn't even get a like from Hayes! I thought that was odd until 6-7 weeks later I saw his post explaining his settings policy.
So, that explanation not only absolves Tim O'Brien of any possible tattle-telling on me, it also absolves that dumb cunt, Tomi. I don't think for a minute that Tomi read my post and got hurt. I completely get that anyone who is Twitter famous cannot possibly find the time to read even 1% of the comments to them. I've got no problem with that. I only mention Hayes because he's dickish enough to have publicly boasted about how he ignores fans. He proved me right about my initial assessment of him.
The thing is, the people getting offended when you insult or taunt a celebrity- or a kingdom- are not the actual victims. They are minions. Proxy complainers. Evidently there's A LOT of that on Twitter and Facebook. I don't know why I posted that as if it were a surprise to me, as if social media being tribal was something new. Boy, you'd think a Ferrerman who defeated Dregs, Cliques and Unspankables in immortal combat would know that... Gang-reporting is nothing new. One of the more offensive aspects of Twitter is the "Twitter- Do Your Thang" lynch mobs where someone outs someone for being a dick to minorities or something socially wrong. Those people are often kinda deserving but, who is some random Twitterer to be organizing a lynch mob for anyone? I saw "The Ox-Bow Incident" in grade school and it helped mold me into the Ferrerman I am today. Doxxing people on the 'net is not a thang I want to be a part of. Truth be told, I rarely ever participate in the less sinister gang reporting of anyone either. I figure there's usually plenty of other folks up to doing that. I prefer to block or deal with people as I see fit. If somebody annoys me, I block them. Subsequently, I don't mind if someone blocks me. Chris Hayes has effectively blocked me and 7 billion other people. OK. An apparent liberal site- LOLGOP- blocked me long ago. Though I'm decidedly in favor of gun control, Shannon Watts blocked me several weeks ago. She was complaining about mansplaining and I jokingly suggested that she was womansplaining mansplaining. Only cause she was. Kinda knew she'd bounce me for that but, it had to be said. She does good work but, she's wrapped pretty tight. I followed her but, frankly I muted her a lot. On my Twitter bio I noted the irony of being blocked by both Shannon Watts and Dana Loesch. I might be alone in that spectrum.
I don't know if I'll return to Twitter when allowed. The @Jack fuckhead that owns it might deem me OK (as if he cares...) but, what about the offended minions of all things Trump? I'm not a people-pleaser and those are not really people, or people I need to please, at least. They are like Chris Hayes's followers are to, um, Chris Hayes- just sorta there, whether he sees them ot not.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Stolen Valor
I went down a rabbit hole of Stolen Valor videos on Youtube the other night. Even I, after all my experiences at work and on Topix, am surprised at how prevalent it seems to be. One ex-Navy SEAL seems to have devoted his retirement to busting fake SEAL's. In the segment I watched he busted three current used car salesmen for trying to pass themselves off as former SEAL's. These three just happened to be used car salesman and that's just the way the complaints came in that week so, that profession isn't necessarily rife with phony SEAL's but, come on...it's used car sales...
There's a boatload of these videos out there though and most are really just pathetic people cos-playing soldier. Mental illness seems to be a major factor and I, at least, find myself feeling very sorry for the offenders. Their stories unravel very quickly as they are confronted by veterans with cell phones while going about their daily business. These poor bastards are Army Rangers and Marines and made captain out of boot camp and yada yada. I'm amazed at how, when confronted, they double and quadruple down on their bullshit rather than hightail it before the actual vet gets angry and maybe whups their ass. Maybe I shouldn't be amazed but, as seen every minute on the internet, the George Costanza line rings true:
"Remember, Jerry- it's not a lie if YOU believe it."
That's why I think it's generally mental illness afoot. You see these sad sacks on the internet and you wonder if they don't have mirrors in their homes. They're active duty Force Recon and 30-40 pounds overweight? Some guys have scammed the VA for benefits, even without ever having served. That, of course, is a crime as is stolen valor itself. It's one thing to fib a little to puff yourself up and quite another to be getting benefits you have to right to. Some guys seem to be doing it for a military discount at Starbucks or any store offering one but, I gotta believe those discounts are hinged on a valid military ID rather than showing up in fatigues or dress blues. I mean- what about hunters and hillbillies that just wear camo because they think it's stylish?
At work and at play on the late, not-so-great Topix, claiming military service was basically a way to intimidate other people. Don't fuck with me...I've been in combat and killed before... In the case of a used car salesman, I'd guess the idea is to impress car buyers more than intimidate but these guys are usually turned in by coworkers who find holes in their stories. Or maybe find them obnoxious. There were two guys on Topix that I can think of that claimed Marine service in Vietnam- before and after actual US involvement in 'Nam. Quite likely they were Marines, just nowhere near 'Nam and bullets flying. Some embellish actual service but most of these guys just seem to be winging it based on things they saw on TV or movies. Actual veterans on the street know the right questions and answers involved in drawing these men (and women!) out. What's your MOS? What's your pay grade? Most of these guys unravel at that. And, they almost always get the uniform wrong. Dress Blues and...crocs? One guy was in fatigues and wearing sneakers. He said it was "Casual Friday..." On the internet and in real life they ask for DD214's. Those are discharge papers. I don't know all that's on them but I bet it's not info anyone wants public. I'll bet like one's SS number is on there. I don't know. But it was comical on Topix when one phony would demand of another that they post their DD214. The first liar doesn't have a chance.
I shouldn't be surprised there are so many liars- and I'm not. I guess I'm surprised that so many are so bad at it.
There's a boatload of these videos out there though and most are really just pathetic people cos-playing soldier. Mental illness seems to be a major factor and I, at least, find myself feeling very sorry for the offenders. Their stories unravel very quickly as they are confronted by veterans with cell phones while going about their daily business. These poor bastards are Army Rangers and Marines and made captain out of boot camp and yada yada. I'm amazed at how, when confronted, they double and quadruple down on their bullshit rather than hightail it before the actual vet gets angry and maybe whups their ass. Maybe I shouldn't be amazed but, as seen every minute on the internet, the George Costanza line rings true:
"Remember, Jerry- it's not a lie if YOU believe it."
That's why I think it's generally mental illness afoot. You see these sad sacks on the internet and you wonder if they don't have mirrors in their homes. They're active duty Force Recon and 30-40 pounds overweight? Some guys have scammed the VA for benefits, even without ever having served. That, of course, is a crime as is stolen valor itself. It's one thing to fib a little to puff yourself up and quite another to be getting benefits you have to right to. Some guys seem to be doing it for a military discount at Starbucks or any store offering one but, I gotta believe those discounts are hinged on a valid military ID rather than showing up in fatigues or dress blues. I mean- what about hunters and hillbillies that just wear camo because they think it's stylish?
At work and at play on the late, not-so-great Topix, claiming military service was basically a way to intimidate other people. Don't fuck with me...I've been in combat and killed before... In the case of a used car salesman, I'd guess the idea is to impress car buyers more than intimidate but these guys are usually turned in by coworkers who find holes in their stories. Or maybe find them obnoxious. There were two guys on Topix that I can think of that claimed Marine service in Vietnam- before and after actual US involvement in 'Nam. Quite likely they were Marines, just nowhere near 'Nam and bullets flying. Some embellish actual service but most of these guys just seem to be winging it based on things they saw on TV or movies. Actual veterans on the street know the right questions and answers involved in drawing these men (and women!) out. What's your MOS? What's your pay grade? Most of these guys unravel at that. And, they almost always get the uniform wrong. Dress Blues and...crocs? One guy was in fatigues and wearing sneakers. He said it was "Casual Friday..." On the internet and in real life they ask for DD214's. Those are discharge papers. I don't know all that's on them but I bet it's not info anyone wants public. I'll bet like one's SS number is on there. I don't know. But it was comical on Topix when one phony would demand of another that they post their DD214. The first liar doesn't have a chance.
I shouldn't be surprised there are so many liars- and I'm not. I guess I'm surprised that so many are so bad at it.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Hegel And I Win Topix! AGAIN!!!!!
Yesterday brought news from an unindicted co-conspirator that Topix shut down it's threads for good. It was done unceremoniously, in the middle of the day, I gather. My first thought was how funny it would be if Sublime had been thwarted mid-masturbatory post! Last I knew he was still feeling the need to share his wonderfulness with whatever was left of the Offbeat/Weird crowd.
I had left two years ago November, I believe, and Hegel had left before me. Her departure was as quiet as mine. We just didn't make a big to-do about it. It simply wasn't worth it to do so. Topix could have turned off the lights several years ago. The place had gone steadily downhill since the Tribune left in '09. It was actually quite a bit of fun then, especially the Chicago Forum where I first posted. The original dregs on the 'Regulars' thread were pretty much fun. Longtime dedicated non-readers know what happened there! I think a week or two ago I looked in there and at the Offbeat/Weird Forum. The dregs hadn't been touched since summer and had only suffered occasional visits by Sub and other trolls in the past year.
Offbeat was far more popular but, that's not saying much. In my opinion it had been a troll-fest for years but, the last year looks to have been almost exclusively trolls fighting with each other and themselves (of course). My name was still getting mentioned though I hadn't posted in two years. Eh, I'm a brand. There were no other charming bottomspankers. Certain people felt like they were actually somebody by trolling me. A five/ten minute perusal of the site showed the usual suspects were still running amok. I'd say that was sad but, I would say that, wouldn't I?
I gotta say it was probably just deserts for the trolls that were left. They know who they are. Whatever good folks left (like Luke/Deer Whisperer) probably weren't too upset if they were even more than mildly surprised. They know who they are too. I'm guessing it was a surprise too and that all the troll mods who could spill the beans were let go before the axe fell.
When Hegel and I discussed this, we were both surprised at how many names we had forgotten. Well, not so much names as the alleged people behind them. That's to be expected after a couple of years removed from anything. We had caught so many people forgetting to look up that even in real time some people forgot who they were at times!
I'm sure it was a financial decision. They couldn't have been making much money the last several years and, at some point, I don't imagine yo can write off the losses anymore. I don't think it was lawsuits or anything like that but, I don't know. I don't think kids today were at all interested in Topix so, like Fox, they had to accept an elderly, dying audience to draw from. I'd venture that the average Topix age was 50 or so. They're still making old people, of course, but those folks might be more into Facebook or Twitter. Topix was once upon a time "a news aggregate" but they quit kidding about that post-Tribune days.
So, like the Ferrerman said: Forget it, Jake...it's Topixtown. Topixtown no more. I guess that clears that up.
I had left two years ago November, I believe, and Hegel had left before me. Her departure was as quiet as mine. We just didn't make a big to-do about it. It simply wasn't worth it to do so. Topix could have turned off the lights several years ago. The place had gone steadily downhill since the Tribune left in '09. It was actually quite a bit of fun then, especially the Chicago Forum where I first posted. The original dregs on the 'Regulars' thread were pretty much fun. Longtime dedicated non-readers know what happened there! I think a week or two ago I looked in there and at the Offbeat/Weird Forum. The dregs hadn't been touched since summer and had only suffered occasional visits by Sub and other trolls in the past year.
Offbeat was far more popular but, that's not saying much. In my opinion it had been a troll-fest for years but, the last year looks to have been almost exclusively trolls fighting with each other and themselves (of course). My name was still getting mentioned though I hadn't posted in two years. Eh, I'm a brand. There were no other charming bottomspankers. Certain people felt like they were actually somebody by trolling me. A five/ten minute perusal of the site showed the usual suspects were still running amok. I'd say that was sad but, I would say that, wouldn't I?
I gotta say it was probably just deserts for the trolls that were left. They know who they are. Whatever good folks left (like Luke/Deer Whisperer) probably weren't too upset if they were even more than mildly surprised. They know who they are too. I'm guessing it was a surprise too and that all the troll mods who could spill the beans were let go before the axe fell.
When Hegel and I discussed this, we were both surprised at how many names we had forgotten. Well, not so much names as the alleged people behind them. That's to be expected after a couple of years removed from anything. We had caught so many people forgetting to look up that even in real time some people forgot who they were at times!
I'm sure it was a financial decision. They couldn't have been making much money the last several years and, at some point, I don't imagine yo can write off the losses anymore. I don't think it was lawsuits or anything like that but, I don't know. I don't think kids today were at all interested in Topix so, like Fox, they had to accept an elderly, dying audience to draw from. I'd venture that the average Topix age was 50 or so. They're still making old people, of course, but those folks might be more into Facebook or Twitter. Topix was once upon a time "a news aggregate" but they quit kidding about that post-Tribune days.
So, like the Ferrerman said: Forget it, Jake...it's Topixtown. Topixtown no more. I guess that clears that up.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Don't Man-up, Ladies!
Watched a clip about Dana Loesch (NRA spokesperson) where her husband described her as being a better man than most men he knows. Is that damning with faint praise or, is it a left-handed compliment?
If you've seen her videos, she's pretty angry for a woman with such a spankable bottom. I know it's the 21st century and women are asserting themselves, and I think that is a very good thing but, women asserting themselves as men is not a good thing. Manhood, as all too often thought of in the John Wayne-wrapped-in-a-corporate raider skin is nothing to aspire too. Acting like a dick, whether you have one or not, is never an admirable trait. I get that people think it is but, do they really feel it is?
Sure, some do. We're supposed to respect and fear alpha males so it follows that one day we should do the same for alpha females. It's a stupid but, predictable route to success. It's worked for so many men in so many levels in the public eye for all of time, whether they be warrior kings or high school jocks. I get that. It does work. I just don't get why women do it. I've been led to believe that they are better than that.
Now, I might have been misinformed. There was probably some womansplaining involved. You know that old drill about "Why is it that when a man is aggressive he's a *stud* and a *leader* but, when a woman is aggressive, she's a *bitch* or a *cunt*?" Well, I'll tell you with another question: "Who's saying that the guy isn't a bitch or cunt too?"
It's great to have a dick but, why be one? Dana Loesch, Tomi Lahren and other (mostly conservative women) act like they've got dicks. They might. If you've ever poked around on Tumbler, you'll come across some very female-looking people that have dicks. Yikes. I'm not casting aspersions on their gender bonafides but, again- Yikes!
Who is the better man: The late Fred Rogers or the current Alex Jones? I can't say I'm a fan of either really but, Mr. Rogers presented himself as the gentle, man that he was. Mr. Jones presents himself as the crazed banshee he wants you to believe he is. One was himself and the other is a persona. Be yourself, not the self you think you should be. If you're going to educate people, teach them values, not vitriol and fear. Simple enough. If you're a woman, you don't have to be Mrs. Rogers but neither do you have to be Mrs. Jones. Frankly, somewhere in the middle, a bit north of Rogers but way south of Jones is better regardless of gender.
Dana or Tomi being vitriolic and tough is not a good look for a woman, nothing to aspire to. If they were men, they might not even get noticed in the sea of *conservative*, equally obnoxious men. Admittedly, they do standout so, that's probably why they went the tough guy route despite street-fighting not actually being in their background. Kinda Trumpy. Just like Trump wants you to think he's Donny from the block in Queens, these ladies want you to think they will fuck you up, though I doubt any of these three ever actually did fuck anybody up. Over maybe but, that's not the same.
Do better ladies. Be strong women rather than weak men. But, if you have to be a man, be a good man. Look around and you'll see fine examples of strong women and men to emulate. Don't settle for the obvious. Too many of us fellas already do that.
If you've seen her videos, she's pretty angry for a woman with such a spankable bottom. I know it's the 21st century and women are asserting themselves, and I think that is a very good thing but, women asserting themselves as men is not a good thing. Manhood, as all too often thought of in the John Wayne-wrapped-in-a-corporate raider skin is nothing to aspire too. Acting like a dick, whether you have one or not, is never an admirable trait. I get that people think it is but, do they really feel it is?
Sure, some do. We're supposed to respect and fear alpha males so it follows that one day we should do the same for alpha females. It's a stupid but, predictable route to success. It's worked for so many men in so many levels in the public eye for all of time, whether they be warrior kings or high school jocks. I get that. It does work. I just don't get why women do it. I've been led to believe that they are better than that.
Now, I might have been misinformed. There was probably some womansplaining involved. You know that old drill about "Why is it that when a man is aggressive he's a *stud* and a *leader* but, when a woman is aggressive, she's a *bitch* or a *cunt*?" Well, I'll tell you with another question: "Who's saying that the guy isn't a bitch or cunt too?"
It's great to have a dick but, why be one? Dana Loesch, Tomi Lahren and other (mostly conservative women) act like they've got dicks. They might. If you've ever poked around on Tumbler, you'll come across some very female-looking people that have dicks. Yikes. I'm not casting aspersions on their gender bonafides but, again- Yikes!
Who is the better man: The late Fred Rogers or the current Alex Jones? I can't say I'm a fan of either really but, Mr. Rogers presented himself as the gentle, man that he was. Mr. Jones presents himself as the crazed banshee he wants you to believe he is. One was himself and the other is a persona. Be yourself, not the self you think you should be. If you're going to educate people, teach them values, not vitriol and fear. Simple enough. If you're a woman, you don't have to be Mrs. Rogers but neither do you have to be Mrs. Jones. Frankly, somewhere in the middle, a bit north of Rogers but way south of Jones is better regardless of gender.
Dana or Tomi being vitriolic and tough is not a good look for a woman, nothing to aspire to. If they were men, they might not even get noticed in the sea of *conservative*, equally obnoxious men. Admittedly, they do standout so, that's probably why they went the tough guy route despite street-fighting not actually being in their background. Kinda Trumpy. Just like Trump wants you to think he's Donny from the block in Queens, these ladies want you to think they will fuck you up, though I doubt any of these three ever actually did fuck anybody up. Over maybe but, that's not the same.
Do better ladies. Be strong women rather than weak men. But, if you have to be a man, be a good man. Look around and you'll see fine examples of strong women and men to emulate. Don't settle for the obvious. Too many of us fellas already do that.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Armed With Semantics
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Well, shit, if you put it that way...
I'm in the camp with many historians (and good-looking handsome people) who believe that the Second Amendment was nothing more than an assurance from the new found government of the United States that, in time of war, the southern slave states would be allowed to hold back militia to put down slave rebellions and to hunt runaway slaves and bring them back to injustice. Slavery was a bigly business before, during and after the founding of this country. In many southern states, slaves out-numbered white folks. If you are white and have ever been surrounded by Negroes, you can understand the paranoia, especially if you are enslaving them. These people were snatched up from their homes and forced to work for free in another country. Despite what the folks on Fox & Friends have said, they were not happy about it, were not well cared for and were not better off than they had been back home on the African continent. As you go on in life, always ask yourself if you would like to be treated the way someone else is being treated. I mean in the bad ways, not the "Queen For A Day" ways or today's Kardashians. If you think slavery was "OK", volunteer yourself or sell your kids into slavery. Walk the talk. You'll be fine.
These days everyone who owns a gun is an expert on the 2A. Facebook and Twitter are overrun with experts on guns- and semantics. Untold numbers of people swear, for example, that the 2A expressly gives them the right to revolt against the government "if it gets too big for its britches". Well, no. That's not mentioned at all. In fact, where in the history of the world have the winners in any revolution ever said, "If you don't like the way we're running things- kill us!"? That's never the way it works. Even now, with Trump as president and republican majorities in both houses of congress, you still have people working off of that old, Obama-era script. This may be sheer laziness but it may also be due to the knowledge that Trump may not be long for the presidency. This could create ironic second amendment remedies of folks defending an oppressive government from another (seemingly) oppressive government inside that oppressive government that doesn't want the current oppressive government to oppress anyone, anymore. If you're going to choose a hill to die on, Capitol Hill run by the current grifters is a very odd choice. So, no, revolution is not an option in the 2A and neither the Bill Of Rights or the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted as if it were the Bible.
Now, am I interpreting the 2A as if it were the Bible? Am I relying on Constitutional scholars? Yep. I'll always go with the scholars rather than the drunk at the end of the bar whether it's religion or revolution. You should too but, yeah, you don't have to. Ain't nobody putting a gun at your head- even if they think the 2A gives them that right.
Nor will I count on the drunk at the end of the bar to teach me semantics as it relates to guns. Sorry but, someone calling a magazine a "clip" does not end an argument and make you the winner. Same with someone thinking that the AR in AR15 means "assault rifle". Most people probably do not think it does but most every script available on the 'net for gun trolls probably says: "You win the argument when you post that AR DOES NOT mean Assault Rifle!" I see these two assertions all day, every day. The ambiguously worded 2A makes NO distinctions regarding the exact verbiage of the nomenclature of weaponry. You can look it up. Or refer to the exact words that begin this post.
That's the whole fucking thing right there. There's no mention of slave rebellions either. That's probably with good reason though. Many of the founders owned slaves but, being smart guys, they probably knew that slavery was wrong and that leaving a paper trail about it on a historical document was not a good idea. I think the founders knew what they meant about militias and slave patrols and left it ambiguous for obvious reasons, the primary reason being that they didn't think it was ambiguous at all. These guys didn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine! They were simply assuring the slave states that, yeah, they could hold back some fellas in time of war to keep the slaves from rising up and killing the white folks. Duh.
Really now, was their any question at the time whether settlers could have guns when hunting was THE way of putting meat on the family table? There was no question of allowing the people to have guns for hunting or for defense. Ninety percent of what would become the US was hostile frontier crawling with Indians, many of which did not adhere to the white people's manifest destiny of killing all the Indians to take their land. Thus, settlers having firearms was not up for debate. Ours was perhaps the only revolution ever where the revolutionaries were not disarmed when the hostilities were over. And that wasn't because the winners felt like the people would need those arms to kill them if they got too big for their britches or elected a Black president. (The founders clearly never saw that coming).
I seriously doubt they ever saw a Second Amendment debate coming either any more than they saw 100 round clips (or magazines, if you must) or atomic bombs or planes to drop them. No less a republican that the late Chief Justice, Warren Burger, called the 2A the "greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American public". He was talking about the NRA's interpretation of it rather than the amendment itself. It was not intended to give all Americans the right to bear arms. Just militia/slave patrols at the time of it's inception. It wasn't until 2008 when no less a republican than Antonin Scalia decided in DC v. Heller that citizens did have a right to bear arms but that that right was not "unlimited". What part of "...shall not be infringed" did that guy not understand?
Well, maybe it is time to repeal the 2A? The Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment wiped out slavery so, in effect, overrode the 2A in the process. Even DC v. Heller actually only determined that a retired DC cop (Heller) could keep a gun in his house for home defense. I'm no expert but, it said nothing explicit about assault rifles, RPG's, tanks or other weapons of war being allowable. Remember: even Scalia said gun ownership was not unlimited. That sounds to me like it can be limited. Lets stop interpreting the 2a by either interpreting it for the 21st century or smooth dumping it. Lets have a national gun debate. And, lets do it without gun play because, you know, YOU don't have THAT right just because you think you do. It's long past time we got that shit straight.
Well, shit, if you put it that way...
I'm in the camp with many historians (and good-looking handsome people) who believe that the Second Amendment was nothing more than an assurance from the new found government of the United States that, in time of war, the southern slave states would be allowed to hold back militia to put down slave rebellions and to hunt runaway slaves and bring them back to injustice. Slavery was a bigly business before, during and after the founding of this country. In many southern states, slaves out-numbered white folks. If you are white and have ever been surrounded by Negroes, you can understand the paranoia, especially if you are enslaving them. These people were snatched up from their homes and forced to work for free in another country. Despite what the folks on Fox & Friends have said, they were not happy about it, were not well cared for and were not better off than they had been back home on the African continent. As you go on in life, always ask yourself if you would like to be treated the way someone else is being treated. I mean in the bad ways, not the "Queen For A Day" ways or today's Kardashians. If you think slavery was "OK", volunteer yourself or sell your kids into slavery. Walk the talk. You'll be fine.
These days everyone who owns a gun is an expert on the 2A. Facebook and Twitter are overrun with experts on guns- and semantics. Untold numbers of people swear, for example, that the 2A expressly gives them the right to revolt against the government "if it gets too big for its britches". Well, no. That's not mentioned at all. In fact, where in the history of the world have the winners in any revolution ever said, "If you don't like the way we're running things- kill us!"? That's never the way it works. Even now, with Trump as president and republican majorities in both houses of congress, you still have people working off of that old, Obama-era script. This may be sheer laziness but it may also be due to the knowledge that Trump may not be long for the presidency. This could create ironic second amendment remedies of folks defending an oppressive government from another (seemingly) oppressive government inside that oppressive government that doesn't want the current oppressive government to oppress anyone, anymore. If you're going to choose a hill to die on, Capitol Hill run by the current grifters is a very odd choice. So, no, revolution is not an option in the 2A and neither the Bill Of Rights or the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted as if it were the Bible.
Now, am I interpreting the 2A as if it were the Bible? Am I relying on Constitutional scholars? Yep. I'll always go with the scholars rather than the drunk at the end of the bar whether it's religion or revolution. You should too but, yeah, you don't have to. Ain't nobody putting a gun at your head- even if they think the 2A gives them that right.
Nor will I count on the drunk at the end of the bar to teach me semantics as it relates to guns. Sorry but, someone calling a magazine a "clip" does not end an argument and make you the winner. Same with someone thinking that the AR in AR15 means "assault rifle". Most people probably do not think it does but most every script available on the 'net for gun trolls probably says: "You win the argument when you post that AR DOES NOT mean Assault Rifle!" I see these two assertions all day, every day. The ambiguously worded 2A makes NO distinctions regarding the exact verbiage of the nomenclature of weaponry. You can look it up. Or refer to the exact words that begin this post.
That's the whole fucking thing right there. There's no mention of slave rebellions either. That's probably with good reason though. Many of the founders owned slaves but, being smart guys, they probably knew that slavery was wrong and that leaving a paper trail about it on a historical document was not a good idea. I think the founders knew what they meant about militias and slave patrols and left it ambiguous for obvious reasons, the primary reason being that they didn't think it was ambiguous at all. These guys didn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine! They were simply assuring the slave states that, yeah, they could hold back some fellas in time of war to keep the slaves from rising up and killing the white folks. Duh.
Really now, was their any question at the time whether settlers could have guns when hunting was THE way of putting meat on the family table? There was no question of allowing the people to have guns for hunting or for defense. Ninety percent of what would become the US was hostile frontier crawling with Indians, many of which did not adhere to the white people's manifest destiny of killing all the Indians to take their land. Thus, settlers having firearms was not up for debate. Ours was perhaps the only revolution ever where the revolutionaries were not disarmed when the hostilities were over. And that wasn't because the winners felt like the people would need those arms to kill them if they got too big for their britches or elected a Black president. (The founders clearly never saw that coming).
I seriously doubt they ever saw a Second Amendment debate coming either any more than they saw 100 round clips (or magazines, if you must) or atomic bombs or planes to drop them. No less a republican that the late Chief Justice, Warren Burger, called the 2A the "greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American public". He was talking about the NRA's interpretation of it rather than the amendment itself. It was not intended to give all Americans the right to bear arms. Just militia/slave patrols at the time of it's inception. It wasn't until 2008 when no less a republican than Antonin Scalia decided in DC v. Heller that citizens did have a right to bear arms but that that right was not "unlimited". What part of "...shall not be infringed" did that guy not understand?
Well, maybe it is time to repeal the 2A? The Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment wiped out slavery so, in effect, overrode the 2A in the process. Even DC v. Heller actually only determined that a retired DC cop (Heller) could keep a gun in his house for home defense. I'm no expert but, it said nothing explicit about assault rifles, RPG's, tanks or other weapons of war being allowable. Remember: even Scalia said gun ownership was not unlimited. That sounds to me like it can be limited. Lets stop interpreting the 2a by either interpreting it for the 21st century or smooth dumping it. Lets have a national gun debate. And, lets do it without gun play because, you know, YOU don't have THAT right just because you think you do. It's long past time we got that shit straight.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
I will follow you...until you piss me off...
Chris Hayes has a show on MSNBC, 7pm Chicago time. (Full disclosure: I barely, rarely watch his show) He has 1.56 million Twitter followers and, until yesterday, I was one of them. He also follows 1,118 people there. I'm not one of them. I guess the reality of it all is that I could probably never be one, the way Hayes handles his Twitter.
He revealed yesterday that he has his settings adjusted to where he only sees replies from people he follows. I imagine many celebs and journos do the same and I kinda sorta get that. But, I also kinda sorta don't get that. What's the point of being on a very public venue of social media if you don't actually engage with the public? You don't even give them a chance. These people might as well email.
Fuller disclosure: I really only followed Hayes because he's a Cubs fan. On a promo for MSNBC, it showed Michael Moore pointing out that, on the screen on set, Hayes was interviewing Moore AND watching the Cubs playoff game! I decided then, I like this fucking guy! That's a fan! So, I gave him a follow on Twitter. No big effort on my part.
Last Fall, he tweeted a lot about the Cubs. I tweeted back a lot about the Cubs. I noticed I never got a single like from him about those Cubs tweets. I don't expect a lot of feedback from *famous people* but it struck me as odd that several supportive Cubs tweets would not get even one like. Well, now I know why. I wasn't one of the 1,118 people he calls "inners" so, he wasn't even seeing my tweets at all. It was like posting into a void. I wasn't blocked, mind you, as others could see my tweets, just not Chris. He couldn't be bothered because other peoples tweets bothered him. He's not interested in them no matter what they have to say or what team they love. To put it into perspective, if all 1.54 million of his followers tweeted him at once, only 1,118 of those tweets would be viewed by Chris. Quite a disparity.
Quite arrogant too. A few weeks ago I began following Rex Huppke, a clever columnist who writes for the Chicago Tribune. I bounced him when he posted a similar sentiment to the Hayes' one where he pointed out that he constantly blocked people who displeased him. I doubt I was one of those people but, maybe I never even got the chance? I never got a like from him no matter how clever I was and that leads me to believe his settings might have been like Chris Hayes'. I bounced him- even though I still think he's clever and funny- because I also think he's a dick for being so obnoxious about blocking people.
I've gotten at least one like from almost every other famous person I follow and there are a few I follow who do not follow me that are regularly appreciative of my tweets with likes and comments. I respect the hell out of that. They take the time to actually read some of the comments made to them! Imagine that! These people get the real purpose of social media- the social part. Hayes has both beat by more than a million followers each but, in my book (blog) he can't touch them.
So, am I a hypocrite? Eh... I block people who annoy me. The key is, I give them a chance to annoy me in the first fucking place.
He revealed yesterday that he has his settings adjusted to where he only sees replies from people he follows. I imagine many celebs and journos do the same and I kinda sorta get that. But, I also kinda sorta don't get that. What's the point of being on a very public venue of social media if you don't actually engage with the public? You don't even give them a chance. These people might as well email.
Fuller disclosure: I really only followed Hayes because he's a Cubs fan. On a promo for MSNBC, it showed Michael Moore pointing out that, on the screen on set, Hayes was interviewing Moore AND watching the Cubs playoff game! I decided then, I like this fucking guy! That's a fan! So, I gave him a follow on Twitter. No big effort on my part.
Last Fall, he tweeted a lot about the Cubs. I tweeted back a lot about the Cubs. I noticed I never got a single like from him about those Cubs tweets. I don't expect a lot of feedback from *famous people* but it struck me as odd that several supportive Cubs tweets would not get even one like. Well, now I know why. I wasn't one of the 1,118 people he calls "inners" so, he wasn't even seeing my tweets at all. It was like posting into a void. I wasn't blocked, mind you, as others could see my tweets, just not Chris. He couldn't be bothered because other peoples tweets bothered him. He's not interested in them no matter what they have to say or what team they love. To put it into perspective, if all 1.54 million of his followers tweeted him at once, only 1,118 of those tweets would be viewed by Chris. Quite a disparity.
Quite arrogant too. A few weeks ago I began following Rex Huppke, a clever columnist who writes for the Chicago Tribune. I bounced him when he posted a similar sentiment to the Hayes' one where he pointed out that he constantly blocked people who displeased him. I doubt I was one of those people but, maybe I never even got the chance? I never got a like from him no matter how clever I was and that leads me to believe his settings might have been like Chris Hayes'. I bounced him- even though I still think he's clever and funny- because I also think he's a dick for being so obnoxious about blocking people.
I've gotten at least one like from almost every other famous person I follow and there are a few I follow who do not follow me that are regularly appreciative of my tweets with likes and comments. I respect the hell out of that. They take the time to actually read some of the comments made to them! Imagine that! These people get the real purpose of social media- the social part. Hayes has both beat by more than a million followers each but, in my book (blog) he can't touch them.
So, am I a hypocrite? Eh... I block people who annoy me. The key is, I give them a chance to annoy me in the first fucking place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)