The question Ted Cruz just asked Mark Zuckerberg is the one question I want to know the answer to....
Does Zuckerberg know, or care about, the political leanings "of the 15-20,000 Facebook employees dedicated to content review"? Because the thing is, that skew matters. I have no doubt that Zuckerberg and Facebook don't ask people what their political views are in the hiring process. That's not normally how hiring works. When I applied to work at the CATO Institute i had zero questions about my political leanings. Zero. But that's not necessary for bias to emerge.
What actually happens is that people self-select into particular industries and companies for a host of reasons, the corporate values and tone of the working environment weeds out a lot, hiring managers tend to hire people generally like themselves so even if they don't ask any particular questions, they're looking for people they can work with so obviously finding points of agreement around interests and values help people get jobs in the first place.
And Facebook is located in the Bay Area in California, which has its own skew. The problem, though, is that if 18,000 of their 20,000 content reviewers all lean a certain way, then the content they flag and the content they review will too. And that means they're putting more scrutiny on (in this case) conservatives, libertarians, or just non-leftist types, and flagging more right-leaning posts as inappropriate, banning more of those pages.
I see this already in terms of the fact checking system Facebook has implemented.
And the irony of this is that if Facebook does more of the same, the result will be even MORE polarization, which is the very thing they claim they want to prevent. I'm fine with Mark Zuckerberg ONLY hiring militant leftists, if that's what he wants to do. I just want there to be transparency. Don't said that you're unbiased, if you're not. Be clear that Facebook is what it is- a great platform that has a bias and if you don't align with that bias, you can get kicked from the platform with no recourse. Zuckerberg said that he believed for the first 10-12 years of running Facebook that their role as a company was to build tools for people to use to connect with each other. Now he believes the company should have a new mission: To police the user-base and make sure those tools are being used "for good". Little does he know, he's headed down an authoritarian path. Did he not take Dystopian Lit at Harvard? What are your thoughts on how this can turn? Are you already off Facebook completely? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
0 Comments
Perspective is everything and facts are important in the gun debate. Unfortunately, after tragedy strikes, facts are cast aside in favor of emotionally-based pleas that 'We Must Do Something!'
The graphs below are provided with little to no commentary as it is unnecessary.
1. There are more guns than ever in the United States and there are now more guns than people.
2. Americans can more freely carry guns on them now than ever before.
3. But with this increase in guns, accidental fatalities from firearms has continued to decrease...
4. Additionally, homicides from firearms has also decreased...
5. Suicides aren't on the rise, either. Rates among men and women have been statistically similar going back multiple generations.
6. As suicides go, "Suicide by gun" has actually decreased as well.
7. After each tragedy, our politicians politick, our late night comedians weep, and we leap to social media to re-hack all of our side's talking points. But these tragedies don't actually change anyone's mind.
8-9. So what HAS changed?
10. Gun Regulation doesn't reduce homicides, quite the opposite.
So, why then the push for more regulation? Most who push for "common sense gun reform" aren't even aware that most of the regulation they push for has already been enacted into law...
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
Thomas Sowell is one of a handful of people whose prose I genuinely envy.
He's also brilliant, of course. Milton Friedman, whom I disagree with on some things, was known for being an effective debater, but I think Sowell has even him beat: anti-capitalist platitudes don't stand a chance against the Sowell meat grinder. And now, just today -- at age 87! -- Sowell has released a brand new book: Discrimination and Disparities. I haven't read it yet, but I will. From what I've seen of it, the new book reminds me of Sowell's criminally neglected work Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, which I've been recommending for as long as I can remember (my Amazon review from 2001 is still up). One by one, the standard platitudes about discrimination and poverty fall before Sowell's relentless statistical assault. Discrimination causes poverty? How about the Chinese minority in Southeast Asia? Discrimination against the Chinese minority is actually written into the Malaysian constitution. And yet the Chinese minority still dominate the economy. Likewise, Japanese-Americans were discriminated against so badly that 120,000 of them were forcibly relocated during World War II. Yet by 1959 they had equaled whites in income, and by 1969 were earning one-third more. Politics is the only way for a minority group to advance? To the contrary: the general pattern in the United States has been for a group to become wealthy first and only then to enter politics (if at all). The Irish, on the other hand, who placed such emphasis on political action, lagged behind other ethnic groups. The book is filled with information like this. Page by relentless page, Sowell relentlessly undermines the idea that outcome differences must be of sinister origin. If Polish-Americans are 25 years older, on average, than Puerto Ricans, is that not going to be reflected in greater work experience, higher net worth, etc.? Yet nobody even bothers to consider age differences. If half of Mexican-American women are married by age 18, but only 10 percent of Japanese-American women are, won't their life trajectories be radically different -- even if they were identical in all other traits? By the end of Sowell's book, any reasonable person has to understand how cartoonish and silly it is to expect identical outcomes from different groups across a wide range of human experiences. Of course, today the very existence of an intergroup disparity is made the subject of hysterical denunciations by campus demonstrators who aren't exactly known for appreciating subtlety. All the more reason to cheer the truly great Thomas Sowell, and the unexpected gift of his new book. -Tom Woods Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
The video below is making the rounds on social media and claims that...
"Russian meddling is the biggest attack on our democracy since 9-11. Here's how it works and what we can do about it." The problem with over-simplified videos like this is that they are able to embed a lot of spin when they apply broad-stroke simplification to a complex issue. The listener doesn't have the time to evaluate each simplified declaration as true or false before moving on to the next talking point. This video is no different. If you’ve ever gotten into a heated argument in the comments section of Facebook, chances are you’ve come across a paid Russian troll. Really? Half my Facebook friends are Russian trolls since we get in heated arguments all the time?
In reality, Facebook has been extremely cooperative in the handing over of data to prosecute the ‘Russian trolls’. If Russian trolls were the problem, do not doubt that Facebook would have provided extensive, accurate data that would support this claim. The media would kill for confirmation of that narrative, yet no supporting data has surfaced.
Instead, the larger picture could never be more clear. The goalposts surrounding the Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Have Moved Again
Looking at the 2016 election, it's interesting to note that their main goal wasn't exactly to help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Russia's bigger goal has always been to create chaos and distrust within American society. Wait what? See below for an inextensive, quick first few pages of Google results pushing the narrative of Collusion, Collusion, Collusion before the Mueller Indictment and the VP for Facebook Ad destroyed that narrative!
It also, doesn't stop them from lathering their base with hopes of collusion which could still occur. Why hasn't the collusion message dissipated?
Why isn't this widely reported as a scarlet letter of failure on mainstream media outlets that pushed the narrative so hard for so long? First off, it's a complex story and can't be discussed perfectly in 3 minute soundbites that steer cable TV news segments.
While there are allegations that it was actually the Democrats who colluded with the Russians, there is no concise and perfectly packaged smoking gun that proves so. Hillary didn't directly write a check to the Russians for dirt on Trump. Instead:
Without a direct smoking gun, the only outlets that will push the narrative of direct Democratic collusion with the Russians turns out to be Fox News and Alex Jones. The real crime isn't discussed by any Media outlets, though.
A dossier which was paid for by one political party was being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent*. This precedent is dangerous especially as we see many within the FBI organization were acting in a blatantly partisan manner while on the taxpayer's dime.
If I was Carter Page, I'd be looking into a civil suit against the government's wrongful intrusion into my 4th Amendment Rights by politically motivated federal law enforcement officials within the FBI. Who has influenced the public more? The Russians or the Media pushing a fake narrative?
I have to re-stress this point, there's not yet any evidence to prove any 'collusion' narrative. Indeed, after more than 18 months, the Comey-Mueller FBI investigations of alleged Trump collusion with Russia have come up bone dry. I stand by my previous remarks:
If evidence exists of collusion between Russia and Trump to rig or hack the election, let's get the proof out there and hang him for it. Instead, the readily apparent media goal is to pack television shows, social media timelines and article titles with half-truth reporting in order to muddy the picture. If you don't really take the time to look into the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative, you'll likely just assume it true based on the volume of reporting thrown in your face daily. What's increasingly apparent is that the Robert Mueller investigation, which was kickstarted in 2016 by the Trump Dossier, has turned into a continuation of the Democrats' failed 2016 political campaign against Trump, with vague insinuations of misconduct or outright criminality but never any proof. Now that the goalposts have shifted, I urge you to take every opportunity to point out that we were lied to and the media should have zero credibility going forward. How do we go back and tell every person who read the previous list of articles, or quickly scrolled past them in their social media timeline that they were patently false and created with an agenda in mind? We can't. Those people went on living their lives unable to hold an adult conversation on the topic because they've been effectively influenced. We're never able to right the wrong that has taken place. This is the real crime. Hundreds of millions of Americans read headlines or quickly browsed articles and walked away from that interaction knowing that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
You speak to them around the water fountain and they can't explain why, they've seen no evidence, but it must be true. They are naive to believe the media is pure in it's intentions. They are ignorant to the fact that the media could be complicit in pushing a narrative.
For more, go read Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by by Ryan Holiday marketed as 'the cult classic that predicted the rise of fake news—revised and updated for the post-Trump, post-Gawker age.' You'll quickly understand that the media is no longer the unofficial fourth branch of government which attempts to check government power with truth. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy challenges, four countries really stand above the rest: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. While we stumble from one dysfunctional episode to the next here at home and create leadership vacuums by retreating further from the global stage, those countries are consolidating their power--and their challenges to American interests.
(1) Iran is now more powerful than it has been since it was known as Persia. No longer balanced by Iraq, Iran is able to project influence all the way to--and through--the Levant. Iranian influence pervades the Iraqi government and society and is paramount in Syria and Lebanon. They're engaged in a successful proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, pose a severe threat to Israel via Hezbollah, and are now even looking east to a place where American troops are directly involved: Yes, Iran now appears to be providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(2) North Korea is closer than ever--perhaps mere months away--to having a nuclear warhead that is small enough to fit onto the tip of a ballistic missile and to having the delivery system to carry that warhead all the way to the U.S. This is the first time that a country has both directly threatened to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. and been so close to having the capability to do so. Though not certain, it is not unreasonable to think that North Korea could complete its nuclear deterrent before 2019.
(3) Emboldened by having successfully interfered in our 2016 elections (and having not been punished for doing so) and preparing to do so again in this year's elections, Russia is rapidly consolidating a new sphere of influence that extends into the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe in ways not seen since the days of the Soviet Union. Like Iran (and Pakistan), Russia also appears to now be providing assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its military involvement in Ukraine is no closer to a resolution than it was years ago. Now Russian President Vladimir Putin appears set to be overwhelmingly reelected in an election that the Kremlin would never allow him to lose in the first place. He is, in effect, a lifetime autocrat; carefully managed elections are allowed in order to maintain a veneer of "democracy." Make no mistake though: should a majority of Russian voters ever desire to remove Putin through the ballot box, they would not be allowed to do so.
(4) The greatest strategic challenge of all comes from China, however. They pose the greatest threat to our allies, to our economy (jobs, etc.), to global norms, and so on, and they are one of the few remaining expansionist major powers. While we've had our heads turned, Xi Jinping has gone from merely the next Chinese President to the first Chinese dictator in decades. Like Putin, he is an autocrat. Unlike Putin, he is increasingly unconcerned with maintaining any veneer of democratic processes. China's rubber-stamp National People's Congress has formalized Xi's status as a lifetime ruler, and all indications are that one of Xi's top priorities will be to use his and China's growing power to ratchet up challenges to U.S. interests. These aren't abstract interests either: they directly affect American "Main Streets'" jobs and security. The days when China spoke often of its "peaceful" rise appear to be behind us.
These are some of the toughest problems we face, but they are far from the only problems we face. The global commons is incredibly complex and increasingly hostile and volatile. This is not the time to disengage from allies and/or to fall into total dysfunction at home.
We should get our house in order at home so that we can present a strong, united front. Then we should robustly re-engage with our allies abroad. Shrinking in the face of growing challenges isn't strong leadership. It isn't, in fact, leadership at all. The days when the U.S. could simply retreat into itself and prosper as before are over. We no longer have the preponderance of power that we once did and, like everyone else, are partially dependent on other countries in order to maintain our security and our standard of living. It's time for us to rise to the challenge. Editor's Note: I'm a Liberty Lover that believes we shouldn't be actively countering foreign powers that aren't currently undermining our national security or liberty. What are your thoughts on the geopolitical mandate that requires the United States to continually slay dragons to ensure we stay on top? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot In the wake of the tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL, I've been thinking a lot about the issue of guns in this country, which is really, in some ways, unique. I'd like to say something first to conservatives and then to liberals. For ConservativesIt's time to take our positions in this argument to the "next level." So many of us relegate ourselves to grossly oversimplified clichés and conspiracies that range from misleading to wrong to simply unhelpful. They don't actually do anything to further healthy debate. For example, how many times have we or someone around us said something like, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"? There's a kernel of truth to this--but only a kernel. That's why it's misleading. Kernels of truth don't bring us closer to solutions. There are logical fallacies with all of these clichés too. For instance, to the extent that guns don't kill people, nuclear bombs don't either. As with guns, nuclear bombs don't harm anyone until people decide to use them. Should this then be an argument that all 325 million Americans should have their own nuclear arsenals? Of course not. There's more to it than these little clichés indicate, so stop undercutting our own arguments by tossing these soundbites around. Frankly, it's simpleminded to begin and end your argument with an overworked cliché. Another common one: "Guns are the private citizen's fundamental protection from an overbearing government." Saying this makes you immediately sound as though you have no credibility to the very people you're trying to convince. Practically, the government kills FAR fewer Americans than private citizens kill. More often than not, the government--via the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, etc.--is in the business of saving lives, not taking them. There's also a stone cold practical reality here: When the Second Amendment was written, the arms that the citizens owned were the same ones that the government owned. When you joined the military, you may well have simply grabbed your own musket and headed off to fight. In case we've failed to notice two centuries of changes, things are a little different now. If the government decided to come for you today, you wouldn't be facing muskets. The balance of power of weaponry between government and citizenry has changed dramatically--in the favor of the government. Guns no longer offer us protection from the government. No matter how many rifles, shotguns, pistols, or AR-15's you own, you'd be powerless against tanks, heavy armor, missiles, jets, 50-caliber armor-piercing machine guns, and various types of chain guns that can lay down over 80 pieces of lead every single second in your direction. Your best bet would simply be to lay down your guns and surrender. So, seriously, let's drop this impractical, conspiratorial argument. The days when it applied have come and gone. (Besides, considering all the murders and terrorism that take place today, there are probably more important threats to protect ourselves from than a federal government that kills almost no one, so let's stop defeating ourselves by repeating this conspiracy theory.)
Finally, we call ourselves "strict constructionists"--meaning that we see ourselves as the side that literally interprets the constitution, relative to the liberals who take all sorts of liberties with it.
Let's look at that through the lens of our prior nuclear weapons example. The Second Amendment simply says that we have the right to keep and bear "arms." It doesn't define that term, however, and never mentions "guns," which are just one type of arm. Therein lies the difficulty in always strictly applying something written in the 18th Century to events in the 21st Century. Most of us conservatives agree that private citizens should not be able to own nuclear weapons--or cruise missiles or any other arms like these. How many of you have a confrontational relationship with your neighbors but would still be perfectly happy with their having nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, and tanks sitting in their backyard pointed at your house? I didn't think so. We also agree that people who've committed mass murder with a gun shouldn't be able to buy anymore guns. (Yes, one mass murder each is probably enough, right?)
Wait though: In agreeing to prevent private ownership of nuclear weapons and to prevent mass murderers from buying anymore guns, we're taking a less-than-strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. It simply says "arms," not guns.
It also says that our right "shall not be infringed"; it doesn't say "shall not be infringed UNLESS..." So, by default, we're already not strictly interpreting the Second Amendment. It's intellectually dishonest to say that restricting gun ownership in any way is a violation of the Second Amendment but that restrictions on nuclear bombs, felons, children, etc. aren't. Let's be honest about that: It's our interpretation. It isn't an objective fact. The truth of the matter is that we have no idea how people like George Washington would have reacted to nuclear bombs, mass shootings of children in schools, etc. We can have a more effective place in this debate if we begin by being honest with each other and with ourselves. Where does this leave us? Frankly, it probably leaves us with the reality that some sort of restrictions are justified and, regardless of justification, are coming. That should be clear: both at the state and federal levels, restrictions in some form or fashion are coming. If we scratch and fight against ALL reforms, then all we're doing is simply locking ourselves out of having any influence in the discussion since public opinion has turned so decisively against us. Policymakers are going to start responding to that change in opinion. If we drop our clichés and shaky, convenient Second Amendment arguments, then we could earn ourselves a seat at the table in these debates and have real impact on the types of reforms that are eventually enacted. For Liberals
Get off your moral high horses. I mean, seriously, what's wrong with you?
The current gun debate highlights very well why so many conservatives have given up trying to discuss difficult issues with you: you turn every issue into both an indictment and a conviction of someone's morals. Christian opposition to gay marriage? Immoral and homophobic. Republican support for corporate tax cuts? Immoral and corrupt. GOP efforts to reduce the cost of our welfare system? Immoral and cold. Conservative concerns about abortions--especially certain types of abortions? Immoral and sexist. Anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all? Immoral and unethical. (I mean, there couldn't possibly be any other reasons for any of these positions, could there?) The same goes for Second Amendment rights. Those who support them? Immoral--murderers even. The NRA? They're murderers. (Because of course they are.) Marco Rubio? He's a murderer too. (Didn't you know?) Anyone who receives NRA donations? You guessed it: murderers. (Because the cash that most of us use is harmless, but NRA cash is that rare kind that kills people. New cliché for us: "People don't kill people; NRA cash kills people." Quick! Someone put that on a sign and go march around outside in the street with it!) How can you expect anyone to engage you in a healthy discussion when you're asking them to wade through a bunch of water that you've already poisoned? If they make it through, then they still have to yell up at you on top of your ivory tower. That's no way to have a productive discussion. Stop it. When you encounter clichés and conspiracies from the Right, you have an opportunity to listen, to try to understand, and to address them factually as I've just done. Instead, you ridicule and belittle. It's time for some real soul-searching on this. As I said above, I agree that something must be done. Should we take away everyone's guns? Absolutely not. That is indisputably unconstitutional, and even if the government ordered us to turn them over, I and many others would refuse. Are there some reasonable, less Draconian restrictions that may be helpful though? Yes, absolutely. Be intellectually honest about it though: The cold, hard reality is that none of the restrictions under discussion are likely to have much impact on shootings. --Enact a "waiting period" after gun purchases? (Most people who shoot another person have had guns for months or even years. A waiting period won't make much difference.) --Ban bump stocks? (Sure, but how many shootings involve the use of bump stocks? Las Vegas? Which others? Not many. It also isn't clear how much difference not having a bump stock would have made in Las Vegas. The shooter would have fired fewer rounds for sure, but his fire would also have been more accurate.) --Prevent mentally ill people from buying guns? (I agree it should be done, but let's be honest: How many shooters have mental illness diagnoses? Very few.) --Limit gun buying only to those over the age of 21? (Most shooters are over 21. Las Vegas anyone?) --Ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. (Sure, but how many shootings involve semi-automatic weapons? Most don't.) That's really where we are. There are 350 million guns in this country, so restrictions like those can really only nip around the edges. They can't fundamentally change the reality here. There's this mythical idea floating around that if we just "ban guns," then we'll all live happily ever after, perhaps even while holding hands. Some things aren't very clear, but this is: That wouldn't solve the problem. Sure, it might help some, but it won't solve the problem completely or even come close. One unfortunate reality of going too far with restrictions can be seen in your (liberals') own arguments on another issue: legalizing certain drugs. The argument goes that legalizing these drugs undercuts black markets for drugs and increases government tax revenue. That can be applied to guns as well: banning them would lead to the creation of a healthy black market for guns and would deprive governments of some revenue. So the issue really is complicated. Let's stop pretending that it's as simple as just defeating conservatives and getting some sort of severe restrictions on gun ownership. It wouldn't work out quite like that. For everyone
Our focus right now is on "supply side" (gun) solutions. Too many guns? Too few? Too many restrictions? Too few? This is understandable. Guns drive ratings, so the media has much incentive to harp on them. The Second Amendment mentions arms (which we limit to "guns" today), so it makes sense to talk about guns. These mass murderers are using guns, so, again, let's talk about guns, right? Wrong. I do believe that some restrictions on gun ownership are overdue. We should expand background checks. We should bar mentally ill people from buying guns. We should ban bump stocks. That said, those reforms would have only a very, very small impact. Is it worth it? Of course. I'd never tell a parent that his murdered child was only one and that one wasn't worth saving. All are worth saving. Something feels missing though. Is saving just a few the best we can do? Well, if we're only focused on "guns," then, yes, it is. Saving only a few is the best we can hope for. Our focus should be on the other side: defense. Another cliché goes like this: "The best defense is a good offense." In real life, that usually isn't true. That best defense in most things in life is simply good defense. (Gosh, we humans love our clichés though! It's hard to let go of them.) The truth of the matter is that regardless of what we do with guns, schools will remain extremely soft, high visibility, undefended targets for people who have a bone to pick with society. An AR-15 isn't necessary to wreak havoc. A calm person with a revolver could walk into a school with six bullets and leave six young bodies in his wake. It would be small comfort to those parents to say, "Yes, but you should feel better. We banned AR-15's, so thankfully only yours and five others were killed. It could have been more. Pat me on the back now please." That wouldn't go over well, but that's, in effect, what some the proposals mean. My proposal Yes, enact reasonable restrictions on gun ownership like those I just mentioned. Don't kid yourselves though: It's time to focus on defense. The only way to stop these things on school campuses is to defend school campuses. The way to prevent a soft target from being attacked is to make it no longer a soft target. This is, quite honestly, very basic. I don't know the right way to handle this, but I do know that this is where we should be looking. You could arm a certain proportion of teachers. You could hire contracted security officers. You could have local police and sheriff's departments pick up security duty at schools. You could set up trained volunteer security units (like trained volunteer fire departments). You could send all kids, teachers, coaches, etc. through metal detectors before they're allowed onto campuses. There are any number of proposals with varying costs and other pros and cons. Some may not work at all. Some may work quite well. Some may not be feasible, while others certainly are. This is were we have to look though. We have to make schools harder targets. Is it sad that we need to do this? Of course it is, but it would be even sadder to refuse to do this either for ideological reasons or simply because we don't think we ought to have to "in this country." The fact of the matter is that this country has a problem with gun violence, and the best way to combat it is to make common targets much more difficult to hit. No matter the restrictions placed on gun ownership, if someone really wants to carry out a shooting at a school, they'll be able to do so--unless they can't. They'll be able to do so unless schools' defenses are such that it's just far too difficult. We can't completely keep dangerous people from getting guns, so we have to make sure that when--yes, when--they do, they're not able to attack our schools with them. That's where real solutions lie. No, it won't win ideological fights. No, it won't drive media ratings. It will save lives though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot Second federal judge blocks move to end DACA; Judicial Activism against an Unconstitutional Law2/14/2018 Only in America could the mainstream media call those who want strengthened borders "Racists" and "Xenophobes" while those who are here illegally are referred to as "Dreamers". If you aren't real sure why the courts keep blocking the Trump Administration's attempts to shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, let me catch you up. The entire DACA debate in a nutshell - It's not that the courts believe the Trump Administration can'tend the program. The courts believe the administration does have this right, this ability. The courts just want to make sure there's a good reason behind it. As if, the executive branch has to all-of-a-sudden provide justification in form of a White Paper, hand-deliver this to the judicial branch and wait around for permission to be given. Just as the Framer's intended. No, this is not one of those 'checks and balances' we learned about in 5th grade Civics class. "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so." The judge goes on to cite a "recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary". To be fair, Trump definitely capitalized on the drug problem, the gang problem and national headlines of illegals killing Americans (after being deported many times). This is politics. This is a candidate firing up a base. Now, if you read a lot of CNN, you might think that "We're getting a lot of drug dealers and gang members from Mexico; They're not sending us their best and brightest" is anti-Latino. It's not. "Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. So the Justice System is also the Morality Police, now? Oh yeah, Federalist Papers Essay #82 regarding the authority of the judicial systems. I'll have to refresh myself up on the morality section. When you have judges who legislate morality from the bench, your judicial system is screwed. They are supposed to be partial only to the Constitution. The Justice Department said it maintains that the administration acted "within its lawful authority" in deciding to end DACA and will "vigorously defend this position." Just to recap, the government has very few purposes in our life. It's purpose is to defend Life, Liberty, and Property. If the President decides that droves of foreign nationals, who don't share our western ideals of liberty and freedom, are a threat to "Life, Liberty, and Property", then it's incumbent upon his oath of office to make that decision. This week the Supreme Court is set to meet behind closed doors to discuss whether to take up the Trump administration's appeal of the related case. Spoiler Alert: They Won't. The Supreme Court is very selective on which cases it takes. And when it does take a case of national importance, you will be sure that the legal argument examined will be some tiny nuance within the case, not the hallmark of the case itself. With obstructionist judges who act upon partisan lines, the future is bleak for the Trump Administration. If you feel very passionate about DACA, let's rally support and create the law, legally.
I can't help it: I just have to say something about the "Tide Pod Challenge."
Look at all of those lawmakers prancing around in front of the cameras proclaiming that Proctor & Gamble (the company that makes Tide) is at fault because their Pods look too much like candy. Seriously? Think about that for a moment... (1) We literally have lawmakers who think that the government should be involved in pressuring or even forcing companies to make their laundry detergents look a certain way. Kim Jong-un and Josef Stalin would be proud.
(2) This is part of the blame-corporate-America-first crowd. Only people who live at the very top of the proverbial ivory tower--not just in it but on the very top floor--could believe that the Tide Pod Challenge is linked to a corporation's desire for profit. "Hey, marketing guys, I have a great idea for profit: How can we convince people to eat our laundry detergent so as to sell a few more of these?" Ridiculous. (Plus, since when did "profit" become a dirty word in this country? In an attempt to profit, I may found my own company one day and see no need to apologize for that. Even so, the hypocrisy of rich politicians who profit handsomely from their offices while criticizing others' market-based profits isn't lost on me.)
(3) We have lawmakers who seem to be trying to score political points from the deaths of people who've eaten detergent. (4) The implications of what these lawmakers are saying is really preposterous when you think about it. By default, they're arguing that some seemingly normal people who are in their teens and even early 20's cannot help eating poisons if those poisons look like candy. I mean, seriously, how can we expect teens to know that they shouldn't eat soap when that soap just looks so darn delicious? ("Hey, honey, before we head out on vacation, I just want to make sure that you put the antifreeze where the dog can't get into it--oh, and that you put the Tide Pods where little Johnny can't get into them.") I must consider myself fortunate, I suppose; I don't know any otherwise-normal/healthy 20-year-old people who gobble up everything that's colorful out of a mistaken belief that they are getting a yummy piece of candy. One wonders how these people survived exposure to Crayons in kindergarten. If this describes you, then you have bigger problems and should probably refer to the image above. I mean, seriously, don't eat soap. I'm pretty sure that that isn't rocket science and am equally sure that, in any event, people who eat detergent "candy" don't have future careers in rocket science--nor should they. The last thing an astronaut needs to hear before blasting off into space is that his mission controller was the 2017 runner-up in the Tide Pod Challenge. Houston, we have a problem, and it isn't the way our detergent looks. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
You want real hardcore triggering? Hillary can do it.
The audio book makes it all the more real since you get to hear her voice delivering the spikes of justification into your mind. If reading this book, or listening to it, is difficult, then you have every reason to feel good about yourself. Unfortunately, "What Happened" is not a book about Clinton's loss to Trump. "What Happened" is a book about why YOU, true believer in the Democratic Party, should take hope and not abandon the cause. If you aren't already a registered Democrat, "What Happened" was not written for you. Those who are immediately engaged by this work will be those who have very similar thinking to Clinton. She wastes no time in identifying her audience. The appeals to emotion start in the Introduction. I'm only about halfway in, but there is very little in terms of a 'positive message' so far. What should people that loved Hillary do in their defeat? The message is, "Work harder. Chin up and believe in the cause. The other side is evil, so you will win by being righteous. Believe in your side." Left unanswered is the fact that no real solutions are yet offered. Nothing about what being righteous actually is. Nothing about what values should be promoted. Nothing but "here is evil, we failed to counter it, we will try harder! YOU need to try harder!" Every position Hillary backed is assumed to be good. Every opposition to her is assumed to be vile. (PLOT TWIST: The Republicans use this same partisan trick. It's only the 'other side' that is evil) Still, it is worth the listen. You can really hear Hillary's self portrait come across in a way that justifies everything she did and everything she would have done if she was elected. When you realize that she is just another politician, painted in true Bastiat style, you can see her true view of this world: She knows better than we do. We are clay. She will mold us. Then we will all rise through her leadership. "What Happened" is a book written for those who already believe in Hillary's vision of the world. This book was written to hold together the Democratic Party power base after a crushing blow. I highly recommend reading it to understand the mind of those who seek power. Just make sure you have your own world view screwed on tight while you read it. Those who lean toward empathy, those who believe we can make a world completely free of suffering will be easily persuaded by "What Happened." What Happened is a huge appeal to emotion, and what is commonly believed to be 'right' at the time. And it is right to be so! There is no logical argument to be won on this side. Only those who have been fooled into believing that quick government fixes can lead to prosperity for all, will by in. There are plenty who will readily do so. You, however, know so much more. You know morality isn't just for those who are living today. Morality must be for us, and for those who will come after us. They will tell you that morality is for just those who are alive now. They will tell you that you must advocate only for the living. They will tell you that those who suffer now weigh more than those who will suffer ten fold in the future. Her message and her philosophy deeply contrast with my message of Limited Government. Unfortunately, the popularity of Bernie Sanders has brought socialism and 'big government' solutions back into vogue. Our children will pay for the success of that philosophy. Their quality of life will be less due to our greediness. One life goal of mine is that I will be able to face my children in the future and tell them that I did everything in my power to reject these increases in debt even if it meant I didn't get a tax cut. I may write more about this book once I complete it. Maybe not. At this point, I'm really just glad that I didn't spend money on it. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Troll Attacks Sarah Silverman On Twitter, And Her Unexpected Response Turns Man’s Life Upside Down1/28/2018
I'm no fan of Sarah Silverman (politically) and tend to think her humor as a standup comedian relies too heavily on being blunt and crass. But when people do great things, you encourage it and spread that message.
Someone on Twitter responded to her in a way that was crude and, unfortunately, too expected these days on social media.
Instead of blocking the guy or retorting with some online snark along the lines of "Nice Twitter Account you have there, must be nice to have 14 followers" or "Typical White cis-male response, yo!", Silverman looked into the guys timeline and responded with empathy. The back and forth looks like this:
Side note: I'm from San Antonio and San Antonio is AWESOME.
I know it's hard on social media. If you've ever read the book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator then you understand how dangerously rampant humanity is to default to a snarky, dismissive comment. This is how we should treat each other, just like this. Almost makes me forget the time Sarah Silverman called for amilitary coup to overthrow Trump. She apologized though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |