Is a Pit Bull a Semi-Automatic?

The Truth About Pitbulls on Facebook
Myths and Facts: More pit bulls are involved in human deaths than any other breed. (Along with Rottweilers, they make up 67% of dog bite deaths.) Pits also=92% of dogs killed by dogs & 96% of cats killed by dogs. More pit bulls end up in shelters than any other breed. I've known many happy pit owners but owning a pit requires responsibility and intelligence, as would owning a car or gun. Statistically, many owners just aren't up to the task. - Rebuttal to the Image on Facebook [link to corroborating evidence added]
Another commenter then responded with a dog is a dog, what part of this don't you understand here? This misunderstanding allows me to draw some allusions to the gun argument, and perhaps shed some light on both subjects. This is another one of those instances of miscategorization that seem to automatically get me started. I'm off and running before I'm even sure what I'm talking about.

A dog is not a dog in the same way that all guns are not semi-automatics. To say it another way, a Pit Bull is not a Shepherd is not a Terrier in exactly the same way that a repeater is not a revolver and is not a semi-automatic weapon. Let me draw a third comparison so I know this illustration will be crystal clear. A hammer is not a claw hammer at the same time as all claw hammers are hammers. Groups and subgroups. Dogs are tools created for purposes in the same way that guns are tools created for their purposes. Owning a tool that you don't understand how to use and don't know the use it was created for leaves you open to errors that stem from the purpose of the tool's creation.

Breeds of dogs were created for specific purposes. Terriers were created to hunt down rodents hiding in stonework. Terriers bite more frequently than any other breed of dog. Ask anyone who has groomed dogs. [Although stats show Chihuahuas bite the most. They are snappy little things, personal experience confirms this fact.] Shepherds were bred to herd sheep and other farm animals. They have specific natural tendencies and require different kinds of care than Terriers and other small dogs do. Pit Bulls (and other bulldogs) were bred for a specific purpose, they (like Rottweilers. Rottweilers are also drover dogs, like Huskies) were bred as dogs to fight other dogs and to take down prey larger than themselves.

Dogs are descended from wolves, and there are common traits that all dogs share with wolves. As pack hunters they defend their pack from other packs, exhibiting very strong ingroup/outgroup discrimination; in other words, if you never let your pet out to play with other dogs and meet other people, your pet will respond aggressively to others until it learns what order the new group structure represents. The ingroup is to be cared for even to the destruction of the individual itself, making them doting with children and fierce when threatened by strangers. These ingroup tendencies endear dogs to their owners, which is probably why dogs are the favored pet in most households.

But the general tendencies of the species can masque other traits that the specific breeds were bred for in the past, that might come to the surface in any descendant individual animal. So Pit Bulls that were bred exclusively for fighting can be more dangerous than other dog breeds whose jobs were less focused on the need to guard or attack and more on herding/caring.

A complex biological tool can be like that. Traits that had been designed in can disappear and then resurface later. A purpose-built simple tool, like a firearm, can't do this. Single-shot pistols and muskets gave way to cartridge-loads fed by mechanical action and springs (repeaters) or mechanical action alone (revolvers) which gave way to the gas-powered semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons of today. A musket is not a semi-automatic weapon. Aside from the basic design, killing with a chemically propelled metallic slug directed through a hardened steel barrel, the tools have virtually nothing else in common.

Hello Kitty Weaponry
Today we own dogs as pets, and we choose those pets based on their appeal to us, visually and behaviorally. The purposes that the various breeds were created for are not what we own dogs as pets for now. There are some people who want a stocky, threatening dog because they want to train it to be dangerous. Dangerous to other dogs, dangerous to other people. There are people who cherish the soft-side of their visually threatening dog and they train their dogs to be things other than what they visually appear. This is also true of weaponry. We generally buy a weapon for how it looks, and how it looks can determine how it is treated by law.

Both the laws against Pit Bulls and the laws against assault weapons are misguided, and for the same reason. They are misguided because the characteristics of their design, the nature of what they individually were made for, are not accurately reflected in the way they look. A Pit Bull is no more dangerous than the training that the dog owner has given it, no matter what it looks like. The wooden stock and grips on a semi-automatic weapon do not alter the underlying technology that allows it to throw large amounts of lead downrange in a very short order. Ask any expert on weaponry, and they will confirm this fact for you. A semi-automatic weapon is a semi-automatic weapon, no matter what it looks like.

But a Pit Bull is not always a dangerous weapon, ask any Pit Bull owner. It, like almost any other full-sized breed, can be trained to be dangerous by the people who own it. The problem with that breed and other dangerous looking breeds arises when the owners want a dangerous looking dog because they want a dangerous dog, and then make the dog dangerous with training. This is where a simple weapon, like a firearm, is not like a biological weapon, a trained attack dog. Guns don't think, at least not yet, but dogs do think and they can do things their owners don't expect no matter how well the owner thinks they've trained their dog. The key here is not to make a living weapon out of your dog. I would not let my child play around a dog I had trained to kill. That is simply irresponsible parenting.

So you can have a Pit Bull that isn't a killer, but your semi-automatic weapon is always going to be a killing machine. Pit Bull's are not semi-automatics, anymore than other wolf-descended canines can be deceptively harmless around pack-mates. However, your Hello Kitty assault rifle will always be a killing machine. Like the hammer, a firearm is a purpose-built tool. A hammer drives in nails. A claw hammer drives them in and then can pull them back out again. If only we could recall the bullets from all the semi-automatic weapons fire we've seen over the past few years.

Census Citizenship Question

Countable
"Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution mandates that the U.S. House of Representatives be reapportioned every ten years after conducting a national census of all residents. In addition to the reapportionment of the U.S. Congress, Census data are used to draw legislative district boundaries. Census data also are used to determine funding allocations for the distribution of an estimated $675 billion of federal funds each year."
The key phrase here is "national census of all residents". All RESIDENTS not citizens. If you wanted to quibble about the difference I would stand on the reality of the fact that residents of an area are the citizens of that area. There is no other way to define citizenship and have it be meaningful. Pretending that there are those among us who are not full members of society is the first step towards creating an underclass which can be used in the same fashion that slaves were used. This move towards solidifying an underclass, forcing people to either declare citizenship during the census or go into hiding, is nothing less than an attempt to create a modern slavery system. This move must be stopped.

There should be no question about citizenship because residency presumes citizenship.

Comment on the Federal Register, Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2020 Census

Constitutional Crisis? #ImpeachTrump

I mean, what exactly does somebody like Trump pray for?

I want to hear him lead a prayer for the people he called our enemies.

I want to know how that goes. If he's going to offer up "thoughts and prayers," well let's have the details then. C'mon. - Stonekettle Station on Facebook
We've heard this phrase all our lives. A phrase attached to many different people for many different reasons over the course of my 50+ years. To tell the entire truth on this subject, the United States is always in a constitutional crisis because there is always someone out there doing something that is questionable from a constitutional basis. But the Orange Hate-Monkey (OHM) represents a level of disregard for lawful behavior that shocks even a dyed-in-the-wool non-conformist like myself.

Jim's quote concerning the latest mass shooting in the US is typical for the everyday crisis we deal with in the OHM's America. The recitation of the conservative mantra of thoughts and prayers after tragedies like today's mass shooting rang hollow even before the current level of disdain for lawful behavior was exhibited by the most corrupt and compromised leader in US history. To hear those words come out of his mouth is to need to dig your own ears out with an icepick. A sentiment that any tinnitus sufferer can sympathize with.
The Hill
Funny thing though. Funny thing. Just last night, at yet another political rally, President Trump was telling us, yet again, how the Press -- the PRESS -- is the enemy of America. - Stonekettle Station on Facebook
I too would like to know what kind of prayers the OHM might offer because; frankly, I can't imagine him ever praying to anyone or anything. The very notion that he would willingly bend a knee in supplication at any time is foreign to the machismo that he tries to present. That he could put words into a supplication that didn't sound as false as every other thing he says, making the prayer a mockery, baffles even my (ahem) yuge imagination.

While he's airing the laundry, as Jim suggests, laundry like his secret thoughts and prayers, perhaps he'd do the people he's supposed to serve, the American people, a few other favors? Like what? Let's start with other things mentioned in the Constitution. The document that contains that holiest of holy conservative amendments, the Second Amendment, outlines pretty succinctly the kind of strictures that a holder of the office of President must comply with.

Yes, I'm talking about emoluments, dear reader. Emoluments yet again. Would the OHM mind too much doing we the people the courtesy of releasing his financial statements and clue us in on who is paying him how much for which favors? He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution that requires this of him, and he was just yesterday having his lackeys tell us how they can't be bothered with complying with the requirements of the Constitution,
“To fully and completely identify all patronage at our Properties by customer type is impractical in the service industry and putting forth a policy that requires all guests to identify themselves would impede upon personal privacy and diminish the guest experience of our brand,” the Trump Organization wrote in its policy pamphlet, which the company’s chief compliance officer said had been distributed to general managers and senior officials at all of its properties. - The Atlantic, 'Not Practical' to Comply With the Emoluments Clause 
So while he's out there offering thoughts and prayers to obscure the blood all over his interpretation of the Second Amendment to that document, maybe he could do the other things that document requires and inform us of just who's pockets he is in? It's not too much to ask. Lyin' Hillary as the OHM refers to her, released 40 years of her financial records to the press, a fact that the press took full advantage of, using it (among other things) to beat her down at the polls. Using her openness to keep her from becoming President.

Did I trust Hillary Clinton? No. But then I didn't have to. Her history was an open book. Her excesses were known. Her habits had been gauged. She would have at least been predictable, would at least have not worked to destroy the world as we've come to know it, in the first year of her presidency. All of which is more than I can say about the OHM. Which brings us back to real lying and the Orange Hate-Monkey.

He won't reveal his financials. He won't even tell us who is paying him now much less who was paying him in the past. This is much more of a crisis than anything else that he's done or failed to do in office. It is at the heart of his malfeasance and he won't tell us because he knows just how dirty his financial records are. So either he has to divest himself of all his properties now, declare all his finances, now, or he has to be impeached, now. Now before he actually starts exterminating refugees. Now before he attempts to rig our supreme court. #ImpeachTrump. Do it now.  

SCOTUS appointment? #ImpeachTrump

Robert Reich on Facebook
My friends, this is a dark hour. Intolerance, cruelty, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and environmental destruction have been let loose across the land.
Trump controls the Republican Party, the Republican Party controls the House and Senate, and the Senate and Trump will soon control the Supreme Court.
Republicans also control both chambers in 32 states (33 if you count Nebraska) and 33 governorships. And in many of these states they are entrenching their power by gerrymandering and arranging to suppress votes.
Yet only 27 percent of Americans are Republican, and the vast majority of Americans disapprove of Trump. The GOP itself is now little more than Trump, Fox News, a handful of billionaire funders, and evangelicals who oppose a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, and the Constitution’s separation of church and state.
So what are we – the majority -- to do?
First and most importantly, do not give up. That’s what they want us to do. Then they’d have no opposition at all.
Second, in the short term, if you are represented by a Republican senator, do whatever you can to get him or her to reject Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, or, at the least, postpone consideration until after the midterm elections. Urge others to join with you. 202-224-3121
Third, make a ruckus. Demonstrate. Engage in non-violent civil disobedience. Fight lies with truth. Join the resistance. Participate in www.indivisible.org and https://swingleft.org/
Fourth, vote this November 6 for people who will stand up to all this outrage. Mobilize and organize others to do so. Contact friends and relations in “red” states, and urge them to do the same.
Fifth, help lay the groundwork for the 2020 presidential election, so that even if Trump survives Mueller and impeachment he will not be reelected.
Finally, know that this fight will be long and hard. It will require our patience, our courage, and our resolve. The stakes could not be higher. - Robert Reich on Facebook
#ImpeachTrump needs to be a rallying cry among all resistors. First and foremost we must achieve a successful impeachment of Trump, a destruction of his administration, a refutation of the mandate that the GOP currently operates under. Vote Democratic, a blue wave will send this message loud and clear.

If your state has not had a primary yet, vote in the primary so that your candidates are the people you want to vote for. Make a point to attend precinct meetings. State conventions. Let the Democratic establishment know that we want a total revocation of the Orange Hate-Monkey (OHM) and his agenda as well as his entire administration. We will not be the pawns of any other nation on Earth, and we have no use at all for the Russian stooge that the OHM is known to be. It is time to send a clear message. We are not Trump's America. We will write a different future than the one he has in mind for us.

I have a few thoughts for the sitting Senators. Senators who will have to decide the fate of the OHM's Supreme Court nominee. Follow the McConnell rule or be marked as hypocrites and traitors. This is the bed that you representatives of the Republican party have made for yourselves. You will now lay in that bed, willingly or unwillingly, I really don't care, although I hope you find it comfortable because you are liable to be in it for a very, very long time.




"Should we be confirming a justice that's going to be coming from a person, frankly, that there's a conflict of interest there, that this judge could end up having to preside over cases relevant to this criminal investigation? ... I say no," Booker said Thursday evening on MSNBC. - RealClear Politics,  Booker: Supreme Court Confirmation Should Be "Delayed Until Mueller Investigation Is Concluded"

We have to stop the people who would railroad through a second Supreme Court nomination. This is the part that I can't seem to get across to people, and I can't do it by myself. This has to be done en masse. We the people have to bring Washington DC to a standstill until something is done about the OHM, and we have to start doing that now. 

Separating Families? #ImpeachTrump

Stonekettle Station on Facebook
After the entire country got up in his face, Trump minutes ago signed an Executive Order to end the family separation policy that he created and that he himself spent the last month claiming only CONGRESS could end.

Of course, it's full of weasel words which will allow ICE to continue to separate families. I'd expect nothing less. But, that said, here is yet again another one of his bald-faced lies. He blamed Obama. He blamed Clinton. He blamed Congress. He tried to extort money for his idiotic wall by using children as hostages. He claimed there was nothing he could do. And yet, turns out, he COULD do something after all. He could have done it months ago. And he knew it all along.
No one who's read this damned and damnable executive order, has read it and isn't a stormtrumper, seems to think that anything will change tomorrow. Frankly, I don't see how anything can change tomorrow, which means that the outrage and lawsuits have to continue until we #ImpeachTrump, because the Orange Hate-Monkey (OHM) doesn't know what the truth is. If there is one thing we can say for certain about the OHM, it is that he does not have a personalized conception of  the truth beyond whatever the words coming out of his mouth at that very moment are. Some people would call that stupid, some people would call that moronic. I simply refer to it as Real Estate Developer's syndrome, something that everyone of them I've ever met seems to have in common.

For days I've been reading and posting news stories about the Trump administration's policy of family separation. This policy is the most inhumane and unAmerican thing that the OHM has done to date, but I don't think he's done with the outrageous behavior on the subject of immigration yet. Not by half, even. He can't stop. This is exactly what he campaigned on. This is why people voted for him. This is what his base wants him to do, punish immigrants to whatever level it takes in order to make the immigrants leave. To make asylum seekers go elsewhere. This is what his cabinet officers and advisors who have spoken on this subject have been saying for weeks now, that punishment is the goal and self-deportation is the desired outcome.


NPR POLITICS PODCAST, Trump Signs Order To End Family Separations June 20, 2018

So he can't be done and this practice will continue in some form, possibly in exactly the same way it has been going on for months. Going on in our name. Rachel Maddow broke down on national television Tuesday night just reading about the tender age shelters, the Trump administration's euphemism for places where they put babies they've torn from their parent's grasp, or tricked them into surrendering voluntarily. So we've gotten to a place where talking heads, people trained in the art of maintaining calm in the face of anything the news throws at you, talking heads breaking down in tears at the news that babies have internment camps that they are being sent to. Babies. In internment camps. Let that idea sink in for a few.

The defenders of these policies have a few valid points. The first one is that the parents in question are breaking a law, it is a misdemeanor to cross into the United States except at border crossings. A misdemeanor that would not even get you arrested were it not involving the convoluted subject of immigration in the United States. This law has almost never been subject to prosecution until now, but the OHM is correct that he can have these people prosecuted, and does want these people prosecuted. That is the job of the executive branch of the federal government, 100% his policy in spite of every protestation he has made to the contrary.

The second point is that there are many American children who go to sleep each night in worse conditions than these children in internment camps on the Southern border. This is also demonstrably true. I myself had days when three hots and a cot were more an aspiration than a reality when I was a child. However, the fact that many children face worse treatment and housing conditions in the US is not a justification for treating the children of asylum seekers as badly as we treat our own citizens; rather, it is an observation of just how far the poor in the US need to be elevated in order for them to meet the standards set by governing bodies all around the world for treatment of refugees, let alone what the citizens of the wealthiest nation on the face of this planet should be able to expect from being among the chozen few who get to live here.

There should be a backlash by Americans over the treatment of children who had the misfortune to be born outside the US in a time of global unrest. People who are no different than we would be if we were forced out of our homes and made to seek charity from the tender mercies of the more fortunate. Let us hope that the people we are faced with, should such a misfortune befall any of us, are more forgiving than we have been. We need to send a clear signal to the rest of the world, and we need to do it now. #ImpeachTrump. Do it now. Do it before more horrors are committed in our names.



The OHM's administration failed to meet family reunification deadlines set by the courts today. So the torment of children and their parents at the hands of the US government continues. These are our dollars at work here. This is our government. If you voted for Trump, you voted for this to happen. Understand the horror you have created here. Child abduction is not a political issue. Abducting children and imprisoning their parents for crimes they were given no alternative but to commit can't be a political issue because there's nobody out there aside from slavers that think that stealing children is a good idea. I will go so far as to say that I don't even think immigration should be a political issue.

You live here, you work here, you pay taxes here? Welcome, citizen. I don't know what other requirements for citizenship there should be aside from saying I want to be a citizen and proving your upstanding status (again, live, work, pay taxes) I'm singularly uninterested in there being an underclass that can be subjected to lower wages and fewer rights so that I can get my tomatoes a few dollars cheaper. I'll pay more for produce. Institute a guest worker program with a path to citizenship, screen everybody and then let them get to work. It certainly isn't rocket science to make the immigration system function, we just have to admit that we need the workers and that we want to do right by them.

Asylum seekers are being stripped of rights under the current regime. It was bad enough when Obama allowed ICE to house children in detention centers when they were coming over the border unaccompanied (and with parents) back in 2014 seeking asylum. But at least those kids got asylum hearings and were dealt with in a legal fashion. This travesty has to end, and it isn't just Trump to blame. Every Republican in congress could have stood up and fixed this problem back in 2010 and every year since. They haven't. They haven't even tried, aside from Rubio, who backpedaled from his own bill so fast you'd swear someone else had written it. Shame on them, is all I have to say. Shame on them and everyone who voted for them.

The Beginning is The Ending

Back when I was first arguing the concepts behind Atheism is Not a Belief System my main antagonist cited the Big Bang as proof of god's existence on more than one occasion. It was one of his cherished arguments, one that he was convinced there was no answer to. According to him god willed the creation of existence from nothingness, in his eyes an absolute proof of his Catholic god. The rebuttal to this particular line of argument involves understanding physics and extrapolating data to its ultimate conclusion. Essentially there was existence before there was what we know as spacetime today, and what we see as matter today existed then, perhaps in some other form. We don't know what that form is or how before was measured before there was time, but you can't get something from nothing without god, ergo there was something before.

Unless you want to posit god the continuance of existence is a fact, due to the law of conservation of energy. In order for the bang to occur the matter had to be there to explode in the first place. You can't have an explosion of nothing. An explosion of nothing is a miracle of godlike proportions, and positing god just adds the complexity of the creator of god and then his creator's creator, in an infinite loop of creator beings that mirrors the common expression turtles all the way down. Either existence always was and always will be, or there is something else we don't yet understand at play here, as far as the cosmos is concerned.

As a baseline, our understanding of what is occurring really is in question. What we casually refer to as dark matter and dark energy makes up most of what we refer to equally as casually as the universe. Dark matter is no more certain to be one simple thing than dark energy is. These are merely placeholders like unobtainium, a number to plug into the missing holes in our understanding of the universe. We don't know what most of the universe is made up of, and we don't know what kind of energy is pushing it to expand at the rates that we can measure from astronomical observations. We simply can't see everything we need to see to understand the universe at a fundamental level.

In much the same fashion, black holes exist both in this spacetime and outside of it. The Schwarzschild boundary marks the point at which normal space ceases to exist. Inside that radius we can't know what is occurring because spacetime breaks down beyond that point. We can, and do, theorize as to what occurs and maybe, someday, we will  be able to test some of these theories. But until we can go and directly measure a black hole what we are left with is mathematical proofs that we must accept as true because the math is valid to the extent that we understand it. In the meantime we have found black holes in our observation of the universe, so their existence is an established fact, much like the matter that we can calculate is present in them even though we can't see them directly. That is the part of them that is outside of our spacetime, the matter we can't see because it passed the Schwarzschild radius and is invisible beyond the lensing effect of that radius.

The above is simply the prequel of this entry to the blog. The bare minimum explanation that I feel I need to include before even linking the podcast that spawned this little jaunt down hypothetical lane.


Inquiring Minds, 135 Sean Carroll - Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself

Mother Jones
Inquiring Minds is a show that I listen to pretty regularly. There have been two or three episodes that I passed up over the run of the series, but as a rule I try to give them a listen because I find their reliance on science to be pretty solid. This episode though, this episode pushed the limits for me. I liked the conversation, but I disagree with the conclusions that Sean Carroll comes to in the episode. Conclusions that he states with far more certainty than we can possibly justify, even with my limited knowledge of the math involved. We simply don't know how the universe will end, or even that it will end. We don't know that it ever began, either. He said as much in the podcast, but then he went on to repeat the heat death story that most physicists fall back on these days.

If any part of string theory is real then there are other dimensions to spacetime than the four dimensions that we currently can measure. In any one of the many other possible dimensions, gravity may have effects that we can't predict and that gravity might very well exert forces that would explain some of the measurements that we currently mask with the labels dark matter and dark energy. To phrase it the way I prefer to think about it, the universe is currently accelerating into the big bang. The universe is a nearly indescribably complex toroidal shape, in my estimation, but even that is a gross oversimplification. Hawking radiation hasn't been demonstrated to exist, so black holes don't necessarily evaporate away. Nor do we know that space without mass and time is really a thing that exists at all. What we can say is that the universe appears to have sprang from what we think is on the other side of a black hole.

Who is to say it isn't the same one at both ends? I'm certainly not well-versed enough in the math required to argue this conjecture knowledgeably. What I'm attracted to is the poetry, the symmetry of the circular rhythm created by the universe expanding and contracting over eternity, spawning and collapsing the multiverse or many worlds hypothesis that seems to be the most promising explanation for observed quantum effects that we've come up with. Maybe, just maybe, they are occurring simultaneously on different dimensions.

Inspired by two paragraphs written about this episode on Facebook. It's one of the few things that I believe without concrete proof.

Hypocrisy in the Ingroup? Unheard of!

G+ & Mediaite
Frankly I expected this to not be a thing in 24 hours. The Twitters and the Facespaces and Instamessengers are all aflame. I think it has been more than 24 hours now. I'm not sure. I don't really care. Yesterday the trolls started up with the what about Samantha Bee? on liberal groups everywhere. Here's one example image. Conservatives think they've got a point, and that the point isn't on the top of their heads. A point they're willing to flog endlessly. As I said on that thread,
The finer point that is never made is that if you are offended by comedy sketch artists and think they should be punished for it (aside from losing their jobs. For not being funny enough) then you have completely missed the POINT of comedy. Get a sense of humor, everyone.
The in-group can do no wrong. This is a common problem in politics, liberals defending Samantha Bee when even she admits she crossed a line is just the most recent example of ingroup/outgroup bias. Something I've tried hard never to fall prey to.

I roundly criticized Bill Clinton in the 90's because of his excesses with women, a fact that gets me in trouble with Democrats to this day. He had no business taxing that ass when that ass worked for him in the White House let alone at the governor's mansion. That is simply not the way you relate to people from a position of authority. When Stormtrumpers throw what about Bill? at me I have always pointed to my own history of not putting up with crap from him, so I have no compunction with holding the Orange Hate-Monkey (OHM) accountable now.

The motivated numeracy that afflicts political groups is truly troubling. Conservatives do not see the degree of crimes that the OHM is guilty of as being any worse, and probably less detrimental, than what they believe Bill and Hillary Clinton are guilty of. Never mind that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are demonstrably different people and are not interchangeable characters (no matter how much they sold us on the two for one special we got when we put them in the White House) or that the Clinton murder list that they frequently cite is complete bullshit as are all the other dismissed charges that have been raised over the last twenty-five years.

I've started in the middle of the story again. Drat. Let me start from the beginning. Roseanne Barr set Twitter aflame with a racist tweet that she has since deleted and she was canned for it by her network. As I said on a friend's wall on Facebook three days ago,
I hated Roseanne in its final years in its previous incarnation, I hated the new show from the beginning. What I would like is some honesty from the people who talk about how honest Trump is. The fakery in the new show was so transparent as to make the acting cringe-worthy. ...having said that, if only it were this easy to fire a president over embarrassing tweets.
Why did I hate the last few years of Roseanne? Because she had become a fake. She had money by that point. She had plastic surgery and mental health counseling and a marriage failing over creative differences and too much money. She was no longer convincing as the trailer-trash domestic goddess that she was in the beginning. I remember her stand up routines. She has great timing and she is quick and clever. But she doesn't pull punches and that isn't becoming in someone who literally has the money to get her way pretty much all the time. Her brand of comedy doesn't fit coming from someone with money and sense. Maybe she should grow a little sense and she could keep a job.

But then not saying whatever thing comes into your head that sounds funny to you is not how you become famous as a stand up comic. So perhaps she's still on the comedy track and I simply can't appreciate her comedy anymore. That is entirely possible.

I don't like either Roseanne Barr or Samantha Bee. I figured out who Samantha Bee was on The Daily Show. I rarely found her funny then, and I'm still not finding her funny often enough to take the time to watch Full Frontal now. I follow comics, it's something I do for the occasional laugh. I stop following the comics when they stop making me laugh. I certainly don't pay to see their shows if I'm not laughing. Most conservatives forget that they were pissed off at Roseanne a decade and more ago when she butchered the Star Spangled Banner at a baseball game, an event that was brought to mind by someone with a question about it on Snopes two days ago,
I remember this well. I remember that I thought it was an overreaction at the time. She was a stand-up comic. Her act (and most comedy acts) include ethnic slurs. If you can't accept the humor, don't watch it, read it or listen to it. That doesn't mean that she shouldn't get in trouble for her jokes told in bad taste, or for comedy routines (like the OP) that bombed. 

What is telling is how many comics who pride themselves with doing mostly ethnic slurs end up supporting people like Trump. Very instructive
Why are people listening to comics that don't make them laugh? There isn't a Rush Limbaugh fan who has laughed at him in a decade or more. Why is that?

Yesterday the creator of the G+ group Conservative Union a man with twenty-six thousand followers decided to troll the members of the G+ group Being Liberal. I'm not one to question the motivations of people who clearly have way more attention than most of us should be comfortable with, especially when their actions are bound to create more distraction and attention for themselves that isn't of a positive nature. But he decided he'd demand answers of the membership of that group, a group demonstrably populated with more trolls than liberals. Perhaps what Being Liberal needs is a moderator that can make sure that conservative trolls don't get into the group to stir up ugliness on a regular basis. Moderators that control content like Dan Lewis does for his Conservative Union group. But I'm getting ahead of myself again,
I mean, you post this bullshit here, just JAQ'ing off, as if you are asking something weighty. As if people who don't follow shock jocks and outrageous comedians are offended by a lot of what passes for public discourse these days (take a number after "grab 'em by the pussy") and simply adjusts their filters accordingly, and at the same time you demand that we all pay attention because you think this is important. 

Well, it isn't important. Roseanne hasn't been important in twenty years and Samantha Bee's fifteen minutes are about up. Nobody cares except for white nationalists and anarchists who want to see America made white again. People who support Trump and won't admit that they are racists for supporting him. Those are the people who need to wake the fuck up. 
He invokes ad hominems. Antifa. As if I should think that punching Nazis like Antifa does is somehow unAmerican. I can't figure out why you shouldn't punch Nazis, unless it's some kind of official rally and cops would arrest you for punching them. That I get. Otherwise it seems like the most American thing to do, if you know the person at the other end of your fist is a Nazis. I'm thinking Inglourious Basterds here. Maybe punching isn't a strong enough response? When I suggest that content control is something everyone profits from he alludes to Antifa. When I suggest I might block him for being a troll (demonstrated) and probably an anarcho-capitalist (suspected) I mean, he doesn't let just anyone into his groups. Or as I put the rhetorical question to him,
How exactly do you intend to listen to the input of 8 billion people when they all try to speak at once? When every single one of them must be given the attention they demand? Take as long as you need to answer, since I know there isn't an answer you will admit to.
And when he feigned incomprehension,
It's a simple question. All 8 billion people on the planet will have something to say and according to the rules you have set up, all of them must be heard. How will you achieve this when all of them will want all of the time you have remaining on earth? 
A little FYI is warranted here. I block people I determine that I cannot reason with. I do this on every platform and in every social interaction. If I start talking about the weather in a face to face conversation, you should know that I am blocking you right to your face. I have determined that you are not someone I can reason with. This fact is established over several encounters, so if I see you for the first time and I mention the weather, understand that I don't say how are you? as a greeting, the most common form of blowing someone off while pretending to care. I simply don't have time for a lengthy conversation on my journey from here to there. I do not exclude people for reasons other than the ones relevant to the conversation in question at any given time. For what it's worth, those people are found everywhere, on all sides of every issue. It's why several hundred people on any given platform cannot see what I write. It's better for my sanity and health and it is better for their sanity, too. I would say their health as well, but I don't want anyone to think I'm threatening them, so hot outside today, isn't it?

The troll and the defenders of Samantha Bee then proceeded to conducted their rolling orgy in a cesspool after that point, because that's what these trolls and the people who feed them do. I didn't care less then and I still couldn't care less now. Roseanne should have been fired because she has no intention to conform to some kind of societal norms. Maybe there is a return to decent stand-up routines in her future, I'm not the one to ask on that score. Samantha Bee deserved to be dealt with harshly if she hadn't apologized. She has. It's up to her network now, just as it was with Roseanne, when it comes to what happens next.

The Other 98%
The thing I'm left with is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy on all sides when it comes to these issues. Anyone who objects to Samantha Bee using the word cunt in reference to someone in a position of authority in our government (elected or not) should be outraged by this t-shirt proudly worn by Stormtrumpers during the 2016 election that gave us the OHM. Anyone surprised by racism coming from people who support the OHM were not paying attention during the election and have not been paying attention since he took office. Am I surprised by the hypocrisy? I'm surprised that anyone notices hypocrisy since the OHM descended the golden escalator in 2015 and started the shitshow we are in today. 1 year, 132 days, 6 hours, 46 minutes and 44 seconds. That's how long the OHM had been president when I wrote this. Is he still President? Then the hypocrisy continues. Wake me up when the impeachment hearings start.
It is the work of the mendacious to claim allegiance to a past that we all share, all the while excluding those who don't fit the mold they create with spurious data. Everyone who lives in America is an American. This fact is demonstrable. Conservatives cannot abide this kind of judgment because exclusion is how they secure the zero sum game they have created.

Lunch & Learn

BBC Business Daily, Being Watched at Work
The take away from BBC Business Daily, Being Watched at Work is that studying work habits and office design yields a much better outcome for workers; so long as the watching is not obtrusive and that your employees do not feel that they are being treated as suspects in a crime. Several of the new technologies are being used in very questionable ways, and yet paying attention to how ideas are generated is important if you want your business to succeed.

We called it “Lunch and Learn” at Graeber, Simmons & Cowan. The two stints I did as a line draftsman and architect at that architecture firm were some of the best years I spent in the field. Sitting around the conference room table hashing out how to use the tools we were given, and what the future of technology offered to the field. A twelve seat table beats a four seat table, every time.

Not Bedazzled. GroundHog Day.

"I’m here to tell you that there is an enormous difference between those who want power only to benefit themselves and those who seek power for the betterment of us all." - Jim Wright
That take home line from Hunting the Unicorn -- to Extinction is worth including in the blog based on its own merits. But the subject of that Stonekettle Station article is something that is at the core of all politics and one of the reasons I find myself restless in the Democratic party right now; uncomfortable but determined to see this thing through to the end.

Jim was telling liberals and progressives that claimed they could not vote for Democratic candidates to stop it. Conservatives, we know you won't vote Democratic. You proved that when you held your nose and voted for the Orange Hate-Monkey (OHM) instead of Hillary Clinton. As I've said many, many times, first saying it in Hillary for President? the Republicans were going to nominate a nutjob in 2016 because the Republican party is certifiably insane. They don't know what they want and they just couldn't vote for that woman. So they voted for a serial-philandering, money-laundering tax cheat instead when they could have had John Kasich, a perfectly reasonable compromise candidate that is quite demonstrably sane if a little preoccupied with eating. The Republican party has grown more and more dysfunctional as the Tea Party and Religious Right exert more and more control of the process of selecting its candidates, wresting control from traditional Republicans who find themselves ill at ease in the presence of so much openly expressed white nationalism and Christianist dogma. The current state of schizophrenia that the Republican party is experiencing is also proof positive that plurality voting does lead to the worst candidates rising to the top of the ticket and attaining office. Never argue with math.

So when the Democrats nominated Hillary, and why not, she was the most admired woman in the world more than once; and the inevitable misogynistic blurring of the lines between Bill Clinton's actions and her still being married to him occurred, creating this illusion of taint on Hillary that the media was more than happy to feed on, a distinct vein of fear of Democratic corruption emerged. I see most of this as sour grapes. You never get the candidates you want, and if you do get the candidates you want, most of the time they can't win anyway because you are not we and we elect leaders. That simple phrase is politics in a nutshell. But this dissatisfaction with Democratic business as usual persists. How much of it is real and how much of it is counter-intelligence operations by Russian disinformation services is entirely open to question.

Olga Yurkova, TED2018 Inside the fight against Russia's fake news empire

The same people who refused to vote for Hillary, but were not Conservatives or Republicans, are still insisting that they can't vote for Democrats who won't swear an oath to support every, single, thing that these people think are important. They'd rather stay home and pretend they are doing us all a favor than to participate in the process and maybe be responsible for some candidate or other that they might disagree with getting elected. The point, as Jim makes several times in his essay, is that even not voting is a choice and if you don't vote then you voted for the OHM and all his supporters anyway. And you did this because even not choosing is a choice with consequences which you cannot avoid. The current administration is a poster child for the fact that not voting leads to outcomes which are every bit as undesirable as any other you can possibly imagine. A textbook case for mandating voting and participation in the process at all levels, but that is an argument for another essay.

IMDb.com
This essay is about the allusion that Jim chose to make in order to relate his point. Bedazzled was the wrong movie to turn to for instruction on this subject. The movie he should have drawn comparisons to is Groundhog Day. In Groundhog Day the title character doesn't even know what he wants in the first sequence that he is doomed to repeat for years of time during the film's duration, just like more Americans have no clue what it is they want. It is only after he has dallied with every other distraction in the terrifyingly small world he is stuck in that he seizes on the one thing that might save him, the wholly genuine character of the producer he's been stuck with for all these years one day at a time, a character beautifully played by Andie McDowell. It is at that point that he begins to move in positive directions, finally able to leave the hell of Groundhog Day that he's been stuck in for much longer than the audience that watches the film is. He gets to leave because he finally becomes worthy of leaving Puxatawny with the partner he really needs, that tiny hamlet in Western Pennsylvania that isn't featured in the film.

It is true that the protagonist does learn his lesson by the end of Bedazzled, but the journey of Phil Connors is demonstrably the exact same journey that the malcontents who refuse to make themselves better citizens need to take. They have to accept that the problem is them and not us. Hopefully they manage to do this before killing themselves more than a score of times and spending a purported thirty-four years stuck in a time loop. In the meantime I'll still be here repeating what I've been saying for the better part of two years now.
"Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today." - Phil Connors