A digital book-burning

I recently meandered across a story called “Alex Jones will never abandon deranged propaganda, that’s why Twitter needs to ban him“. As is often the case for opinion pieces, comments to the piece were neither requested nor required. So here we go…

---

If untruthfulness was the basis of censorship, half of the liberal media would be in jail. Sadly, there are no laws in this country against mendacious libel as there are in the United Kingdom

---

Every week the tabloids disgorge a fresh cargo of sex, lies and fanciful tales at supermarket checkouts throughout the land, and nobody seems to get upset. While I voted for Trump in the last election (and I called it five months out) I am not a fan of Alex Jones. I find him to be a blowhard. I have never been a fan of either Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, though I have agreed with some of their ideas, principles and positions. By the same token, I find Michael Moore to be a delusional blob of feel-good socialism. But they all have every right to speak, write, make movies, and do their thing. And I would oppose any attempt to censor or silence any of them.

---

Last time I looked, Ignorance wasn’t a crime. If it were, the Bernie-Sanders socialists would be up on charges for failure to understand basic mathematics.

---

Close but no Cigar, bucko. While you are absolutely correct in saying that Twitter/Google/FakesBook et al are private organizations who can do as they please, that is not the point. The point is that these organizations are blatantly practicing partisan politics while pretending to be politically neutral. To quote Judge Judy Scheindlin: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

---

Another true-but-disingenuous statement. First up, the left increasingly uses “Hate” as a catch-all phrase for “criticism that I don’t like“, in the same way that they use Alt-Right to describe “someone I want to describe as a Nazi/Fascist/Racist/White supremacist, but can’t use those terms without looking like an intellectually dishonest idiot“. Most sensible people define “Hate speech” as something along the lines of “Any speech that calls for harm to another person”. By this definition, Maxine Waters’ call to harass Trump’s Staff in public is hate speech, as are the consistent calls to assassinate President Trump. Kathy Griffin’s infamous photo stunt may be a form of hate speech. No liberal media outrage in either case. Liberals, your political slip is showing.

Secondly, the NFL’s decision to ban players from any kind of political grandstanding is right and reasonable; the players are paid to play ball, and the League, who pays their salaries, can do as they please. If players want to play politics, they are more than welcome to do so on their own time. If I walk into a Starbucks wearing a MAGA hat, I should be treated the same way as anyone else. However, if I work there, my employers have the right to require me to remove it or leave. The bottom like here is the same: Don’t mix politics and business.

---

There’s the H-word again. Whenever you see that word, substitute “WAAAAH! SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING I DIDN’T LIKE!” Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let them speak, and let the chips fall where they may.

If there’s one thing that the last few Administrations have taught us, it is that a power that is given to one president is inherited by the next one. That which is created by the stroke of a pen can be destroyed by the stroke of a pen. The use of censorship to silence your opposition may one day blow up in your face.

---

He’s hitting all the buzzwords here. These people use cellphones and Postal serviced to communicate. Want to ban those as well? And what about the ISIS Recruiters on Social Media, are they being shut down with the same alacrity? Why is “Kill all white men” perfectly acceptable speech, but substituting the word “Black” is somehow racist?

---

This is just plain dishonest. Is the Post Office answerable for letter-bombs? Is the phone system legally responsible for wire fraud? Of course not. Is Facebook responsible for every DuckFace Selfie? So why is Twitter being held responsible for every tweet? And what, pray tell, is “real fake news”?

---

I am a firm believer in free speech, as long as it does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. But that includes speech that I may disagree with. No one has a right to not be offended or outraged. If I don’t like it, I can spend my time, attention, and dollars elsewhere. Twitter has a competitor — Gab.Ai — and a lot of Conservatives, both reasonable and crazy – have moved there.

Bottom Line: The author is trying to suggest that Twitter can and should be some kind of digital safe space. Even if that were feasible, it would be an extremely bad idea.

Rebirth of a Nation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPhLXuJ90I

• What if I told you that Donald Trump was not a Nazi?
• What if I told you that Republicans are not Fascists?
• What if I told you that Fascism came, not from the right, but from the left, and always has?
• What if I told you that the Ku Klux Klan was originally the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party?
• What if I told you that,before they became enemies, Adolf Hitler admired President Roosevelt’s Progressive policies, and considered him to be “One of us”?
• What if I told you that the Nazi Nuremberg laws, which turned the Jews into second-class citizens were based on the Jim Crow laws created and passed by Southern Democrats?

I’m not going to tell you any of those things. I leave that to Dinesh D’Souza, who lays out his case in this engaging film, which I watched a few days ago.

The movie starts with a depiction of Hitler’s last moments in a German Bunker, before answering the question “What is a Nazi?” (Answer: “The German National Socialist Worker’s Party“), defining Fascism (State control and regulation of the private sector), and examining the political and ideological similarities between Hitler, Mussolini and Franklin D Roosevelt.

The movie goes on to examine the life and times of a Republican President who was so controversial and so incensed Democrats that they were openly calling for his assassination and were willing to divide the nation and go to war to bring him down. Sound familiar?

It should… it was Abraham Lincoln.

D’Souza draws parallels between Presidents Lincoln and Trump that are sure to warm the hearts of liberals everywhere.

But don’t take my word for it. Watch the movie. Hear out his claims, and disprove them if you can.

Roe V Wade… for men?

There is a lot of noise coming from the “Loony Left” that President Trump is bent on “Reversing Roe v Wade”. As with so much that comes from the liberal media, this is a complete red herring; he has said no such thing, and there is absolutely no evidence to support this. (Returning abortion decisions to the states is not repeal, it is simply following the constitution). Nor would it be easy; a “settled law” Supreme Court case cannot easily be reversed by Executive Order, the only thing that can stand against it is legislation – and that has to come from Congress.

This got me thinking… instead of reversing Roe v Wade, why not expand it? We live in an age of equality, so why not expand Roe v. Wade to apply to men as well?

Right now you are thinking that the Wizard has lost his marbles. “Men can’t get pregnant, so how can abortion be an issue?” And you would be right, except for one thing: Roe v Wade was not about abortion. That was the practical upshot, to be sure, but the plaintiffs did not fight the case on the morality or merits of abortion-on-demand; they would have lost that argument. Instead, the case hinged on one simple question:

“Is consent to sex consent to parenthood?”

The court, quite rightly, said no, and that was how the case was won. A woman cannot be forced to have a child against her will. So far so good. But by the same token, if a man doesn’t want a child, why should he be forced to pay for it?

The sad fact is that an increasing number of women are mis-using their fertility as a way to collect dollars from wealthy, desirable men. And they are getting it. Some women are getting pregnant for famous sports starts and then taking them to court, often for ridiculous sums. This practice needs to stop.

A few simple changes to the law are all that is needed to fix this:

• No child support for children born out of wedlock with the father.
• Compulsory paternity testing at birth.
• Standardized or itemized child support costs.

Most men would look at that list and find it to be fundamentally just. Many women will consider it fundamentally unjust. But a woman who is pregnant has three ways to avoid the burden of parenthood; abortion, adoption or legal abandonment. Men have none. Even men who are the victims of statutory rape by an adult woman are still on the hook for eighteen years of child support if she gets pregnant. This has to change, otherwise men will continue to disengage.

…or, we can just keep doing what we are doing and hoping for a different result. Good luck with that.