Author Archives: Wizard Prang

Geek. Maven. Teacher.

Of Girls and Cars

Corvettes, Cadillacs, Classics and Clunkers – Ten ways that women are like cars.

The Italians have a proverb: “Women are the cars, men are the drivers“. Every man of consequence knows that there is much truth in this statement, but whenever a man compares women with cars, there is always some woman who gets all bent out of shape at the analogy. They usually say something like “OhMyGod! women are soooo much more important than cars!“. They may have a point; most men put more effort into buying a car than choosing a wife, but that doesn’t mean that the analogy is without merit. Any road up, I thought I would take this opportunity to contribute a few thoughts on the matter.

  1. Men are the buyers. A great man once said that women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. Think about the new-car showroom. In the front are the bright shiny sleek and svelte sports cars (usually dressed in red), And towards the back are the the less showy, less desirable, more reliable and more affordable family cars. Personally, I have never much liked SUVs, they are large gas-guzzlers, Maybe they are the fat chicks. I suppose the comparison goes only so far. Women love to dress up and present themselves to be chosen, but when it comes to commitment, it is the men who make the purchasing decision.
  2. They are all the same…sort of: Cars come in all different shapes and sizes; they use different fuels and different technologies.  Even though cars are all different they all operate in pretty much the same way, from opening the door, starting the vehicle, steering, accelerating and braking. In the same way, women are running the same basic firmware, and are subject to the same temptations, pressures, and fears. And every one of them thinks that she is the exception.
  3. New is *far* more valuable than used. New cars command a far higher price than used ones. Beauty is mostly youth; young women can command astronomical levels of attention, affection and commitment from men far more easily than their older sistren, who often have to fight just to get noticed. This is why older women are so quick to make snarky comments about younger women; they’re jealous.
  4. The price is always negotiable. All women like to pretend that they are marriage material, but most are not; the most well-used of specimens still wants to believe that she will get to wear the white dress on the big day. A wise buyer will never pay full price for a used car.
  5. Exotic/high-maintenance or affordable/reliable? Like cars, women require a certain amount of maintenance, expense, effort and investment. The opportunity cost of a wife can easily run into six figures. Like exotic supercars, the most desirable ones are temperamental and require high-maintenance, and only the best of men can afford them.
  6. Heavy Depreciation: Female beauty depreciates heavily with age, misuse and abuse. Driving a car off the dealer lot requires a huge expenditure for something that loses a huge chunk of its value in a relatively short time. As a general rule, women have about twelve years of peak attractiveness, which explains the stampede to the altar as the big three-oh looms.
  7. Classics are rare… Like cars, some women appreciate into classics, but 99% depreciate into junkers and clunkers and end up on the scrapheap. There are, of course, exceptions — but they are rare, and statistically speaking, she’s probably not one of ’em.
  8. …but clunkers are common: These days, most are ex-rentals, well-used and oft-abused. And some have some “Junk in the trunk”. This is why quality men are encouraged to avoid single mothers like the proverbial plague (“once you have bred, you are of no use to me“), and single mothers often have to resort to shaming tactics (“it takes a real man to get with a single mom“) to get commitment that most of them do not deserve. Feminine beauty has a short shelf-life; remember: “The looks that drive men wild at sixteen are gone at thirty“.
  9. Show me the HoFax! The best cars have had one driver from new. But it is far, far easier these days for a girl to ruin herself, and then hide the evidence (see Proverbs 30: 20), and these days, it that is the rule rather then the exception. So she will never tell you how many STDs she has had, how many abortions she has had, how many men she has slept with… and even if she does, the answer will never be trust worthy, because it is in her interest to lie. So a good rule of thumb is “every girl is a ho until she has proven otherwise” Gently used are ok, but check the CarFax, and ignore the salesman’s lies. And for heaven’s sake, stay away from the ex-rental that has a history of having been driven by a different random maniac every weekend.
  10. Routine maintenance is essential. Both need to be driven hard and serviced regularly. With proper maintenance, they will hold up well and give you years of trouble-free service.

Full disclosure: I am the proud owner of a lovely little runner. Drove her off the factory floor, brand-spanking-new. I have been the only driver. Got a lot of miles on her, but they are all mine, and the upholstery is shaped to the exact contours of my bum. There are a few squeaks and rattles, but she handles well and knows all the corners. That’s what a classic looks like. I’m going to keep this one till the wheels fall off.

The Analogy Stands

Advertisements

Misreading Incomprehension

Someone recently bought this fascinating piece to my attention:

Commentary: ‘Be careful using the Bible’

Having read it, I am of the impression that a better title might be “I misunderstood the bible. therefore it can’t be trusted“. As is so often the case with opinion pieces, there was no provision for commentary, so I will add my commentary here…

The Bible continues to be used to oppose women’s work outside the home and female ordination.

And modern feminism pushes those aims as praiseworthy. Choose this day whom you will serve. There is absolutely nothing wrong with women working outside the home, but in a traditional marriage with children, children need their mothers most in the first few years, which means that a working woman who also wants to be a mother has some hard choices to make. For many women, the experience of holding their newborn simplifies that choice. If a woman chooses to hand her children off to someone else and go to work, good luck to her, but there are an awful lot of working mothers out there who wish that they didn’t have to.

As far as female ordination is concerned, I have seen female preachers who obviously have an anointing on them. What I object to is when women are placed in a position of authority over men. “Women are grown, men are made“; and a woman, no matter how well-meaning, cannot teach a man how to be a man. Doubly so for feminists,who want to “reconstruct” men according to their whim — which usually results in weak, “nice” feminized men, with whom that few women want to pair-bond.

In studying the Bible, it is necessary to realize that often God is cited as supporting whatever values are normative at that time in history. Those are “timely” standards — standards valued for a time — but not necessarily “timeless” standards that are applicable for all time and all circumstances.

It is true that much of the bible’s teaching is cultural. while much is sacred. The danger is that we may use our opinions and feelings — or worse, the culture — to decide which is which.

Remember that the Bible affirms Abraham having sexual relations with Hagar, Sarah’s maid, in order to produce his first son, Ishmael

The bible does no such thing. it *informed* us of the event. It also makes it clear that this was Sarah’s idea, not God’s — and her impatience resulted in the Middle East becoming the charnel-house it is today.

Remember King Solomon’s legendary 1,000 wives and concubines. Today we would call Abraham’s and Solomon’s sexual actions adultery, and not condone such actions for the behavior of others.

Once again, the learned Reverend is letting his feelings get in the way. The bible does not glorify Solomon’s myriad wives, it simply informs. Many of those marriages were political alliances — David’s first wife, Michal, was Saul’s daughter. Many others would have been gifts from other kings and chieftains. And Solomon himself owes his existence to one of the most infamous adulteries in recorded history. The bible warns repeatedly against intermarrying with foreign women. Also remember that in those days, there was a chronic man shortage – men died working or fighting, and women who lost their husbands were often left destitute. This is why a younger brother was required by law to marry his older brother’s childless widow and give her children so that she would have a future — conduct that would be considered unacceptable today.

Remember that, in ancient Israel, eating shellfish and wearing clothing of two different fabrics at the same time were called “abominations.” Walking too many paces on the Sabbath was considered sinful. And, it was permissible to make slaves of captured enemies. So much of what was considered sinful or acceptable was simply the norms or standards that were practiced by the majority of the people, but condemned today.

There were reasons for those practices. The bible calls eating pork “unclean”. Today, we call it “trichinosis”. Whatever you choose to call it, it wasn’t good for you.

Sadly, that practice has not changed. As a child, I was not allowed to have playing cards in our house. Dancing and even going to the movies were frowned upon, and drinking alcoholic beverages was not allowed. I was told that Jesus and his disciples drank only grape juice!

And millions of parents tell their children about Santa. So you were misled. How sad. And now you are returning the favor by mis-leading us?

That brings us to a question sharply dividing the Christian community in our time: How are we to think about and act toward the LGBTQ community? We know that the majority of Americans do not oppose homosexual relations, yet others believe that while every person is a child of God, homosexual behavior is a choice and is sinful, and marriage is only to be affirmed when between a man and a woman. A key question for me is: Is that position simply an expression of ancient and current cultural norms, or is that the timeless moral position, sanctioned by God?

Ah… now we get to the meat of the matter. I was wondering how long it would be before homosexuality reared its head. One of my favorite verses in the bible is “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial”, so let’s start with that.

Likewise, most scientists and psychologists of today believe that same-gender orientation is not a matter of choice.

Science isn’t about what you “believe”, it is what you can prove. Science based on “belief” — consensus — looks a lot like religion. In related news, And psychologists are currently trying to convince us that masculinity is a disease. So I would not place much stock in what “scientists and psychologists believe”.

Let’s go a bit deeper into the issue of morality. How do we distinguish between values that are “timely” — those that are affirmed as norms by the majority of people at one time in history, but are changed or updated in another generation because of new understandings, and the values that are “timeless” and applicable in all situations and at all times in history? What is an eternal value? Here is where the Bible, taken as a whole and seen in its depths, can guide us.

What you do is read the text with an open mind. What you don’t do is go running to your feelings and feminist doctrine in search of a solution.

Why oppose slavery and segregation? Because they are hurtful. Why do the Ten Commandments forbid murder, stealing, lying, adultery and coveting? Because they are hurtful. On the other hand, what is hurtful about playing cards, dancing or having a glass of wine with a meal?

Tell that to someone who has had to live with the consequences of gambling and alcoholism. The bible also says “do not do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”. Oh, and you just proved my previous point. The difference between what is sacred and what is cultural is often obvious. The real problem comes when you run into something you don’t like, which is what we are seeing here.

If a person is born with a same-gender orientation, why must they be prohibited from having an intimate relationship with another person, forced into isolation and loneliness, just because many people unfairly oppose that? The fact that some Christians do not approve does not make such a relationship hurtful.

“Born with”? I call shenanigans. A predisposition towards homosexual behavior cannot, by definition, be biologically derived, since reproduction only happens as a result of a heterosexual coupling. A small number of people are born with hormonal imbalances that may predispose them to same-sex attraction, but they are rare, anomalous, and worthy of special treatment. What we should not be doing is allowing a tiny minority of edge-cases to forcibly steer the culture. In my opinion, the vast majority are created behaviorally.

Why not have the same moral standards for same-gender relationships as for heterosexual relationships: no promiscuity, no coercion, no insensitivity. Instead, seek commitment, faithfulness, mutual sensitivity, caring and support. Who does that hurt? Instead, it treats all people as persons of equal worth, as children of God, and encouraged to enjoy mutually affirming, intimate, helpful relationships with others.

No reasonable person believes that God hates gays. But there is no evidence that he made them. However, it must be said that there is nowhere in the bible where homosexuality is affirmed or seen as morally praiseworthy (unlike, for instance, prostitution), or is described as anything less than a sin, If you choose to live that life, that’s your choice. I am not mad with you, but you don’t answer to me.

To “love your neighbor” is to do the helpful thing and to avoid doing the hurtful thing, even when cultural conditioning makes that uncomfortable. Helping, not hurting, looks and sounds like Jesus to me.

Be careful when you put words into the mouth of Jesus, who said such feel-good gems as “God made male and female… therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife” (Matthew 19:4). The same Jesus who said “Let the dead bury their dead” and “You will always have the poor“, and ran the officially licensed traders out of t he temple with a whip. . does that sound like “fluffy hippie boyfriend Jesus” to you?

Bottom line: There is a big difference between tolerance and affirmation; telling people that God loves them is praiseworthy. Telling people that God approves of something without any supporting evidence may not be “helping” them.

Some Exclusions Apply

Got this in my email this morning:

 

Every “eligible” title was at least $9.99

To quote Dilbert: “Gaaaah

Why Jussie Smollett is a liar

I have been following this narrative for a while. Here are my initial thoughts when the story broke.

Initial Behavioral Inconsistencies

  • He claims to have fought off two attackers but does not have injuries consistent with a vicious attack. What happened?
  • He claims that the assailants said “This is MAGA country”. He subsequently denied saying this. In which universe is Chicago “MAGA Country”?
  • He claims to have fought off two attackers with tuna sandwich in one hand and a phone in the other. How did he do this?
  • He had his phone with him, but did not call the police until forty minutes later, after he got home. Why did he wait for so long to report a crime?
  • He finally called the police about twenty minutes later, after he got home. Why so long? Why didn’t he call the cops on the spot?
  • He claims that the attackers placed a “noose” around his neck, but was still “wearing” it when the police arrived. Why would he keep it on?

Meeting the police

  • Smollett claimed that he was on the phone with his manager when the attack occurred… at 2AM?
  • …but when asked for his phone, he didn’t turn it over immediately. When he finally did, some of the phone numbers had been “redacted”, ostensibly in order to protect the privacy of contacts and people who are not relevant to the attack. Why do you think that you get to decide what evidence is and is not “relevant”?

*Sigh*, first Cavanaugh, now this. Given the total lack of evidence and questionable behavior of the alleged victim, I am convinced that Jussie Smollet is a liar.

Time will tell.

Eschew Obfuscation

I have always hated New Year’s Resolutions. Nobody I know ever keeps them.

Over the past few months, however, I have been thinking about what people say, and how they say it.

It seems that more and more, people are afraid to say what they are really thinking; all too often, we say something else to “be nice”

Enough Already

My new year’s Resolution is to Speak Plainly. To be direct and to the point. I’m done with Safe Spaces. I’m done with tiptoeing around the faint of heart.

From here on out, I will call things what they are and say what I mean. This may mean using unkind-but-true words like “Ugly” and “Fat”.

I know some people will get offended, but Confucius he say:

Now that’s a New Year’s Resolution I can keep.

When “Affordable” ain’t

Before Obamacare became law, my employer offered three plans: HMO, PPO and High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). I opted for PPO, which had a combined deductible/copay/coinsurance of $1000/year per person.

The year the act became law, HMO and PPO options were taken off the table, and we were offered the option of HDHP, which had a combined deductible/copay/coinsurance of $5000/year per person. They took great care in repeatedly telling us that this decision had nothing to do with Obamacare, but was to do with “the higher costs of health insurance”, while ignoring the fact that the single biggest changes in the the cost of healthcare was the increased costs to health Insurance mandated by the new law.

“Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it”.


My lady has multiple allergies and several other health issues, which require several expensive (up to $300/month *each*) drugs. Before Obamacare, I had to find $1000/year to pay for these. At about the cost of a high-end cellphone plan, this was annoying, but bearable. Under HDHP, however, I paid the first $2500 of all medical costs which we usually burned through by March and then 20% of all subsequent costs until we had spent another $2500, which happened around September. For the last three months of the year, however, all health costs were covered at 100%.

This led to an interesting interlude a few years ago: I was picking up her drugs and when the pharmacist told me that there was no charge, the fellow behind me said “Free drugs? How do I get some of that?“. I riposted with: “Easy. Just spend five thousand dollars“, to which he replied “Forget I asked.”.

So for me, Obamacare translates directly to a four-thousand-dollar-per-year pay cut – and that’s just for her; if I get sick, that’s another five grand I’ll have to find. this is why I flatly refuse to refer to it as the “Affordable Care Act.” I think it’s the height of understatement to say that I’m not a fan.


Obamacare is not all bad news; two good things came out of it were The removal of coverage limits was a good thing, and Health Insurance companies could now no longer deny coverage on the basis of Pre-existing conditions. However, both of these changes increased the exposure of Insurance Companies, and those costs were passed on to the Customer – Mr. and Mrs. You-and-me. But the biggest insult about Obamacare was the ridiculous Supreme Court decision that effectively made purchasing healthcare mandatory; a mandate that has since been overturned by Executive Order, and rightly so, in my opinion.

The Healthcare system in the USA used to be a perfect example of capitalism in action; It takes about a million dollars and twelve years to train a doctor about the same as a fighter pilot. Unlike the Air Force, however, the Physicians train themselves at their own expense, so it makes sense that they should set the value of their services. As an aside, this is tempered by the fact that the AMA and licensing authorities effectively conspire to restrict the supply of doctors, which keeps prices high. This seems to be working; there are, for example, plenty of unemployed attorneys, but the unemployment rate of qualified and licensed physicians is effectively zero, and an M.D. is often perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a license to print money.


The problem with Obamacare is that it attempts to mix the worst of Capitalist and Socialized systems while getting the best of neither, and ends up being less than the less than the sum of its parts. The young were forced to pay for coverage that they did not want, in order to subsidize the unemployed, the itinerant, and the poor. The quasi-free-market Health Exchanges, while a good idea in theory, have not worked out well in practice; prices have spiraled in recent years, and many insurance providers have left the business or gone out of business.

I, for one, would like to see Obamacare repealed. But it will not be until something better is offered. And by “better”, I mean that “nobody loses any coverage that they currently have”, that simply won’t happen. This is in accordance with Prang’s Law of Freebies, which goes as follows:

Once someone has gotten used to free stuff, they will never voluntarily give it up, and will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it

Be Unkind

I have been a member of Stack Overflow for nearly six years. It is a truly great resource for solving IT technical problems.

Recently they announced a change in their Code of Conduct. Whenever I see a change in the rules, I always ask myself “Why?”. I checked it out, and the sub-heading grabbed my attention:

The word “Kindness” jumped off the page. This is a site for people with knowledge to share and solve technical problems. Let’s look at the examples that they gave:

Looking at the “correct” versions, they are far more wordy and verbose than their terse, brief versions. So why the obsession with Kindness? Then the answer hit me:

Girls

The “correct” answers on the right are the kind of flowery, fluffy, unnecessarily verbose replies that are written by girls. I have found that when it comes to writing assignments, women tend to write a lot more than men, and they concentrate a lot more on presentation, while men are generally more terse and concise.

Men are (or should be) raised to be as impervious as possible to insult; “sticks and stones”, and all that. We insult each other to motivate each other. We rag on each other to toughen each other up. No less than an authority than the bible says: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another“. In another place, it says: “The wounds of a friend are to be trusted“. We live in a harsh reality, but that’s just the way it is.

Girls, on the other hand, operate by a different set of rules. They are highly susceptible to shaming language, and as a result are often far more easily offended. Women say sexist things all the time, such as “All men are dogs“, and we are encouraged to suck it up – and we do. But try saying something like “All women are…” in today’s corporate culture, and you may very well find yourself both unemployed and unemployable. So much for “Equality”.

As a counterpoint, let me take you back to the last century, to an article written by one Eric S Raymond, called “How To Ask Questions The Smart Way“, which deals with precisely this subject:

What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions. People like that are time sinks — they take without giving back, and they waste time we could have spent on another question more interesting and another person more worthy of an answer.

We’re (largely) volunteers. We take time out of busy lives to answer questions, and at times we’re overwhelmed with them. So we filter ruthlessly. In particular, we throw away questions from people who appear to be losers in order to spend our question-answering time more efficiently, on winners.

If you find this attitude obnoxious, condescending, or arrogant, check your assumptions. We’re not asking you to genuflect to us — in fact, most of us would love nothing more than to deal with you as an equal and welcome you into our culture, if you put in the effort required to make that possible. But it’s simply not efficient for us to try to help people who are not willing to help themselves. It’s OK to be ignorant; it’s not OK to play stupid.

So, while it isn’t necessary to already be technically competent to get attention from us, it is necessary to demonstrate the kind of attitude that leads to competence — alert, thoughtful, observant, willing to be an active partner in developing a solution. If you can’t live with this sort of discrimination, we suggest you pay somebody for a commercial support contract instead of asking hackers to personally donate help to you.

Returning to StackOverflow, it is obvious to me that this rule change was put into place for one purpose and one purpose only: to make the site more “female friendly”. The unintended consequence of this change is that the vast majority of contributors to the site will now have to write far more than they need to in order to jump through linguistic hoops to make sure that those with frail constitutions are not offended. Faced with the extra effort, many will simply not bother to respond.This is not a call for unnecessary cruelty; I am all for courtesy, and there are some things that one simply does not say in public conversation. But mandating speech, requiring us to say certain things, is not the way to go about solving this problems.

Ladies, if you are that easily offended, perhaps the Internet is not the place for you.

Ten things that you didn’t know about Roe v Wade

Source: Pixabay

  1. “Jane Roe” was no angel: The woman in the case, Norma Corvey, had been in and out of prison and had already had two children before she was twenty. She was, in her own words “unemployable and depressed”, and when she got pregnant for the third time, she didn’t want the child.
  2. By hook or by crook: At the time, the law in Texas prohibited abortions. She was advised by friends to file a false rape accusation, which she did. The accusation was (rightly) dismissed because she didn’t report the rape to the police at the time. When that didn’t work, she tried to get an illegal abortion, only to find that the clinics near her had been closed down by law enforcement. In desperation, she found a pair of female lawyers who took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
  3. The case was moot: Norma never had an abortion.The child who triggered the case was put up for adoption.
  4. Roe v Wade was never about “Women’s rights”: The case was heard by the Supreme Court as a privacy issue, not as an abortion issue. The case was fought primarily as a right for physicians to practice medicine freely and with a minimum of federal oversight
  5. The right to life is important: In its ruling, The Supreme Court found that the state’s duty to protect life outweighed the mother’s privacy rights at the point where the fetus was viable. In the 70s, viability was about six months. Today it is abut four. When artificial womb technology becomes available, that will effectively drop to zero, at which point viability will, at least theoretically, trump abortion.
  6. The case was not fought on the morality of abortion: One of the arguments was whether consent to sex equaled consent to parenthood. The court rightly found no such equality.
  7. The trimester model: A woman had the right to an abortion during the first trimester. During the third Trimester, the fetus was viable, and abortion would therefore be murder. the “trimester model” was dismantled in subsequent Supreme Court cases.
  8. It is Constitutional. Sort of…: In its majority finding, The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution… even though there is nothing in the constitution that deals directly with the matter. Legitimizing abortion is “a matter of privacy” is a joke, as it does not supersede the “right to life” enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
  9. Roe V Wade is a bad law: Since the case was settled, many Supreme Court justices have said that Roe v Wade was a bad decision. A prime example was none other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
    Jane Roe is anti-abortion:
  10. Roe Repented: Norma Corvey subsequently regretted her actions and the landmark case which bears her name. She went on to become a pro-life advocate. Before she died, she created a website called www.endroe.org.

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.