Lowest scoring tie in the NFL since 1974 (when overtimes came to the regular season). Pathetic game. I've never laughed so hard at a football game as when that last kick sailed left. G+
There was so much consternation about how Chris Wallace would do as moderator ... mostly from people who really haven't seen Wallace much, apparently, because they thought he wouldn't do a great job. He did do a great job, and he did it without the "fact-checking" so many people said they wanted from the moderators.

Wallace could have pointed out the fact that Clinton was misrepresenting what Heller was (the law in question was not just about requiring trigger locks on long guns: it also banned all handguns, and she was in favor of that). But he let her answer stand, and let Trump respond to it as he chose to do.

He followed the Jim Lehrer model -- stay out of the way and let the candidates speak -- and he did it even better than Jim Lehrer. While this was not the best presidential debate we've seen, it was one of the best moderations of a presidential debate we've seen. G+
I don't know about all y'all, but I said Bush was properly elected, and Gregoire, and I'll say the same of Clinton. G+
The only way to say Obama cut the deficit but two-thirds (as Clinton did tonight) is to say that a massive spending increase in the FY2009 budget that was passed by the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, signed into law by President Obama, and included Obama's stimulus ... was Bush's fault.

No foreign government manipulating U.S. elections before? See former FDR VP. G+

18.10.2016 20:30

| | Comments (0)
Why is the press giving any time or space to women making allegations about Trump? It's extremely irresponsible, unless there is some kind of corroboration of the claims.

A woman saying she was groped on a plane 30 years ago ... anyone can say that. It's not newsworthy. Maybe it's true, but we have no reason to believe it just based on her word.

And no, the fact that he implied he gropes women is not evidence he groped a particular woman. And no, the fact that any women have made allegations does not make any of the allegations any more likely to be true.

Let's be responsible with the truth, please.

Please? G+
If we spent as much working to make the country better as we did to advocate for or against presidential candidates, would the country be markedly better, regardless of who wins the election?

I'm inclined to think the answer is Yes. G+
The question "why would these women make up these stories about Trump?" is perhaps the dumbest question I've heard all year.

I am not saying any of them are lying, though I do assert I need far more than their word to believe them, obviously. I simply disregard assertions like this until I have sufficient evidence. I don't even consider if it's true until I have serious evidence that it's true or false, and so far, I have none.

But the idea that I should believe them because they have no reason to lie is extremely silly. People spend extraordinary resources -- including time, money, and credibility -- trying to defeat Trump and Clinton. People spend resources to tell lies about Trump and Clinton all the time.

We all know this. So why would we believe that people wouldn't tell lies like this to defeat Trump?

Of course, again, I am not saying they are lying. But saying the fact that you don't know their motive to lie is evidence that they have no motive to lie, especially when there's a ready-made motive staring you in the face, is completely myopic. G+
Republicans used to take pride in being principled. Now, they attack fellow Republicans for being principled. G+
What if Clinton didn't show up to future debates with Trump because he's so disgusting? G+
Remember: "price gouging" in a disaster is not evil; it's a necessary good. G+
I really have no idea why Trump calling a woman "Miss Piggy" is a some sort of significant problem. Did anyone not know that this is how he treats people, until now? Come on.

And worse, how is talking about the weight of a Miss America contestant a problem ... even for someone that we don't already think isn't a jerk? The whole point of these pageants is to gaze upon an idealized form of a woman, which means a certain shape, and her shape had grown outside of that idealized form.

If you have a problem with these pageants -- and I would be perfectly happy if they all went away tomorrow -- then say you have a problem with these pageants. But people are basically acting like there's a problem with Trump being honest, and it's just bizarre.

It's kinda like if vegans complained that I used BBQ sauce on my steak. It might be indicative of the problem, but it's not the actual problem. If there's nothing wrong with eating steak, how could there be something wrong with putting BBQ sauce on it? Maybe talk about eating steak being a problem, not what sauce I put on it.
Wow, Hillary admitted tonight that it was Bush who got us out of Iraq, not Obama, and that Obama tried to keep us in Iraq, but failed.

This is entirely true, but exceptional because Obama likes to take credit for leaving Iraq, even though it was Bush's agreement, and Obama tried to keep us there longer.

Similarly, folks are saying that Hillary could not have been fighting ISIS for long, because it was only created three years ago. This, too, undercuts a major Obama narrative, that ISIS is, essentially, Al Qaeda.

You see, Obama launched attacks into Libya to go after ISIS, which is flatly illegal under U.S. statutes unless there's one of a few criteria are met, such as that they attacked the U.S., or there was a specific congressional authorization. Obama says the authorization to attack ISIS in Libya was under the 2001 AUMF, passed in the wake of 9/11, which authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

In the eyes of Obama, ISIS attacked us on 9/11, which means ISIS is Al Qaeda, which means ISIS has been around since 1988. While ISIS has not been around all of Clinton's adult life on Obama's view, it's a majority of it.

(Interestingly, Tim Kaine himself has, for years, expressed that the Obama administration has been skirting the law on this; while not outright stating that his party's leader is breaking the law, he has expressed concern about it as far back as 2011.)
I am so glad that both of the candidates agree -- and tonight reiterated -- that American citizens should not have due process.

This is one of those issues where the groups that know the most about the issue -- everyone from the ACLU to the NRA -- agrees this is unconstitutional. But it sounds good, right? If you can't fly in airplane, you can't buy a gun! Who could disagree with this? It even rhymes: "no fly, no buy."

The problem is that there is a constitutional right to buy a gun, and you cannot take away someone's constitutional right by secretly deciding that they simply shouldn't have that right anymore, which is how the No Fly list works.

It's funny how easily we can lose our rights sometimes.

Now, the ACLU is pretty awful on gun rights generally. Their stated position is that gun rights get lesser protection from government interference than other rights because guns can kill. It is, simply, an unprincipled position.

But that's how clear this issue is: even the gun-hating ACLU, who has no problem with not protecting gun rights when it goes against their subjective sensibilities, says You Can't Do That.

Both Clinton and Trump, like Obama, want to do that, because -- frankly -- they do not respect civil rights or the rule of law. They don't. This is a pattern with all of them, and is the biggest reason why I wouldn't vote for any of them.

No respect for rule of law, no vote. It's not as catchy, but it makes a lot more sense.

23.09.2016 19:31

| | Comments (0)
Right to Work, in principle, is a bad thing: it means that government tells companies they are not allowed to choose who they want to hire. If a company wants to hire only union members, they should be allowed to do so.

The problem is, however, that government is also leaning on the other side of the equation, giving special powers to unions, such as forcing employers to deal with unions in many cases.

So yes, fine, let's get rid of Right to Work ... as long as we also get rid of the National Labor Relations Board and other means governments use to protect and push union interests.

I am all for freedom, so I am against Right to Work in principle; but I am also for fairness, and Right to Work is a response to the inherently skewed balance of power that government creates in favor of unions.
So if you change your child's diaper, you're a child molester. If you don't, you're a child abuser. If you get someone else to do it, you're an accessory to child molestation. Probably the same thing if you give the baby up for adoption.

The only legal recourse is to abort the child before it's born, it seems.

The court says, correctly, that a prosecutor is unlikely to charge a parent with this crime. But that's no excuse for allowing it to stand. That ignores the role and practice of law in society. We shouldn't have to hope no rogue prosecutor will throw us in jail just for doing the right things in our daily lives.

In a free country, the government has no authority to throw you in jail without actually showing evidence you did something actually wrong. Increasingly in America, it's the case that the government has the authority to throw you in jail for any of a number of "crimes" you may have committed, that aren't legitimate crimes.

23.09.2016 17:57

| | Comments (0)
"Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman says the public isn't listening to the message NFL players are trying to send with their actions during the national anthem."

No kidding. That's why my point, from the beginning, is that this was a stupid protest, because this was absolutely inevitable. If I say, "Your mother is ugly, and I am only saying that not because I think she is ugly, but because I think we should focus on the plight of starving people in Africa," do you really think you're gonna focus on the plight of starving people in Africa? Most likely, you'll focus either on the fact that I said your mother is stupid, or how stupid I am to say that in order to raise awareness of the plight of starving people in Africa.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about what you mean when you say something, but if, at the end of the day, people hear something different from what you meant ... you lose. And it is absolutely inevitable that a protest during the national anthem will be "heard" as a disrespect of America.

It's not the public's fault, it's the fault of the people who didn't realize that the message was always going to get lost with this protest.
If Jesus ran for President ...

What would Trump's nickname be for him? G+
I just realized that the ref in Slap Shot is Colin Kaepernick.

You see, the Hanson Brothers of the Chiefs were, with no justification whatsoever, brutalizing players from the Patriots before the game. And then after the brawl died down, and the players are standing, bloody, at attention for the national anthem, a ref comes up to the Hansons and starts yelling at them.

A Hanson yells out, "I'm listening to the f-ing song!"

It doesn't matter that the Hansons were wrong, and the ref was right. What matters is that even the Hansons should get to stand and listening to the national anthem without someone else trying to get their attention.

Sure, Kaepernick is not getting in anyone's face directly. But when you're drawing attention to yourself -- which is what you are trying to do when you are protesting by kneeling during the anthem -- you're ruining the moment for everyone else, even if they are in the wrong.

We're listening to the song, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't be a distraction, if that's not too much to ask.
Dear Internet: please stop saying ITT is not accredited. It's not true. You sound silly by saying it. G+
If Brissett goes down and Edelman becomes the QB, how awesome would he have to be to permanently replace Brady as the starter? G+
Trump wants to force companies to give things to their employees. This is wrongheaded in every way. G+
Andrew Breitbart left a company that then destroyed his good name. John McAfee left a company and then destroyed its good name. G+

Because it's that time of year ...

| | Comments (0)
Not just Trump supporters are "deplorable": I am definitely Hillary-phobic. G+
Been reading alternative superhero books. Caught up a bit on Valiant universe, re-read Project Superheroes Chapter One and then read Chapter Two; Kirby Genesis;Last of the Greats (unfortunately unfinished); a few others. Now reading Invincible (first 50ish issues). Then Irredeemable and Incorruptible. Maybe Rising Stars after that.
Trump says some of the Mexicans being sent to the U.S. "have lots of problems" and are drug dealers and rapists. But Clinton says half of Americans who support Trump -- probably 15 million people or more -- are "deplorable."

That's idiotic, and it seems far worse to me, because she's saying it about Americans. Trump has been blasted by the media for over a year for his inane comments. Will they come after Clinton with a remotely similar fervor? I'm not holding my breath.

09.09.2016 18:49

| | Comments (0)
We do not have marriage equality in this country. If we did, these women would not have been arrested.

I have been for actual marriage equality long before gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. And if you are for marriage equality, you should be taking the side of these women ... and at the very least, you should recognize the fact that we do not have marriage equality in the U.S.

Reshared post from ThinkGeek:

| | Comments (0)

Original Post from ThinkGeek:

Your dreams come true... The Star Trek TNG Bluetooth ComBadge is a reality: http://bit.ly/2cnlCVr #StarTrek50

I am neck deep in JIRA instances. Not drowning yet. G+
If I had to rank the top four candidates, I'd put Johnson first -- the only one there I could possibly, by my conscience, vote for -- followed by a tie for last with Trump and Clinton. Stein is below that.

I won't vote for any of them, though.
People who say there's only two choices for President have one thing in common: they prefer Clinton or Trump for President. I don't. I will not for someone unqualified for the job; I will vote for neither Trump, nor Clinton. G+
Trump probably bought off the Florida Attorney General. But the evidence for that is no greater than that Clinton was bought off on multiple occasions. And it's worse with her, because she was the government official being bought off.

It's similar with Clinton's e-mails versus Trump's tax returns: she has a legal requirement to release her e-mail and calendar and so on, as these are public records. He has no obligation to release his tax returns.

There's no equivalency here: on these matters, she is far worse than he is.

That said, it's fair to look at Trump's history as an indicator for how he'd be as President, and it's part of why I won't vote for either one of them. Neither will be honest, neither will be transparent, both will be corrupt. But let's not pretend that what Clinton's done is not worse than what Trump's done, because she's the one who was a government official repeatedly violating the public trust, and he wasn't. G+
If a GOP former Secretary of State / Presidential nominee were caught planting questions in their own hearing, or if the FBI Director were apparently bending over backward to avoid finding wrongdoing by that nominee -- not asking the questions that would support the case, not asking under oath, not recording it or having a transcript, doing it a mere three days before saying no charges would be filed (over a holiday weekend), saying explicitly that the questioning was not a factor in the decision -- not to mention that many of the e-mails in question had been deleted after being subpoenaed (not to mention the contents repeatedly lied about), this would be the top story on every national news broadcast for a week, at least.

And rightfully so.

But if that person is Hillary Clinton, not a Republican? Barely a peep.


| | Comments (0)
I've read a few government documents in my days. I recognize classification markings within documents: (C) means "Confidential." (S) means "Secret." And so on.

It just came out today that Hillary Clinton testified to the FBI that she did not know what the "(C)" referred to, saying that she thought maybe it was referring to the alphabetical order of the portions of the documents.

Please let's stop saying she isn't a liar, because our only other option is massively incompetent, and no one believes that. G+
Hm. I posted this video on G+, then it disappeared. Trying again.
Actually, I kinda liked what Rodney Harrison, whom I love, had to say about Colin Kaepernick. Don't get me wrong: Harrison's view that Kaepernick's "blackness" matters, at all, in whether his protest is legitimate, is wrong. It's an argument that cannot possibly be true, by definition. Many people have used that argument over the years, and it's simply false.

I also hate that in American society, "white" people have to be pure white, and if a small part of you is black, then you are "black." Traditionally, it was used as though your whole self was tainted by a little bit of "black" genetic material; now, it's often the opposite, where if you have some "black" genes, then you are in the "cool kids" club.

Either way, it's intellectually offensive and socially damaging. Barack Obama is exactly as much "white," as "black." Kaepernick may be more "white" than "black." And neither of these facts actually matters at all, except in our minds ... and that's a problem we should fix.

Race is a social construct, and it's fine in itself, but when we use it as a club against others -- like when Randy Newman asserted, during an Apple keynote, that Clarence Thomas isn't black, because he's not liberal -- it's awful. Stop it.

And I like that Harrison's comments, as silly as they were, help bring this to light. G+
Is a Pledge of Allegiance unconditional? If so, is it worthy of a patriot? I am loyal to the nation, but it is conditional on the nation living up to its end of the bargain. As such, I offer no pledge of allegiance; I merely affirm that I love this nation and am willing to sacrifice to defend it, and its people. G+
Clinton's repeated lies about mishandling classified information, and Trump's attacks on John McCain's military service, are more anti-American/un-patriotic than what Kaepernick did. G+
Complaining about what year people die in is one step short of astrology. Stop it. It hurts my brain. G+
Colin Kaepernick is dumb and wrong. But he has the right to be dumb and wrong. Fine. But he is not just disrespecting the flag and the nation, but all the people who came there to watch the game.

He should do as various other athletes do, and stand out of respect for the people around him, while not saluting the flag.

When the Canadian anthem is played at hockey games, I don't salute the Canadian flag ... but I stand out of respect for the people around me who are. You saw the same thing throughout the Olympics, where people of all nations stood in respect when the anthem is played for some other nation. I'd even stand for the North Korean anthem, out of respect to the North Korean people -- not the nation they represent -- around me.

If you refuse to stand, it's not refusing to respect the flag or the people ... it's explicitly showing *dis*respect for them. It's making a statement of hate. If that's what you want to do, fine ... but expect a backlash, and for your message to get lost in the process.

Now let's move on ... after watching this video.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/pole-vaulter-national-anthem-sam-kendricks-2016-rio-olympics G+
The evidence against Hillary -- pay-to-play, mishandling classified information -- is much stronger than the evidence against Tom Brady. G+
I wrote this eight years ago, next month. Time for a refresher. G+
Gary Johnson reiterated on Stossel this week that government should use force to punish people for refusing to provide services they morally disagree with.

Johnson proves three things. First, he doesn't actually believe, fundamentally in liberty. He believes that liberty is good when it achieves a practical goal, but not for its own sake. Your freedom is only good because it is good for society, not because it is good for you, in his view.

Second, he has a deep lack of understanding and empathy for people with values different from his own. He looks down on religious people as backward and mean, not because they are (although certainly some are), but because he doesn't share their beliefs, and so therefore there's something wrong with them.

Third, he knows very little about the First Amendment. He thinks religious freedom of the sort that allows someone to simply not provide photo services for a gay wedding is the same that would allow someone to murder because "God told them to." In the words of Ian Tuttle, "This is some A-grade, five-star, top-shelf stupid — and that’s in an election featuring almost unlimited material from Donald J. Trump."

This is why I won't vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, even in an election where a. I won't vote for the Democrat, b. I won't vote for the Republican, and c. I call myself a libertarian. G+
The New York Times is quite clearly so biased in favor of Clinton -- or against Trump -- that it is refusing to report on legitimate and serious negative news about her.

We already had the fact about a month ago that in Clinton's first interview response after the Comey hearing about her mishandling of classified information, she told several lies about it, and the Times refused to report on it.

Now, we have the AP story that demonstrates that of her meetings -- other than meetings that are directly a part of her job, such as with government (including foreign government) officials and staff -- a majority of them were with donors to her charitable foundation.

These are big stories. And the Times simply refuses to report on them at all. You would never know about these important stories if you got all of your news from the Times.

"All the news that's fit to print" is a lie. G+
<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."