We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, October 20. 2020
How Venus flytraps store short-term ‘memories’ of prey
Re Tory Burch: Amid a fashion apocalypse, one of the great entrepreneurial retailers (and one of America’s richest self-made women) takes us deep inside her battle to save her brand.
$465 Million Judgment Against Johnson & Johnson Threatens Freedom of Speech
Mayor Reacts To San Francisco’s Plan To Rename Schools Named For Lincoln, Washington: How About A Plan To Open Schools Instead
WHEN “SCIENCE” FOLLOWS THE LEFT
They keep trying to cancel this conservative professor. He refuses to back down.
Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident.
Trump visits California
Will Flag-Waving Latinos Win Florida For Trump?
"The women come up to me, the women who they say don’t like me, they actually do like me a lot. Suburban women, please vote for me."
Nolte: We All Know Why Joe Biden Is Hiding Out Two Weeks from Election Day
Streisand Effect: Twitter Ban On Biden Laptop Scandal Nearly Doubled Visibility According To MIT
SO USA TODAY DIDN’T WANT TO RUN MY HUNTER BIDEN COLUMN THIS WEEK
Censoring the Biden story: How social media becomes state media
The Bidens: Media Selling A Preposterous Alternate Reality
Leftists Ratchet Up Attacks on Trump Supporters; Deranged Leftists In Kansas Begin Dropping Anonymous Warnings That the Left Intends Violent Reprisals on Trump Supporters When Trump Wins
Debate Commission Scraps Foreign Policy Focus in Third Debate After Trump Is Nominated Four Times for Nobel Peace Prize
France: Death To Free Speech
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The phony polls show Biden with a historic (not slight) lead over Trump, despite his astonishing lack of personal appearances in the political arena. Where he does appear, there's a jumbotron teleprompter so that he can read easily without moving his eyes, so the cameras won't pick up that he's unable to form complete sentences by himself. There are more event staff there than supporters, unless you start counting the ones in black that cover their faces to beat up the citizens and burn their stuff.
Now he's stuck back in the basement, no public offerings, and the story about his crime family is being systematically squelched - not just ignored, but actively tamped down - to avoid any potential exploration of its myriad issues.
Then we have the debates where the agreed agendas are systematically being shifted away from any potential danger areas for Joe, and away from any potential subjects of strength for Trump. Remove the face-to-face setting (i.e., a 'debate'), install the microphone cut-off switch, avoid discussing Nobel Prize hat tricks. Joe can be snoring and dribbling, and the cameras will bail him out by cutting to the moderator and the polls will still show him winning. And now we'll take questions from the 'undecided' voters....
I've said it before: The American Media is the greatest labor-saving device ever harnessed by a political party in the history of politics.
It is a tool that commands such power that even the Republicans over on the Senate Judiciary Committee have shown their true, blubbering, spinless, pasty-faced selves and have admitted being too terrified to subpoena and haul them in to explain themselves before the election.
Yes, you read that right: Republican Senators would rather risk losing their re-elections than defend your First Amendment rights.
re Poll: Voters Prefer Biden Over Trump On Nearly All Major Issues
It's from Pravda the New York Lies. That tells ya all you need to know about the poll's veracity.
terrified to subpoena and haul them [the media]in to explain themselves before the election.
What law do you think the media have broken?
While I think biden will deservedly lose, to me, the senate trying to intimidate media with subpoenas is the core type of prior restraint or content regulation that the First Amendment forbids.
I don't see how any conservative who defends constitutional rights can accept this.
The social media companies (and internet in general), get a legal exemption since they are supposed to be impartial conveyers of information - like your phone company. The phone company cannot be criminally charged for carrying illegal conversations for example, and people cannot be cut off from their phone because of their political views.
Now that social media companies are obviously not impartial - they are instead publishers deciding what gets distributed - then they have to:
- Be held to the same standards as newspapers, meaning they can be sued for libel, plagerism, etc. They can also be sued for breaking contracts with users, such as deleting posts or blocking stories that capricious or have no written policy that was agreed to before hand by people signing up for the service.
- Be held to the same monopolistic practices as publishers. There are all sorts of laws on the books that prohibit concentraiton of media into too few hands. There are also prohibitions that limit foreign ownership. Courts have held all these laws are legal and not against the first amendment.
So if you support the social media companies you can't have it both ways. They are either publishers held to the same standards of newspapers, or they are like the telephone company just conveying information.
Since they are obviosly banning then they need to be held to the same standards as newspapers, and private people can sue and do sue papers all the time. In this case a national class action lawsuit should be pursued.
I would add that publishers pay for their own printing press, ink and paper, but the social media companies, like ultitlies, are often using infrastructure that is paid for by others, often taxpapers. Perhaps these companies should start paying for publically paid for infrastructure that they use things paid by taxpayers, but then deny those taxpayers service?
Good luck on repealing 47 U.S.C. § 230. You'll find the cure much worse than the disease, unless you're a fan of allowing a judge or bureaucrat decide what speech is allowed and what isn't.
And I think you should answer that question. Who is going to decide what's allowed and what isn't?
I don't pretend to be an expert on the Communications Decency Act, but I strongly believe that platforms shouldn't be selectively censoring either the news or individual free speech, in a way that is so one-sided as to influence presidential elections. FaceTwit shouldn't be shutting down doctors who disagree with the so-called authorities on COVID issues, fr'instance, especially since the latter arbitrarily change their views day by day. They shouldn't be censoring newpapers either. They shouldn't be shutting down people for their political views either. Everybody can see this happening, now, in real time, and everybody understands why, because it's so completely one-sided - so I'm not sure I understand you premise.
The idea is that a public platform, the 'Public Square' should be available for all, and that there should be no arbitrary rules based on one's views. the idea is that FaceTwitGoog are now so big, they constitute monopoly leverage. Do you agree? Put it another way: Would you be agreeable if your phone calls were cut off in mid-sentence because you had a political opinion that was contrary to the phone company's political alignment? Or would you object? I think removing their protections is a great idea. Let people sue! Just look how well the idea has worked for somebody who's been wronged, like Nick Sandmann. It's a valid market-corrective mechanism.
" $465 Million Judgment Against Johnson & Johnson"
All of these big judgements are nothing more than abuse of the legal system by ambulance chasing lawyers. These big cases can and do destroy the options citizens have to health care and make everything more expensive. The company must pay it initially but they then lay off workers and raise prices. What else can they do, the money doesn't grow on trees.
As this relates to opioid abuse; put the blame where it belongs. Blame the abuser not the pharmaceuticals.
It's less a Freedom-of-Speech issue than it is a Freedom-from-Thought issue. J&J loses civil cases and gets huge settlements in the Children's Court system of personal injury class-action lawsuits, then it gets appealed in front of the grownups in the higher courts, where the damage awards are usually reversed or brought back to earth.
The trial lawyers are the ones having the impact on free-speech - just watch a commercial. For J&J, to make a commercial now they have to (a) hijack some baby-boomer popular tune, preferably soft rock, then (b) take 5 seconds to describe their drug's miracle effects for extending your active, care-free exuberant lifestyle, then (c) spend the remaining 20 seconds describing all the terrifying, potentially fatal side effects, all of which have a 0.000001% chance of happening.
I made an f'ton of money as a plaintiff's lawyer in consumer safety class actions. I doubt know you don't know enough about the economics of lawsuits in the US to intelligently discuss this, so I'm not calling you a knowing shill for industry. But you are.
It costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance a plaintiff's suit that takes years. The average citizen cannot afford this. So attorneys have to, as a risk investment. No win, the attorney eats the costs. If a jury decides liability and damages, blame the constitution that set up the jury system.
Legislatures can pass consumer protection laws or clean air and water laws or financial transparency laws, and attorney generals might or might not be motivated enough to enforce them, but thank God for the economic motivation this country provides to private lawyers to do the job for them.
Thank you for your confidence in my intelligence. And thank you for making it clear that these lawyers are really self sacrificing social justice warriors fighting for the little guy.
Somehow I suspect that most of these cases don't need a lawyer or any litigation. I suspect most of the class action lawsuits should never have seen the light of day. I also suspect that class action laws were written by lawyers for lawyers and it is in fact one of the biggest scams in the world. We have all received a letter telling us we are part of a class action suit and may in the future get some money. I did one, 8 bucks I think, But I suspect the lawyers got millions and millions and put a good company out of business and got many employees fired. But YOU think the lawyers were SJW's and they willingly paid thousands out of their own pocket to save those poor souls and the lawyers were saints... Bwhhahahaha!!!
If I am ever on a jury in a class action lawsuit I will never vote in favor of the plaintiff, regardless of oaths, duty, or the law. Mainly because of plaintiff lawyers such as yourself, based on your own description.
Biden Laptop After four years of unceasing accusations of foreign collusion, now we have actual evidence, they say 'No that's not it' ?
J&J: Impeach the judge.
Mayor reacts to San Francisco’s plan to rename schools named for Lincoln, Washington: How about a plan to open schools instead: Frisco: It's a lost cause. The STUPID is STRONG there...
When “science” follows the left: "science" is dead; D E A D.
They keep trying to cancel this conservative professor. He refuses to back down. Portland is Lefty McLefty's favorite city, soon to burn down...
New Yorker Suspends Jeffrey Toobin for Zoom Dick Incident: Essentially, he shot himself well above his feet.
Will flag-waving Latinos win Florida for Trump? Seems likely!
Streisand Effect: Twitter Ban On Biden Laptop Scandal Nearly Doubled Visibility According To MIT: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, which Biden ain't.
The Bidens: Media Selling A Preposterous Alternate Reality: As I frequently say, I don't know if the Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem Party, or it's the other way round, but it's OBVIOUS that they're in cahoots.
Leftists Ratchet Up Attacks on Trump Supporters; Deranged Leftists In Kansas Begin Dropping Anonymous Warnings That the Left Intends Violent Reprisals on Trump Supporters When Trump Wins: Sooooooooo...Bleeding Kansas again...
Poll: Voters prefer Biden over Trump on nearly all major issues: Sez who? Names; I want names!
France: Death To Free Speech The French are going to have to man-up and remove the Muslims.
You may be happy to know - Asylum eligibility hammered under new rules
text here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-23159.pdf
THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND HOMELAND SECURITY PUBLISH FINAL RULE TO RESTRICT CERTAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS’ ELIGIBILITY FOR ASYLUM
New Mandatory Bars Prevent Convicted Felons, Drunk Drivers, Gang Members, and Other Criminal Aliens from Receiving Asylum
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security announced the publication of a Final Rule amending their respective regulations to prevent certain categories of criminal aliens from obtaining asylum in the United States. The rule takes effect 30 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register, which is scheduled to occur on Wednesday, Oct. 21 ...
The new bars apply to aliens who are convicted of:
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
Aliens who have committed certain domestic violence offenses, even if not convicted, will also be barred from asylum.
For example, it is a practice in some states, like California, for a deportable alien to have crimes he was convicted of that made him deportable swapped out for other, nondeportable crimes that allow an asylum claim to go forward. This will end.
Science being ideological isn't new. Darwinism is probably the flagship theory of the atheist, libertine movement. Some of its exponents have even been brazen enough to admit that it cannot be questioned, for this would be to 'allow God a foot in the door'. Compared to such an assault on Reality, their bizarre phobia against 'vaping' seems petty and irrational. Perhaps, it is the act of smoking or the semblance of such, and not its consequences, that motivates the Left.
Something tells me you failed grade school science.
You can question evolution all you want. Have at it. You'll fail like any creationist lunatic.
For evolution to be "science" it has to be predictive. Yet every few years a new fossil is found and evolutionists are "stunned", "amazed", "rules have to be rewritten" and so on. So the theory (note the term) is modified, changed, etc., but yet another new fossil is found and it is rince and repeat.
That being said, I am always amazed at the contempt evolutionists have for anyone who is not signed onto their theory like this comment here, and I never understood how believing in evolution or not makes someone a good citizen or not, be able to raise a family, or hold job. I've worked for years in high-tech and my belief on how species came into being doesn't affect how I make the big bucks.
It's not that anyone despises you for your beliefs, it's that no one takes you seriously enough to pay attention.
Knock yourself out, Killer:
thanks. but I could. that was about a 50% effort, because that's about all evolution-ate-my-bible thumpers deserve.
A recent headline was aghast that Trump is the first sitting president running for election who has no support from past presidents. The point, I guess, is that if past presidents don't want you to be president than surely you shouldn't be president!!
But I laughed at their naivete and the irony. Think about it... What better recommendation in today's world then that all the past leaders of the swamp don't want you in power??? With no other recommendation than this it would make Trump in fact the exactly right man for the job. In fact the only other thing that might 'trump' this would be if the FBI and CIA didn't like Trump either and didn't want him as president. LOL