Saturday, July 22, 2017

Be Very Worried About The Future Of Free Expression

I find the future frightening.  Are we really headed into a time where something you might say about the government in a flippant manner could land you into jail in the USA?  Or worse, a gulag?

I don't know what we can say or what we can do to stanch what is slowly happening. I recall when the whole "hate speech" thing started.  Once you've started, where the hell does it stop? 

The answer is it doesn't stop.  And it will steam roll its way forward taking down every thing that is PERCEIVED as hate speech.  And then each day, the definition of Hate Speech will morph into something that will put even more limits as to what you say and where you say it.

For instance, will there be a time when we will be banned from saying things that will be defined as Hate Speech on the internet?  What would cause it to be banned?  Why everyone in the world can read what's on the internet.  Any post or comment you might make can be read by someone in India, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.

Say something offensive of  Muslims?    Say something offensive of Indians? BLOCK IT.  Maybe you'll be given a warning the first time.  A hefty fine the second time.  And finally jail time?  Re-education camp?  Torture?

Death?  Could we see a time where Hate Speech will be regarded as a high crime worse than capital murder?

Things like this already happen in some countries.  Could we see a time where, say, I say something offensive of the King of Thailand (a crime in Thailand) and be extradited to Thailand to be tried and convicted of Hate Speech against the country?

The reason why there is no limit on what we can call hate speech is because EVERYTHING WE SAY IS HATE SPEECH.  Anything I might say is probably hated by someone or many someones throughout the world.

So, anyway, here is the article:
If it’s not Big Yogurt, it’s Big Oil or Big Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of “fairness.” This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than Donald Trump’s tweets mocking CNN.

It’s about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be banned because it has “been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.” Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until they shut down the rights of their political opponents.

Anyone who’s watched partisan groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who accuse civil rights lawyers of being in a “hate group,” understands where this goes.

Actually, you can see where it’s going by checking out Europe. Dismiss slippery slope arguments if you like, but in Germany, where “hate speech” has been banned, police have raided the homes of at least 36 people accused of posting “illegal content.” There is a proposed bill right now in Germany that would fine social media companies millions of dollars for failure to remove hate speech within 24 hours. When debates about immigration are at the forefront in Germany, the threat to abuse these laws is great.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

It's that time again! "California Woman Sues..."

I haven't done this in quite some time.  I noticed over the years that women in California feel empowered to sue....anyone and everyone.  I'm not sure why that is.  Some are hilarious.  Some are quite sad.  But, here's the round up:

"California woman sues Jelly Belly Candy claiming beans were full of sugar"

"Irvine woman sues Albertsons after clerk wrongly assumes she’s on food stamps"

"California woman sues candy company over movie-theater Mike and Ike box"

"Woman pepper-sprayed at UC Berkeley protest sues university, police"

"Woman Files Lawsuit Against LAPD, Claiming Wrongful Arrest"

"Woman who contracted botulism in California sues nacho cheese-dip maker"

"Woman sues, says she tripped on Haymarket pedestrian bridge"

"California Woman Sues Chipotle for $2.2 Billion Over Using Her Photograph"

"After holes form on rear of $25 leggings, fed-up woman sues LuLaRoe"

"Sexual assault victim sues local hotel, victim claims hotel gave stranger her room key"

ILLINOIS: Watch....and learn

I've been watching the situation in Illinois for a number of years.  I haven't posted anything on it for a few years.  I had posted many articles since about 2011 or so.  It might be good to go back and read what I posted back then:

Go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

In 2015 I stated "I give Illinois three years.  Tops."

Looks like I was a bit optimistic.

The Coyote Joke: California vs Texas

I wish I had come up with this...

CALIFORNIA: The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out, bites the Governor and attacks his dog.

You can imagine how different the outcomes would be between CA and TX!!

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Canada's walk down the Dark Road

I was wondering when we would start seeing this kind of thing.  Canada has had hate speech laws on the books for some time.  But it's getting real.

Wild Bill for America, also known as William Finlay, a popular author and speaker, was arrested today, June 24, 2017, at a Canadian airport for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad. He was invited to speak at an event at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” coordinated by Cananda’s Worldwide Coaliation Against Islam (WCAI) which also has organizations in Europe and Australia.
Who's next?  What's next?  Will Canadian Border Patrol agents start going through everyone's laptop or tablet looking for "hate speech"?

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Another Left-Wing Science Scandal

I always thought the war against glyphosate was probably all smoke.  And I was right.
As a bonus, glyphosate was remarkably benign from an environmental standpoint. In general, insecticides are toxic to humans because humans are quite a bit like bugs. Herbicides, on the other hand, are generally not very toxic to humans, because we aren’t a lot like plants. But even in this context, glyphosate stood out as a harmless chemical. It targets an enzyme that is found in plants, but not in humans or animals. Moreover, glyphosate breaks down easily and does not persist in the environment. It is pretty much the perfect herbicide (until resistance starts to develop, but that’s another story).

This sounds like a win-win situation–cheaper food, better health, longer lifespans–but some people irrationally hate genetically modified crops, even though the modification–in this case, making the corn or soybean plant tolerant of glyphosate–has nothing to do with its nutritional value. After decades of world-wide experience with glyphosate, it was accepted that the product was safe. So it was a bombshell when the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared, in March 2015, that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” based on tests on rodents.

Hundreds of cancer patients promptly sued Monsanto, claiming the company had concealed the danger of carcinogenicity, notwithstanding the fact that it would be hard to find a farmer who hadn’t been exposed to glyphosate. The European Union said it would consider IARC’s finding when deciding whether to continue to allow glyphosate to be used in Europe. “Environmentalists” had scored a major coup.

But the whole thing turned out to be a fraud. Reuters has investigated, aided by access to deposition testimony in one or more of the lawsuits against Monsanto, which evidently was not subject to a protective order. Briefly put, the author of the IARC’s carcinogenicity study, Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, covered up his own research showing that exposure to glyphosate did not lead to a higher incidence of cancer in humans. The story, as reported by Reuters, is astonishing:

Previously unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing U.S. legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis.

Monday, June 19, 2017

GE's $31 Billion Hangover: Immelt Leaves Behind Big Unfunded Tab

The beginning of the end of America's greatest company.
It’s a problem that Jeffrey Immelt largely ignored as he tried to appease General Electric Co.’s most vocal shareholders.

But it might end up being one of the costliest for John Flannery, GE’s newly anointed CEO, to fix.

At $31 billion, GE’s pension shortfall is the biggest among S&P 500 companies and 50% greater than any other corporation in the U.S. It’s a deficit that has swelled in recent years as Immelt spent more than $45 billion on share buybacks to win over Wall Street and pacify activists like Nelson Peltz.

Part of it has to do with the paltry returns that have plagued pensions across corporate America as ultra-low interest rates prevailed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But perhaps more importantly, GE’s dilemma underscores deeper concerns about modern capitalism’s all-consuming focus on immediate results, which some suggest is short-sighted and could ultimately leave everyone -- including shareholders themselves -- worse off.
This is really, really bad.  Almost half a million people are covered under GE's pension.  When this falls, it will fall HARD.

And it wasn't just a few months ago there was news all over the place that GE was a good buy.

A "good-bye" is probably a better way of putting it.