Tag: Regrettable Acts

Quote Of The Day

QOTD

From Kruiser:

“It’s not just that Biden & Co. got so many things wrong — one expects that from Democrats — it’s that they got them so spectacularly wrong.”

And of course, so much effort is required by each and every incoming Republican administration to fix the mess (diplomatic, defense, social policy, economics — oy, the list goes on and on) before starting on any positive work.

Two (or three, or four) steps backwards each Democrat administration, half a step forward with the Republicans, then a single step forward again (if we’re lucky) — and then the ungodly get back into power by the usual means (fill in the blanks) and the whole horrible pattern starts all over again.

Small wonder that the U.S. is so much a failing neo-socialist state despite our economic strength.

And our only hope is that the Trump administration manages to get a few steps forward before the cataclysm so that the ungodly have to spend time trying to undo what he did — putting them on the back foot, for a change.

Hey, I can dream, you know.

It’s Not Just Beds

Bad News, Technology

While I was tempted to headline this post with “Smart Beds, Stupid People”, there’s a much bigger issue at stake here.

You see, as much as we might laugh at the idiocy of people who would depend on something as fragile as the Internet to operate their frigging beds (FFS), just stop and think about how much else is dependent on SkyNet:  communications, banking, traffic systems, logistics, security systems, even mapping services and cars (don’t get me started)… the list goes on and on, ad nauseam.

And yet people like me, who rail against the vulnerability of this encroachment on basic daily functions are patronized (“There there, Gramps, just take your pill and go to bed”) and called Luddites.

What about this much-lauded artificial intelligence thing?

An artificial intelligence system (AI) apparently mistook a high school student’s bag of Doritos for a firearm and called local police to tell them the pupil was armed.

Taki Allen was sitting with friends on Monday night outside Kenwood high school in Baltimore and eating a snack when police officers with guns approached him.

“At first, I didn’t know where they were going until they started walking toward me with guns, talking about, ‘Get on the ground,’ and I was like, ‘What?’” Allen told the WBAL-TV 11 News television station.

Allen said they made him get on his knees, handcuffed and searched him – finding nothing. They then showed him a copy of the picture that had triggered the alert.
close up of hands using a laptop keyboard

“I was just holding a Doritos bag – it was two hands and one finger out, and they said it looked like a gun,” Allen said.

Yeah, it’s all funny and stuff — until one day we discover that A.I.-generated police ROE training allows for lethal shooting at suspects “to eliminate the threat”.  Oh wait… you think robot cops are just a figment of Hollywood imagination?  Given that cops are facing staff shortages (#ThankYouBLM) and falling recruitment numbers (#ThankYouWokeCityGovernments), does anyone care to bet against me about this scenario?

Here’s the thing.  Try to write a story that has an unbelievable premise about the baleful effects of technology on a distant-future society, and I’ll show you:  tomorrow.  Bloody hell, the most prophetic form of hostile future technology that you can imagine is probably being beta-tested somewhere as we speak.

Even Blade Runner  is starting to look like a near-future dystopia rather than some far-off eventuality.

Having your bed controlled by SkyNet is the least of our problems.

Where’s The Beef?

Gummint

Following on from my previous post about the inadvisability of importing furrin (Argy) beef, allow me to point out the following things.

First:

Mo-Kan Livestock owner Jim Hertzog told the lawmaker that another issue involves small cattle herds.

“We’re short on numbers. It’s just that simple, and the reason we’re short on numbers is three years of drought, and a lot of cows were sold and slaughtered, and they’re not there to raise the calves,” Hertzog said.

He added that the solution is to “rebuild the herd. The solution is not to bring in other beef.”

And as for those steep beef prices at the supermarket:

Restaurant owner Sherry Keegan blamed large packing houses. “It’s the big four, big five packing houses. They tend to manipulate the pricing by shortening their kill days,” she said.

Keegan explained that “rather than killing five days a week, having a five-day-a-week slaughter schedule, they’ll reduce it down to three days and the price of beef, price of meat will go up.”

The second may also be a result of the first, however (although Big Meat have never been known for their lack of greed and cupidity).  Another reason for their slaughter slowdown could be a shortage of illegal alien workers in the packing plants…

Anyway, next up:

Matt Pearce, owner of Pearce Cattle Company, and Steve Lucie, a fifth-generation rancher, appeared on Newsmax’s “National Report” to discuss the increase of beef imports from Argentina aimed at driving down food costs in the U.S.

Pearce warned that importing foreign beef could expose U.S. herds to dangerous diseases and undermine domestic producers already struggling with high costs.

And finally:

The USDA said the national cattle herd is at a 75-year low, while consumer demand for beef has grown 9% over the past decade.

Because it takes time to rebuild herds, the department said it is investing to stabilize markets for ranchers over the long term and to make beef more affordable.

Ah yes… government stepping in to help solve a problem that they created in the first place.

The plan calls for the Agriculture and Interior departments to “streamline and expand” ranchers’ abilities to graze on federal lands.  It will prioritize grazing on an estimated 24 million acres of vacant allotments across the country.

By the way, the reason that ranching permits were reduced came courtesy of the AgDept during the FuckJoeBiden administration, because it was all part of the drive to make consumers start eating insects instead of beef, or to cut back the effect of cow flatulence on the environment, or some other crap. #BigGreenStupidity

Read all three linked articles to get a full flavor of the complexity of the issue.

There is so much bullshit [sic]  involved in this whole business that I’m starting to favor a simple solution to this Gordian Knot:

Feel free to suggest who or what should be at the naughty end of this gun barrel.

A Qualified Maybe?

Immigration

This poll caught my eye:

The survey asked respondents, “What do you think should be done about immigrants who have entered the U.S. illegally, but have committed no crimes while here?”

Across the board, respondents are virtually split, as 41 percent said those illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay, while 40 percent believe they should be deported. Another 19 percent remain unsure.

Results drastically vary by party identification. Most Democrats, 68 percent, believe that those illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country, and only ten percent said they should be deported. Another 22 percent remain unsure.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans, 72 percent, believe those illegal immigrants should be deported, while 14 percent said they should be allowed to stay, and 15 percent remain unsure.

A plurality of independents, 42 percent, believe those illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the country, followed by 38 percent who believe they should be deported and 20 percent who remain unsure.

In the past, I’ve always been in the hardass camp — break the law, no matter when, and out you go.

However, I’ve recently softened my stance on this, after asking myself a question:

What if someone came over here (granted, illegally), but has over the years become a model “citizen”, working hard, paying taxes, maybe even raising a family.  Should the heavy boot of the State be applied to his (or her) ass?

If you consider the question then the key, I think, is in the phrase “over the years”.  In other words, how many years?

Here’s my thought.  Assume that the person came over at age 24.  Now, twenty years later, they’re in their mid forties:  spouse, kids in high school, working hard in a decent job, and most importantly, never convicted of any serious crime — not even drunk driving.  In other words, the person has proven themselves to be a decent member of society, and in fact, perhaps a better “citizen” than many a native-born citizen who lives on welfare, has been a general fuckup and definitely not someone you’d want to see marry your own son or daughter.

It’s even more compelling should the illegal immigrant have come over at age 40 and is now facing retirement.  Who’s want to deport a sixty-year-old back to a country they’ve not seen since their youth?

Unfortunately, however, all bets are off if this illegal immigrant has used forged documents (SocSec card, driver’s license etc.) to enable them to have worked here all that time.  That’s a criminal act — forgery — right there.

The question is:  how have they managed to live and work here without such documents?  The answer, regrettably, is that they probably couldn’t have, unless their employer has been incredibly lax or else has deliberately turned a blind eye to their status.

I have to tell you all, though:  the thought of tossing someone out after they’ve lived here for twenty years, worked hard and tried their best to stay on the right side of the law… that tossing out seems pretty harsh to me.

You will note that I’ve used the period of twenty years as a cut-off point.  I wouldn’t accept less than twenty, and the higher the number (25, 30 or 40 years), the greater I’m inclined towards leniency.

So, for the purposes of this argument, you can put me in that “Republican: 15% Unsure” category.

Comments are welcome.

Nazzo Fast, Guido (Part 3)

Foreign Affairs, Military, Trumpism

The problem with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) is that he’s a firm believer in this Constitution Nostra.  In a way, he’s like the Constitution Goblin that sits on our shoulder whispering, “Show me where in the Constitution it says you can do that”.

As he does now.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed President Donald Trump’s military strikes against suspected drug boats were not legal.

Host Kristen Welker said, “President Trump has authorized military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean, as you know, so far more than 20 people, senator, have been killed in six different strikes. Do you believe that these strikes against these suspected drug boats are legal?”

Paul said, “No, they go against all of our tradition. When you kill someone if you’re not in war, and not in a declared war you really need to know someone’s name, at least. You have to accuse them of something and you have to present evidence. All of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name and without evidence of a crime. For decades and if not centuries when you stop people at sea in international waters or in your own waters you announce that you’re going to board the ship and you’re looking for contraband, smuggling or drugs. This happens every day off of Miami, but we know from Coast Guard statistics that about 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship there are no drugs. So if our policy now is to blow up every ship we suspect or accuse of drug running, that would be a bizarre world in which 25% of the people might be innocent.”

And I agree with him.

In the first place, these are not Venezuelan Navy ships that our boys are sending off to that Big Drydock In The Sky;  they’re privately-owned.  And yes, they may have been sponsored by that godless Commie VenPres Maduro, but we don’t really know that, do we?

Me, I’d rather have the Navy board a ship when intercepted, and if they find evidence of drugs — like, sacks of cocaine powder in the hold — they should thank the ship’s crew politely, get off the ship… and then blow it the shit out of the water.

I don’t agree with this part of ol’ Rand’s little diatribe, though:

“The other thing about these speed boats is they’re 2,000 miles away from us. If they have drugs they’re probably peddling drugs to one of the islands of Trinidad or Tobago off Venezuela.”

Don’t care where the destination of the drugs may be:  la coca  is illegal in pretty much every country on earth — oh, and by the way, just because the drugs may be headed for Trinidad or Tobago, that doesn’t mean that those islands are their final destination:  they might just be a stop over, en route to the U.S. (and probably are, being just part of the distribution network).

I also suspect that the “25%” of the time statistic is because the drug runners see the USN or USCG ships coming, and dump the contraband overboard — which is fine because whatever, the drugs aren’t going to reach their destination.

I know why The Donald is doing this:  it’s to create a negative incentive for drug smuggling, a way to persuade these assholes to find another way to earn a living.  It might work;  but it’s not legal.

And we’re not (yet) at war with Venezuela, last time I looked, and given the craven nature of Congress as it stands right now, I doubt very much whether they’d give the go-ahead to nuke Caracas, tempting though that prospect might be.

It’s a tough problem, but I’m not sure that bombing ships out in the middle of the ocean is the correct one.  Rand Paul doesn’t;  and I think in this case, he has the right of it.

I am prepared to hear opinions to the contrary, of course.

No Such Thing, Blondie

Government Thugs, Rights

Nobody but nobody can step on their own dick quicker than a Republican.  In this particular instance, metaphorically speaking, it was Attorney-General Pam Bondi who came out with this bullshit:

Speaking with the Trump administration Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller’s wife, Katie Miller, yesterday, Attorney General Pam Bondi decried “hate speech” and vowed to “target anyone with hate speech.”

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” Bondi explained.

To quote the memorable line from the late Robert Redford’s movie The Sting:  “Try not to live up to all my expectations of you.”

One more time, with feeling:  There’s no such thing as “hate speech” — from a legal perspective.

In other words, I may say that Rep. Ilhan Omar (Communist-MN) is a foul pustule who should be whipped in the public square once per week — which I admit frankly is hateful speech, because I loathe the African-born bitch with a passion.  But if some federal badgeholder tries to arrest me for saying that, there will be gunfire.  Because what I said about the dreadful Omar is my opinion, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Now, if I say, “I’m going to murder that bitch Omar with my home-made bazooka next Tuesday” — yeah, that’s a threat and you’re not only welcome to come after me, you have to do so.

But “hate speech”?  Fuck that for a bowl of cherries.

Bloody hell, it just goes to show that no matter which party’s wearing the high-heeled jackboots, the outcome is always the same:  our rights get trampled.

Update:  I see that AG Blondie has been trying to “clarify” her statement.  Not buying it.  Fuck off, Pam.  Go after the real criminals — and if you don’t know who they are after all this time, GTFO and let someone better to come in and do your job.