Monday, April 24, 2017
The events surrounding O'Reilly has made me think that unless things change segregation, particularly between sexes, will become common in American labour. I have no idea whether O'Reilly actually harassed any of the women that are accusing him of doing so, so this is not a defense of O'Reilly per se. From the blurbs I have heard thus far, no harassment has occurred. Now of course, I use the term harassment to describe unwanted behavior. And because I also require bad faith or bad intent on the part of the harasser, certain things, for me do not constitute harassment until the alleged harasser KNOWS that the behavior is unwanted. So for example, O'Reilly is said to have commented on a black woman's looks while exiting an elevator. The comment in question being "looking good." How that comment in and of itself is harassment is beyond me. Did this woman dress up for her job to NOT look good? Of course the operating premise here is that if a man whom a woman has no sexual interest in, dares speak to her or make an advance on her, he is harassing her whereas if it is a man she IS interested in, then it is NOT. So generally speaking harassment can fall into whether a woman likes or dislikes you. That's pretty dangerous for men and fertile ground for lawyers seeking rent. As soon as O'Reilly was fired, I predicted he would return in the form of a podcast or Sirius station. I was proven correct. This is what Anthony Cumia did and it worked out very well for him. In fact a good deal of men who cannot make a living in the minefield that is left wing HR staffed corporations, are turning to self employment (which is why the recent actions by YouTube is problematic). Indeed the workplace is becoming so unsafe for heterosexual men with testosterone levels above 0, that it is safest to simply not interact with women at the workplace at all. Again, all you have to do is see the example of "looking good". If a compliment can lead to HR actions, you sir, are fucked. I often joke with certain coworkers that I'll be reporting them to HR after they say a comment that runs afoul of the so called anti-harassment rules. This includes comments about my clothes, looks, marital status or presumed religious affiliation. I have absolutely no intent on reporting anybody, but I just keep a mental tally of just how often HR *could* have been notified and somebody reprimanded or fired. The figure is quite high. As a matter of fact, if an accusation was all that was required, at least half of my co-workers would be fired. I'm not joking. I'm talking discussions of dildos, S&M, cleavage, whistles and who could "get it". Seriously. In the interim I think that you're eventually going to see women's resume's heading to the round filing bin on the floor. This will be especially so with any woman with any gender studies degree or minor. Interviewers in the know will look out for key statements. These women will simply not get jobs. In places where these women make up a significant number of the workforce, particularly in tech, you will see walls go up between the men and women. Men with *significant* skills will either freelance or do as much "work from home" as is possible. On a related note, I think that the O'Reilly event underscores another point: Do Not Settle! This goes along with the do not apologize for stuff you've said unless you are absolutely sure you were wrong. Part of what brought down O'Reilly was that his accusers could say, "look at all those settlements, why would you settle unless you had something to hide?" Of course we know that companies often settle because it is less than the cost of litigation (particularly since it is highly unlikely the company can recoup legal costs from the plaintiff). On top of that the bad press is often not worth the effort. Thus a settlement is often not an indicator of guilt but rather a "convenient" way for the problem to go away. Here's the problem though. It seems that people who are under these agreements are talking. Personally I think those persons should be heavily sanctioned. If these settlements are going to become public and the entire point of limited media attention is gone, then we're left with the cost of litigation. I think it is best that these companies fight these charges wherever they appear to be false. Fire the bad actors, but if a complaint is, "someone called me hot chocolate" make them go to court. I for one am not awarding anybody shit for being called hot chocolate. This is what happened to Ellen Pao. Everyone on the left thought (and still thinks) she had an airtight sex discrimination suit. Then the testimony came out and it was nowhere as clear. She lost her case. The defendants should have bankrupted her for that. I would have. When such accusations are made, they are looking to rob. This is theft while wielding a weapon. That weapon is the court. Anyway, don't think there are not people out there saying, hmmm we can avoid sex/race discrimination complaints by not hiring... And if you, Black person find yourself the perpetual "spot" in a job, all those Black Lives Matter folks may be the reason why. After all, would you risk YOUR livelihood (your business) by hiring someone who is statistically likely to sue you at the drop of a perceived insult?
Sunday, April 16, 2017
This is a play on the opinion piece that showed up in the NYT entitled "The Real Reason Black Kids Benefit From Black Teachers". This piece of agitprop is the typical liberal stuff seen in the NYT. I'm in no way arguing against black teachers teaching black students; I'm all for it. The problem, once again is the liberal ideas that are the problem. In a previous piece I showed the completely racist concepts that are being taught to new teachers:
So lets be clear. Hackman is saying that it is white or "acting white" if one is "honest, hardworking disciplined, rigorous and successful." Therefore to be non-white is to be dishonest, lazy, undisciplined, lax and generally a failure. Moreover to be black is to be emotional ("How you're doing") and to not be able to master the language.This NYT opinion piece is yet another example of the belief that black children, indeed black people, simply cannot be expected to live up to the standards expected of other people:
Still, we live in a world of zero-tolerance policies, where students are kicked out of class for the “insubordination” of refusing to move to a different desk or for drinking juice, and where everyday misbehavior can elicit a call to the authorities. I find myself wondering, have the adults responsible never wanted to sit near their friends? Did they not drink juice in high school? Can they not see younger versions of themselves in our kids?Indeed it IS insubordination for a student to refuse to comply with an adult's instruction. This used to be something understood by black people. Used to be called "respecting your elders". If a teachers says, move to x,y or z location, you go to x,y or z location whether you liked it or not. I don't want the black teacher who wrote this to be anywhere near my children and you shouldn't either. And while I agree that there are completely ridiculous calls for police for things that shouldn't even be seen as bad behavior such as male child making a gun with his fingers. As many reports can be seen, the behaviors that are precipitating police calls are often straight up violence directed not only at other students but against teachers. Part of the purpose of teachers is to get students to understand submission to authority. This is supposed to enhance this lesson from the home. When a student is disrespectful of a teacher, it is to be considered disrespect to the parents as well. I know when I was growing up, there was no way I could disrespect a teacher and expect my mother to defend my disrespectful behavior (which is something we see in schools now). I recently saw a discussion where an African-American was complaining about all the Africans being recruited to colleges with a corresponding drop in "slave ship" black enrollment. One of the major reasons for this is simply that African and Caribbean blacks generally still have the cultural "don't shame us with your behavior" rules intact. This leads to greater scholastic achievement among these groups. Maybe African-Americans need to get off the Black Lives Matter wagon and get on the "why didn't you do what you were told?" wagon.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Yesterday the usual suspects wet their panties as Sean Spicer made a historically correct but badly worded comparison between WW2 Germany and the current civil war in Syria. The usual suspects went on to claim that Spicer was denying the holocaust (he did no such thing) and that he should resign (or be fired) for his alleged trespass on the feelings of a certain powerful minority. As a result of this, people will continue to be miseducated as to WW2. Lets get this out of the way. In WW1 the warring parties discovered a potent use for chemicals. They could release various gasses in a battle field and the enemy would essentially suffocate to death. No armaments needed. No risk of lives (except for a change in wind direction). The results were so abhorrent to the parties involved that it was decided that gas would not be used in any future conflict between these parties. Indeed when WW2 started the British, for example, deployed gas masks to it's people because it feared that the Germans would not live up to their end of the deal. History shows that Nazi Germany, for all it's faults, did not use chemical arms during it's war. The prevailing wisdom is that they did not want to be attacked that way. This is what Sean Spicer was referring to. Syria is in the midst of a war. It has allegedly used chemical weapons against those in open warfare against the government. The closest German analogy that could be made is if jews in Germany had picked up arms, en mass, against the state and were gassed in retaliation. We know that no such thing happened. Jews were indeed gassed by Germans when they were taken to various camps. But that was not a part of the war. That was Nazis being Nazis. War or no war Jews were headed for a bad end in Germany. Assad may not be the most likable figure but he did not come to power or stay in power by spraying chemicals on various outgroups like say Saddam Hussein did (with the US's full knowledge). Furthermore, while the usual suspects are panty wetting over Sean Spicer's comments. Various ISIS affiliated groups have indeed gassed various non-Muslim groups and engaged in ethnic/religious cleansing with a fervor matching the Reich, if not it's industrial level and we can't even get a moratorium on letting people from such regions immigrating to the US Strange isn't it.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Friday, April 07, 2017
Back in 2013 I wrote:
First you make an announcement that "chemical weapons use" is the "red line":Check.
This has the effect of letting all opposition parties know exactly how to get the US involved. Then, SURPRISE, someone decides to announce that Syria has used chemical weapons:Check.
'Cause as the election of Obama has clearly shown, Liberals are down with imperialism and intervention and regime change so long as it's on "liberal" terms.And check. Oh what are the "liberal terms"? See the dead babies. So the only thing I missed back in 2013 was actual blatant military force as opposed to merely "supplying" rebels. Now last time it was shown in many outlets that the gas attack ascribed to Assad was actually committed by one of the Al-Qaeda aligned groups. Given that the media got the initial story wrong last time, you would think that the second time there might be a call for cooler heads and an investigation. Last night showed that wasn't on the table. There are obvious questions about this gas attack first among them is "who benefits"? One should ALWAYS ask "who benefits" when something like this happens. Lets look at Assad. It is widely agreed that Assad has been gaining ground against the various ISIS aligned groups trying to take over Syria. To what benefit does Assad gain from using gas in a fight he's winning knowing it will bring international attention of the negative sort to him AND his allies? The media's answer to this as far as I can tell is that Assad, believing that Trump meant it when he said "I have no interest in being the president of the world" and that he has no interest in involving the US [further] in Syria, could use gas against the population without consequence. This is similar to the Saddam invasion of Kuwait where it is believed he thought that the US would have no objection. It's a plausible explanation, though it doesn't prove that he did the gassing. However, what supports this line of thinking is that unlike the previous gas hoax, this gassing was allegedly accompanied by aircraft (to which we have no video or radar proof). I do not believe any of the rebel groups have airplanes so this lends support to such a claim. But the downside to this is that after the 2013 event, Russia put it's reputation on the line by essentially guaranteeing that all chemical weapon stockpiles owned by the Assad govt. would be collected and destroyed or removed. The use of gas by the Assad govt. would therefore shown that the Russians were incompetent, tricked (incompetent) or knew full well that Assad still had chemical agents to use. OR There are ISIS/rebel sympathizers within the Assad military who were willing to false flag. The former point looks bad for Russia. I have read conflicting reports that Russia was informed prior to the strike. If Russia was informed why didn't they (or did they) warn their ally? I have also read conflicting reports that Russians shot down a number of the incoming missiles. If this is the case then we have witnessed an actual shooting war between the US and Russia. Consider that. Anyway, if Russia was tricked by their ally in regards to chemical weapons, It stands that Russia would be very displeased with Assad and would probably been amendable to non-military actions against Assad since that would forestall a shooting war with the US. In any case, the destruction of the airbase where the gas supposedly was flown from, means any real attempt at finding physical evidence is gone (how convenient) so all we have is speculation. Moving on from the actual strike we have to deal with potential fallout. First, anyone who follows any of the larger "alt-right" persons and groups on the internet knows that they are NOT happy in the least bit. If these persons and groups remain unhappy, Trump has likely lost his re-election as of Thursday 11PM. Why? Because I honestly believe that it was the alt-right and those of similar interests who put Trump over the top in those states that went from Obama to Trump. Trump won due to increased white turnout in those states. By betraying one of his oft stated campaign commentary (not promise) he may have soured these people who thought they had elected someone who was a non-interventionalist. Working in favor of Trump is that folks tend to have short memories and there is still 95% of his presidency to make up. Assad may be more of a long term problem. Assad may yet go out like Ghaddafi. If that happens ISIS gets Syria. ISIS will not show it's appreciation of US help by recalling the Jihadis it has sent out to Europe. No. There will be more Jihadis going to or converting IN Europe. Even more of a long term problem is that Assad could simply decide to allow Jihadi's free exit from Syria to Europe (and elsewhere). Lastly, operatives and organizations that want Trump to intervene in places now know which button to push to get him to do things he wasn't elected to do. This could probably be the biggest problem.
Thursday, April 06, 2017
The media has been discussing Trump's comments about Susan Rice's "unmasking" of US persons (presumably including Trump and persons who associate with him) as possibly criminal. They have asserted that Trump has made "baseless" claims. Therefore Trump's claim should be taken with so many grains of salt. Normally I'd be OK with such an assertion. A allegation is just that, an allegation. Proof must be offered before we can say whether an allegation is true or not. Furthermore the object of the allegation should be given the assumption of innocence until such claims are backed up with evidence. The problem is that these same "high road" media were not so keen on dismissing allegations when the subject matter did not include Trump. Of course the biggest one of recent memory was rape hoax of UVA. The media ran with this story for weeks even though the story had glaring red flags. Why? Because it "supported" the other great rape hoax of our age: The Campus Rape Epidemic. This epidemic does not exist and data from universities clearly contradicts such a claim, yet everyone from then president Obama on down repeated this claim. Even more egregious is the fact that across the US, universities have created systems in which the rights of those accused of sexual assault (who are usually men) are stripped of their constitutional rights such as legal representation and presumption of innocence, and are often punished simply because someone (usually female) simply made an allegation. If a random woman can point a finger at a man and claim he committed a crime and people support that then none of these people can have a problem with Trump pointing a finger at Susan Rice. But we know that none of this is about fair and equal treatment. In regards to the actual issue at hand with Rice. The media is [once again] distracting the viewer/reader by trying to say that the accusation is that Rice unmasked AND leaked the information. That's not really what the evidence shows and I don't actually think that's what happened. What the evidence shows is that at some point last year someone decided that getting info on Trump was a good idea.Whether it was because they honestly thought that Trump has endangering national security or whether it was political we do not know. We do know that a FISA warrant was requested, denied and requested again. We know this. We know that at some point someone unmasked US persons (this is likely Rice). We know for certain that at least one of these persons was Flynn. Thus far we also know that Flynn did nothing illegal during whatever conversations he was having or he would have been charged already. We know that at someone's directive, information was either declassified or at least lowered in classification level so that a wider net of agencies or persons could access said information. Since certain US persons (including Flynn) were unmasked that meant a wider set of people now had access to these persons information. We know that someone in this now widened circle leaked this information to the press. This person or group of persons committed a crime which is what ought to be investigated here. The press took this information and used it's 1st Amendment cover to print it. Now it is entirely possible that someone who had access before the information had been made available to a wider audience was responsible for the leak. This is something for the investigation to uncover. We also know that in all the time that Trump and his associates were being monitored that there has been no illegal activity shown. If there had been it would have surfaced by now. This tells us that the whole Russia angle is a straw man meant to mislead the public so that the actual crime that we know happened (the leak) goes un-investigated until either the leaker dies mysteriously. Disappears mysteriously, has an accident that leaves them unable to recall or something along those lines.