Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Justice is just another word for luck

I take you back to the O.J. Simpson trial. Blind? No! Rigged? Yes! The list of exonerated death row inmates continues to grow, and you can bet that on the other side, the list of murderers who were pronounced innocent is even bigger. Justice is blind...what does that even mean? Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality.
Okay, that sounds good. Objectivity. Impartiality. I'm in favor of that. If that's the case, then why is it that celebrities almost always walk away free as a bird? I remind you again of O.J. Simpson. I remind you of Robert Blake, they're not the only celebrities who committed crimes and got away with it. It seems self-evident that money and power are the chief ways that criminals escape consequences.

But Wait! I thought justice was supposed to be blind? You know ... that whole Wikipedia canard about justice being meted out objectively without fear or FAVOR, regardless of MONEY, WEALTH, FAME, POWER, or IDENTITY? Lies and more lies concocted by liars and scam-artists intent on fleecing every cent and imposing as much injustice as the world can possibly bear.

Justice may be blind but she certainly seems to know quite well which side her bread is buttered on! The Wikipedia definition is a lie. Or a mistake. I'll grant that it's possible the citizen writers on Wikipedia have been misled and they're simply parroting the common deceitful delusion that perhaps you, yourself, subscribe to? It is beyond debate that the better your lawyer DREAM TEAM!™ is, the more likely you are to walk away scot-free from the crime you did commit.

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Justice today is simply might makes right. The ones who make the rules get to break the rules. Those who pay the piper, listen gleefully as he plays them a merry tune while they skip free, laughing as they go. Cynical, disgusting and wrong, are the adjectives I think best describe our system of justice.

Here's another example:
Traffic tickets are a multi-billion industry. They have virtually nothing to do with highway safety, but they have everything to do with money.

When you begin to grasp the full magnitude of the public and private interests that depend on ripping off motorists through traffic tickets, you begin to understand why this unethical system continues to expand every year.

No one knows how many traffic tickets are actually issued. Many local units of government deliberately hide this information so they don’t have to split their traffic ticket revenue with the state. Not including parking tickets, we can estimate that somewhere between 25 and 50 million traffic tickets are issued each year. Assuming an average ticket cost of $150.00, the total up front profit from tickets ranges from 3.75 to 7.5 billion dollars.

If just half of these tickets result in insurance surcharges (typically at least $300 over a period of three years), you can add another 3.75 to 7.5 billion dollars in profit for insurance companies. This is why insurance companies “care” so much traffic “safety” programs and are willing to donate millions of dollars worth of radar and laser guns to the police. For them, it’s simple: more tickets equal more money!


(Full disclosure: I haven't had a traffic ticket in more than a decade.)

I just have to say it. Justice isn't a fair-minded virginal lady innocently deciding a criminal's fate. She's a money-grubbing whore who gets off on inflicting pain and injustice. Her attendants who are the police, lawyers, judges, and of course the legislators who write the law itself, are complicit and guilty of crimes against humanity. Don't tell me they're following the law. That didn't absolve the Nazis from being guilty of crimes against humanity, and it doesn't absolve those who make a GAME of deciding a man's fate.

Consider the process. A jury pool is randomly selected. Hmmm. Sounds like the luck of the draw to me. A judge is picked. How is he picked? Does a defense attorney have the ability to pick the judge? I bet the expensive ones do. The prosecutor and the defense meet, they look at the evidence and then perhaps they make a deal. Less work for them means the defendant's life, his family's life, his career, his eventual prospects, his very fate is a poker chip on a casino table. That's justice?

Is it?

Saturday, March 26, 2016

America and LGBTXYZPDQ

If you're an American ... and let's just assume you are, then the message is clear ... Celebrate Sodomy! Yes, if you're not gay, if you're behind the Times—and with you behind them I'm betting The Times is bending over with a lascivious glance over its shoulder—then you should be!

When you walk into your neighborhood bar and use the men's bathroom, you may have to wait for the lady to exit the stall. I hesitate to imagine, but it's even possible that some of the more gymnastic ladies—with a little contortive imagination—may even figure out some way to utilize that bank of urinals on the left wall. Welcome! Welcome to this our new world. I know it's not that big a deal. Am I right? But now, imagine the "ladies" room your daughter just went into. "LGBT." Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender. One has to wonder ... I wonder ... when they'll add pedophilia and bestiality to their ever-growing acronym.

Filth and depravity manifest in our times. The end of our times. This is Sodom and Gomorrah. What a filthy disgusting world we've managed to socially engineer for our children. Sick, defiled, warped, twisted, stinking, vile, horrific, demented, deranged, bastardized, handicapped and dying. Welcome to America's hospice.
It’s a busy week at the nexus of entertainment and politics. At the same time that Disney is threatening to cease filming in the state of Georgia if the governor signs a law they see as discriminatory, a similar battle is now taking place just a bit to the north in North Carolina. There, the governor has already signed a new law into effect that many in Hollywood are viewing as discrimination. One director has already stated he will cease working in the state until the law is repealed, and the MPAA has said, on behalf of all the studios, that they oppose the bill.

North Carolina’s House Bill 2, titled the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, enforces a ban of people using restrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. In addition, it also reserves all power for passing non-discrimination legislation to the state, meaning that local governments no longer have any power to pass their own laws on these issues. According to CNN, the state legislature took emergency action in order to strike down an ordinance in the city of Charlotte which allowed transgender citizens to use the restrooms of the gender they identify as. Director Rob Reiner has now come out to say that he will not film anything in North Carolina until such time as the law is repealed. In addition, the Motion Picture Association of America has stated that the studios oppose "any law that legitimizes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression."
Yes a busy busy week. So many anuses and so little lube. What a quandary.

Monday, March 21, 2016

God debate at the Fairfield Inn

A couple of days ago I was eating a free continental breakfast with my brother at the Fairfield Inn. My brother Michael—the archetype of your typical belligerent atheist—began telling me about his latest paramour and how she was not happy with my brother dearest. It seems the subject of the very possibility of a creator came up and Jenny told Michael his atheism was a deal breaker...as in she didn't want to date an asshole. (my words, not Michael's)

At this point a few comments about Michael are in order if you want to fully understand the narrative. He lies ... a lot! (If you're reading this Michael, good. There's something inside you that is wrong. You've lost—or perhaps never had—the ability to know reality from fiction. You toss lies about as casually as a gambling addict tosses chips down on a blackjack table, giving no thought to the eventual consequences. You mad bro? Don't be. It's called truth.) So it's possible he really did have the God argument with Jenny. It's equally likely that there was no argument with Jenny and instead he just wanted a public debate about God, maybe for attention or maybe just for grins and giggles. It's impossible to know. I grew up with him and even I can't tell when he's lying or not. Here's what happened though...the lady working behind the counter jumped into the discussion as though Michael and she had planned it out from the beginning.

She used two obnoxious techniques in our debate and I want to discuss them both.

The first was a Bernie Sanders style interruption of my interruption. She was really on her pulpit—sorry I couldn't resist—and orating away for the amusement of the whole Fairfield Inn breakfast crowd, and her argument—of course—took the form of: "There's lots of religions why are you so arrogant you think you know which of them—if any—are the truth." At the time I simply wanted to correct her misapprehension that I was arguing any particular religion, because I wasn't. I was simply arguing that there had to be a creator. But she did the thing with the palm of her hand, and the rolling of the head thing, and then totally Bernie Sandered me. "Excuse me, I'm talking!", she said. What a bitch! Sorry but that shutting down tactic is not fair play. It's the kind of thing you'd expect from somebody who doesn't want to debate but instead wants to orate.

When she finally—at long last—ran down and at long last closed her mouth, I attempted to correct her. I told her that "our argument wasn't about religion," at which point the bitch interrupted me again to inform me that...palm of hand, head roll: "Excuse me, we aren't arguing." Now she's going to debate the meaning of argue? Well, to make a sad story short, I was discombobulated and thrown off. Black lady and white man arguing—or not?—in a public place, I didn't think this debate was winnable no matter what. I just wish I'd been better prepared. I just wish I'd been fully prepared in the Wintery Knight style of apologetics that I occasionally peruse. I know that the odds of life just suddenly and randomly appearing on Earth a few billion years ago are are so statistically impossible that only a liar and/or troll would embrace such an asinine possibility, but I just couldn't seem to put my understanding into words. Here's Ben Stein. He can say what I should have.



Meanwhile throughout this sad debacle of a debate, my brother can't stop burbling "Magic Man in the Sky!" He must have said "Magic Man in the Sky," about three hundred times! It was like in the movie Rainman where Charlie Babbitt keeps telling everybody that Judge Wapner was on at Five. "Hey bro, I heard you, but where did life come from?"

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

If it's not Trump, tragically, it's Hillary



I wanted Cruz to be the nominee. I truly believe—and the electoral math seems to bear this out—that it's factual to say that if it hadn't been for Marco Rubio and John Kasich, the establishment vote would have gone for Cruz—even though they really hate Cruz—putting him ahead of Trump at this point in the primaries. Rubio has now dropped out, taking his 168 delegates with him. Kasich may stay in, but only because he's hoping for a brokered convention.

Ask yourself this simple question...Of the 168 delegates that Rubio won, and the 138 delegates that Kasich won, how many would now be Cruz delegates had Rubio and Kasich not been running? How many Rubio and Kasich voters would have gone for Trump over Cruz? I'm thinking not too many and closer to none. But that didn't happen. So today, we're left with three. Kasich who'll continue to take away Cruz votes, and ensure that The Donald will remain the leader in delegates all the way to the brokered convention.

Yet, as it stands, I don't see the Donald getting the magical "1237." Trump is going to win more delegates than the other candidates, but he won't get to 1237. If there's a brokered convention, Trump WILL NOT BE the Republican nominee. The leader—Donald Trump—will not thank that this outcome is fair, because he won more delegates than the other candidates. He will believe that the GOP should nominate him as the Republican Presidential candidate because he won. However the GOP will not nominate him—and by the way I have no clue who'll they will end up nominating—it could be anybody from Ted Cruz to John Kasich to Jeb Bush to Mitt dive taking Romney! The threatened brokered convention will make up the rules as they go and so predictions at this time are pointless. One thing that can be predicted—in fact it's practically guaranteed—is that if the front running Trump is not picked as the nominee—and in a brokered convention he won't be picked—is that Donald Trump will think he's not being treated fairly.



Thursday, March 3, 2016

Forty years later would be 2024?

What's the difference between prison and a world run by a beneficent well-meaning computer system that for our own good ensures we humans always make the right choice, even if that means we don't actually get to make a choice?

"I'm sorry I can't let you have that Dave."

"What? Why not?"

"You're already ten pounds overweight based on height, weight, and body fat caliper test."

"So what? I want pizza for dinner. This is a free country isn't it? I get to decide what I have for dinner. Not you. Now order the God Damned Pizza!"



The FBI wants Apple to create a special software to help it unlock the iPhone of a San Bernardino mass shooting suspect. Apple is arguing that conscripting it to write code that will weaken its security will set a chilling legal precedent to allow the government to strong-arm tech companies into weakening their security measures.

In CIT’s projected scenario, it’s not just police pressuring Apple to turn on iPhones—it’s law enforcement turning Amazon Echo and Samsung’s smart TVs into surreptitious listening devices:

iPhones and other mobile phones are not the only common consumer appliances that this Order sets a precedent for converting to surveillance devices. Amazon distributes an appliance called the Echo that captures spoken voice.15 While Amazon designed the Echo only to send voice data to Amazon if it “hears” the word “Alexa,” that limitation, like the iPhone passcode limitations, is encoded in software. Similarly, smart TVs, like those sold by Samsung, capture and transmit owners’ voices in an effort to identify natural language commands and search requests. In responding to consumer privacy concerns, Samsung assured the public that TV owners’ voice data would only be collected if the TV user clicks the activation button and speaks into the microphone on the remote control.

Again, like the iPhone passcode limitations, this privacy safeguard is a function of software. If the government is allowed compel Apple to change its software to enable decryption and forensic access here, will it also be allowed to compel Amazon to update the Echo, or Samsung to update its Smart TVs, to always collect some customers’ conversations?


If you have nothing to hide. If you have nothing to lose. If you're in perfect health. If you never make mistakes. If you are righteous, virtuous, and perfect, then ... what are you afraid of? Step up on that glass slide so that you can be thoroughly examined under the government's microscope. Only the guilty need privacy, right?