Archive for December, 2017

Why I’m Against Net Neutrality but For California Doing It

Posted by Troy on 20th December 2017 in Current Events, Political

Tenth Amendment, ya’ll!

Okay, this is one of the very few issues where I am truly on the fence.  I think it comes down to two things, really:

If you believe that the internet is a public utility, you probably support Net Neutrality because no one should have substandard service from a public utility.  In exchange for these restrictions, utilities also get certain benefits such legal monopolies and the like.

If you believe that the internet is a product, you are probably against Net Neutrality because you believe that companies should be able to set their prices and policies.

I think that the internet is becoming such a massive part of people’s lives, that you could easily make the argument that it is a public utility.  If there were a power outage, many people would be most upset about the loss of the internet, not power or water.  Of course, those people are absolutely stupid, but there you go.

However, I am not in favor of Net Neutrality.  Why?  Because I haven’t been shown that the internet companies have been unfair.  If they ever start doing the nightmare scenarios where Amazon pays Comcast the most money so they throttle down Walmart’s internet speed, well, that’s a problem.  Of course, that is anti-competitive practices and could be considered collusion or extortion or racketeering.  But let’s put all that to the side.  Anyone COULD do ANYTHING.  You can’t punish people for things they can do.  Until such practices become common place, I do not wish to place the heavy fist of government on it.  Once the government gets involved in something, it’s difficult to get them out again.  Also, after ten to fifteen years, you could find that the government itself may start using Net Neutrality (as a base law) to add in a “Fake News” clause or something to control content.  It’s the old, slippery slope argument, but it is a valid argument.  I am always very cautious when it comes to given the government more regulatory power.

So why do I approve it for California?  Because California is a state and can do pretty much anything it damn well pleases as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law or the Constitution.  Boom.  If California is having problems, have your Net Neutrality.  If they are not having any problems and their citizens just want the law, have your Net Neutrality.  If it works out well, maybe other states will follow.  If it turns into a total shitshow, other states will learn from your example.

Long Live the Constitution!

Is it any wonder why we are starting to hate one another?

Posted by Troy on 15th December 2017 in Human Nature

We are always being played against one another.  Each side picks the worst example of the other side.  For instance, when the Tea Party was rolling strong, the media went out among the crowd and searched for the one guy holding a racist sign.  That’s they guy they showed, and they told everyone watching on the nightly news that the Tea Party was racist.  And the people believed it because they saw the guy holding the racist sign.  There was the proof.  Why did they do this?  Because the Tea Party opposed the Obama agenda, so they had to be destroyed.  Rather than deal with the Tea Party’s legitimate concerns about over taxation and the ever increasing size and power of the government, they knew that it would just be easier to paint them as racist.

The same could be said of the Black Lives Matter movement.  I guarantee you the vast majority of people in that movement have legitimate concerns that the police are killing unarmed young black men.  However, rather than deal with these legitimate concerns, they show the professional looters/rioters that use the movement as cover to do their misdeeds or they show the black equivalent of red necks screaming “What do we want?  Dead cops!  When do we want it?  Now!”  Likewise, rather than deal with the cop supporters who say that the cops are doing their job (etc), they want to talk about systemic racism or white indifference.

The fact of the matter is that if you ever went to a Tea Party event, you would have been amazed at the differences of opinion there.  They were not parrots.  They thought about issues and came to their own conclusions.  And their views were not rooted in racism but rooted in a fear of large government.  And when you get down to it, most of us have an innate fear of large government.  Likewise, if you talked to a black person calmly and rationally about their experiences growing up black and how these cop shootings look to them, then you would understand their point of view.

But even these cop shootings is a further example of media bias.  More unarmed whites are shot by police than unarmed blacks.  A black cop is more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white cop is.  These are statistical facts.  However, you never see when a white cop kills a white guy on the news.  You never see when a black cop kills a black guy on the news.  However, if a white cop kills a black guy, then that’s national news.   This does not excuse bad shootings.  But every time people turn on the TV, they see “white cop kills black suspect.”  They never see those other words.  Anytime they see this, it is always the same scenario.  White kills black.  Over and over and over again.  Again, what is shown to us is what becomes the truth.  How could blacks not learn to fear cops?  Every time they see it, it is confirmation of their belief.  Not only that, but these thoughts and feelings are more likely to make a black suspect nervous or angry which makes it more likely for an escalation during cop encounters which further confirms the belief, and the cycle continues.

And if you dare to discuss anything outside of the pre-determined, pre-approved narrative, you will be shouted down.  Take the cop example above.  If you try to point this out and have a rational discussion, you’re probably going to be yelled at.

I was recently talking to my brother-in-law and mentioned that Song of the South was the only Disney movie never made available to the public.  I’ve always wanted to see it just so I could see why this was.  He basically said it was because there was only one allowable way to depict slavery, and they did not do this.  ie, the slave in question was dance-walking down the road sing “Zippity-doo-da, zippity-aaaaa…”, which is a far cry from the renaming scene from Roots.  I had a conversation with a black friend of mine.  He asked me out of the blue, “Was there anything good about Nazi Germany?”  I had to preface the answer with “Well, it was far outweighed by the mountains of dead bodies and stuff… but he did make the trains run on time, they had national health care, paid for vacations to resorts, jobs for everyone…. but all of this is, as I said… outweighed by the 6 million dead bodies.”  But it’s crazy, isn’t it?   You are not allowed to say anything positive about that time of Germany’s history.  As though saying “The trains ran on time” some how excuses the SIX MILLION DEAD BODIES.  Again, there is only one way you are allowed to discuss the subject.  Anything outside that parameters is not allowed.

We are being trained to regard the other side as horrible human beings.  We are being trained to think the worst of each other.  If people actually sat down and talked, they would find out that we aren’t all that much different.

Long Live the Constitution!

I was wrong

Posted by Troy on 13th December 2017 in Current Events

It is rare that I have to admit I was wrong.  I had predicted that Roy Moore would win because Alabama voters wouldn’t want a Democrat representing them.  It didn’t pan out that way.  I guess there is a level of personal flaws that will cause voters to elect someone who will try to impede laws they want and push for laws they do not want.  In fairness, I do get it.  Also, it does not cost the Republicans the majority.  It’s only for two years before Doug Jones is going to get kicked to the curb.  It will also take away a major bullet the Democrats were wanting to use next year, so all in all, I can live with it.

Before Democrats gloat too much, just remember:  you ran against a creepy guy that chased under-aged girls, and you only won by about 1%.  You didn’t even get 50% of the votes.  A little humility may go a long way under the circumstances.

Long Live the Constitution!

Al Franken-stein and Roy Moore

Posted by Troy on 7th December 2017 in Political

His resignation brought a smile to my face.  It is so rare to listen to a master-hypocrite.  You have a serial sexual assaulter proclaiming both that victims should be believed…but he is totally innocent…but he’s going to step down anyway.  I especially loved the “ironic” line.  I wouldn’t say “ironic…”  maybe something like… “hilarious?”  Yes, that’s right, hilarious.

So, you’re going to ask me, “Are you for women being assaulted?!”

Of course not.

Here’s the thing.  This applies to Judge Roy Moore and President Trump:  People are not going to vote for a Jones or a Hillary.  They would prefer someone that they disapprove of that will pass laws that they will like rather than someone they like that will pass laws that people will be forced to live under that they hate.  That’s the important thing.  In Hillary, it’s a double shot: she was utterly unlikable in every way and wanted to pass laws that the majority of people in the majority of the states abhorred.  THAT is why she lost.  It had nothing to do with the Russians.  It had nothing to do with Comey.  It had nothing to do with America being misogynistic or racist or stupid.  Nope.  It was because they hated her stance on the issues.

The people of Alabama are going to make a decision.  They have the information on the issues and on the allegations.  In the end, they are going to vote for the person that they think will represent their interests, not their character.  They will pick someone that will vote for the laws that they want and vote down laws they do not want.

Also, let’s just say this: anyone can lay an allegation.  Until that allegation is prosecuted, they are not innocent or guilty.  In this particular case, the events happened 40 years ago and likely will never be prosecuted, doomed to fall into the realm of he-she said limbo, never to be resolved.  However, should it be proven that these allegations are true and the people of Alabama decide that they no-longer wish for Judge Roy Moore to represent him, they will recall him.  However, they would rather election someone that will vote for the laws they want (etc) and later recall them than to vote for a guy who will pass laws they are against.

It is not the Senate’s job to determine who can represent a State.  If past offenses were enough to disqualify people for office, then there would be precious few people there when you account for the crimes, sexual offenses, bankruptcies, corruption, bribery, drug offenses, rehabs, and other things that make people unsavory.  True, people can be expelled by the Senate…for CURRENT offenses.  It is totally inappropriate to do so for something that happened 40 years ago.  At that point, it is up to the people of Alabama.  You may disapprove of what Alabama does, but that’s frankly none of your business unless you live in Alabama.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are wanting to paint themselves as taking the high road.  They are not.  They are laying the groundwork for the 2018 and 2020 elections.  They want to paint themselves as the “women’s party” and try to get all the women to vote for them instead of Republicans.  I doubt it will account to much.  Again, they can brand themselves however they want, but people do not like the Democrats’ ideas.  Conyers, Franken, and any others that end up resigning are only doing so because they will be readily replaced by other Democrats.  It costs them nothing.  It’s the same reason why Democrats can come out now and rail against Bill Clinton.  It costs them nothing, and it is worthy of no respect.  If there was a chance that they would be replaced by a Republican, they would stay to the bitter end.  Just look at the case of the New Jersey representative that was on trial for bribery and corruption.  If he resigned, the Republican governor would have been able to appoint a Republican in his place, and you had pundits all lined up to say that the most moral choice if he was convicted was for him to STILL not resign rather than to have a Republican take that seat.

Long Live the Constitution!

Time’s Person of the Year

Posted by Troy on 6th December 2017 in Current Events

The Silence Breakers/the #metoo movement.  I’m a bit of a stickler… the silence breakers is not a person.  They are either a group of people or a movement.  However, that aside.

I am glad that women (particularly in the entertainment industry where I believe such offenses are rampant).  However, I have less sympathy for many of these women.  As I’ve said in other posts, a lot of these women made a conscious choice to trade their virtue for a part in a movie or a single for the radio.  Now, you might could convince me that they did what they thought they had to do.  They could have shot down Harvey Weinstein, but they would have to give up the possibility of a career/of their dream.  Well, that’s fair enough.  But let’s look at one case in particular.

Ashley Judd came out HARD against Trump.  She gave some speech about being a NAAAAAAASTY Woman.  Well, ya know what?  You ARE a nasty woman.  You know why?  Not because of your blood stained sheets and blah the blah blah blah.  You are a nasty woman because you claimed that these events happened to you.  You claim that you were sexually assaulted by these people.  Then you remained silent.  Oh, sure, “I would have to have given up on my dreams.”  But what about after you had made enough money that you wouldn’t have to work another day in your life if you wanted to?  You could have waged a scorched earth campaign leaving nothing sacred as you did everything you could to bring these people down.  But you didn’t.  You left all these other young actors and singers (male and female alike) to be abused in this way.  And then you want to act pious!  The only reason you came forward is it suddenly became trendy.

You know what, Ashley?  Maybe you and the other “feminists” should send Trump a thank you note.  His election made standing up to sexual predators trendy, and apparently justice only appeals to you if it is trendy and has a cute hashtag.

Swamp Fox… OUT!

Long Live the Constitution!