THE HUMBLE LIBERTARIAN

Mind your business.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Libertarian Solutions: How Congress Makes Hurricanes Worse and How to Keep Americans Safe From The Next Big Hurricane


The appropriations fight over federal relief funds for Hurricane Harvey is a big show of support and compassion, but it's really just another wealth transfer to the government that doesn't do anything to solve the problem at all.

If Congress really cared about solving problems, they would pay out as much as they need to from the federal flood insurance program for Harvey, raise the program's budgets, whatever they need to do to fulfill promises they've made....

And in the same bill they would start to phase out the federal flood insurance program and make people pay actual market rates to private insurance companies for flood insurance by a certain target date.

Then people will have to consider the real costs of building in a flood plain by a coast.

Which was graciously published
at Everything Voluntary

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

We Need Leadership: 7 NYPD Crisis Negotiations Techniques That Trump Should Use with North Korea


As tensions between the U.S. and North Korea rise, Donald Trump could show some real and effective leadership by consulting with some of his home city’s finest and most talented police officers: the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team.

By employing their professional negotiation techniques, used to neutralize volatile situations with hostage takers, people trying to commit suicide, and other people who pose an immediate danger to themselves and others, Donald Trump could go down in history as a brilliant negotiator and a good president that made the world a safer place to live...

has been graciously published
at The Jack News.

And someone tweet this at the POTUS.

Let's see if we can't save the world from a nuclear war with some New York know-how.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Donald Trump Has Crossed The Line From Entertaining to Dangerously Out of Touch for Someone in His Position




I'm going to say Donald Trump has officially crossed the line from entertaining to dangerously out of touch for someone in his position.

"They will be met with fire and fury
like the world has never seen ... "

Is it possible he had no idea what he was saying when he tweeted that earlier this month?

An elderly North Korean woman and her grandchild
wander among the debris of their home after being
bombed by the U.S. Photo: Keystone/Getty Images

No idea that he was talking to a country that the U.S. actually did unleash fire and fury on like the world had never seen?

Like the world had never seen even after WWII and the two atomic bombs on Japan?


Briefly, here's what happened...

U.S. Backed South Korean Dictator, Syngman Rhee
shaking hands with U.S. Rear Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie (1952)

In the 1950s, North Korea sent their army south to stop the southern U.S. backed dictator Syngman Rhee, who was murdering tens of thousands of Democrats.

The U.S. military actually helped oversee the mass slaughter of Korean Democrats.

So the U.S. responded by dropping 635K TONS of bombs on North Korean cities and neighborhoods!

More than the U.S. dropped in the entire Pacific theater during WWII, including the atomic bombs!

This War Crime left One out of every Five North Koreans dead in just three years.


And you think Rosa Parks had a hard time in the 50s.



So after Donald Trump moves his military (with the useless UN's blessing) to blockade North Korean businesses earlier this month...

(Remember that historically "sanctions" are an act of war and a precursor to active hostilities.)

And his military practices invading North Korea from the military bases he has right on their border...



Monday's successful missile test over Japan gives the world a good reason to think twice about attacking North Korea.

And you can see why North Korea would want to give the world notice that they can fight back...

Especially after Donald Trump goes and talks about:
"fire and fury like the world has never seen"
To the one country on Earth that the U.S. actually did this to once already!

This is the worst possible way for the U.S. president to talk to a country that is understandably afraid of a U.S. attack.

And that also happens to be the latest country to develop nuclear weapons!

They have nukes and they're already afraid, Donald! What the hell are you doing!?



Does he think he's still playing a character on TV?


And reports say he "improvised" the tweet.

Donald Trump could start a war with a nuclear power on a whim because he's a God damned fool.

Twitter, you gotta cut this guy's mic.

Please suspend his account right away!

The stakes are too high.

You don't have any legal or moral obligation to let anybody use your platform.

You do have a moral obligation to police your platform for irresponsible speech that stirs up human violence.

Donald Trump is very good at creating drama and dominating head lines.

But he's clearly not taking reality seriously enough.

He probably thinks he's still on TV.

It's great when television's exciting.

But real life should not be this exciting!

Not with maybe millions of people's lives at stake.

Twitter, you have got to cut this guy's mic and put the first big crack in the foundation of this dangerous farce.

Your moral courage will deal a major blow to Donald Trump's aura of legitimacy, and others will follow.

You don't have to make a big deal out of it.

He violated your Terms of Service:
Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension.

Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence...
But it will be a big deal.

You may save the world this way. We could not more desperately need your leadership now.

And we need Congress to remove this president from office before he gets people killed.

He is a danger to the entire world in this position.

He is clearly unfit for this role. He lacks the temperament and experience for this.

It's not funny anymore.

People's lives are at stake.



Please Like My Facebook Page


And Share This Article

Re: Game of Thrones Spoilers




1. Not every fan is going to be able to see the episode the night it comes out.

2. People checking their FB or Twitter feed might see anything I post, including spoilers about the episode.

3. The other fans want to enjoy every bit of the suspense that I got to enjoy when I watched the episode.

4. Even if a plot development may not be a total surprise, spoilers still KILL ALL suspense about that plot point.

4a. Even if you know something's probably going to happen, you don't know which episode you're going to get it in.

5. Game of Thrones is one of the most popular TV shows ever, with so many really devoted fans like me...

6. So when I'm excited about something that happened in a new episode, I discuss it in private conversations on social media or in person with other people who I know have already seen the episode.

7. Not on a public feed that someone casually scrolling through might have their experience ruined a little.

8. If you're a good fan and really love the show, you should care about the other fans' experience too.

9. That small consideration for other people is a matter of basic decency.

It's the kind of world I want to live in.

If you agree, please smash that Like button!


Friday, August 25, 2017

Libertarianism, The Alt Right, and The Real Racists in Politics


So this conservative blogger, Matt Lewis, just wrote:

"The Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline

Is it just a phase they go through—or is there something about libertarianism that attracts, well, uh, you know, racist kooks?

Libertarianism has an alt-right problem. Many prominent leaders of the alt-right have, at some point, identified as libertarian. I am curious as to... why?"

...Say what?

No.

Conservatism has an Alt Right problem.

The Republican Party has an Alt Right problem.

You won the presidency off that shit. That's yours.

Don't try to blame the Alt Right on libertarians.

Because I've got the answer for you right here...

You know how often times a "racist" is really just a conservative winning the argument with a liberal?

Yeah, well sometimes a "racist" is also just a libertarian winning the argument with a conservative.

Which shows you just how little difference there is between some so-called conservatives and liberals.

They both love their big government and they use the same cynical smear tactics in their shameless propaganda.


Never trust a "conservative" who argues like a liberal


Anyway I'm sure this guy is just "curious" and doesn't already have an agenda to smear some racism on my face.

Let's find out...

"Milo Yiannopoulos has billed himself (and has been billed by others) as libertarian. About a year ago, he came clean about that."

Exhibit A: Milo Yiannopoulos!

Except the two links Lewis provides to connect Milo Yiannopoulos to libertarianism completely undermine his own point!

The first one is to a Reason Magazine article, a very popular libertarian magazine.

It's titled: "CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as 'Libertarian'"

And subtitled: "Yeah, not so much."

Y'all act like you never seen a white person before...
Jaws all on the floor like Pam and Tommy just burst in the door...

So Matt Lewis claims that Alt Right darling Milo Yiannopoulos is connected to libertarianism.

And the best he can come up with to prove that is a link to a libertarian magazine article that says:

1. Milo is not a libertarian.

2. He was slated to be the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2017.

3. And when a podcast went viral of Milo condoning sexual relationships between 13 year olds and adults...

CPAC's organizer, Matt Schlapp, withdrew the speaking invitation and tried to pawn Milo off as a libertarian.

4. Schlapp's exact quote on BSNBC's Morning Joe was:

"He doesn't call himself conservative. He calls himself more of a libertarian.... Some libertarians would deny that he's a libertarian."

Yeah I'm confused too

Does this guy Lewis know how to read?

Lewis says "billed by others as a libertarian" and links to an article about how friendly conservatives were with Milo right up until he supported sexual relationships between 13 year olds and adults.

And how a conservative then labeled him a libertarian to try to fling that hot potato into the libertarians' hands. (Nice try.)

Could Lewis have linked to a more idiotic source for his point?

Looks to me more like there's an Insidious Conservative-to-Alt-Right Pipeline already!

Tell us who you voted for, Lewis.

And this incident with Milo and CPAC actually perfectly exemplifies what Lewis himself is trying to do!

Trying to pawn the Alt Right off on libertarianism.

Which is why it's so weird to me that Lewis linked to it.

Maybe it's a Freudian slip kind of situation and his subconscious just couldn't resist blurting out what he's really up to.

Or maybe he doesn't know how to read.

Or most likely, he's a shoddy journalist and a state propagandist, and he knows most of his readers aren't going to dig very deep.

So they'll hear what he wants them to:

Insidious. Libertarianism. Alt Right. Keystone Pipeline. Got it.




But get a look at the second link Lewis provides as he tries to connect Milo Yiannopoulos to libertarianism.

It's to an article about... Milo harshly criticizing libertarianism!

Milo's words, from the article:

"Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole ‘everybody do what they want’ is code for ‘leave me to do what I want.’ It’s selfish and childish... That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking."

So much for a libertarian-Milo connection.

You've got some real solid journalists working for you, Daily Beast!

And a word of warning to all libertarians out there:

Milo Yiannopoulos thinks you're all children!

That's the worst thing for Milo Yiannopoulos to think you are.

The real mystery is how long he's
managed to resist growing a mustache

Anyway, Lewis offers several more examples as flawed as this:

1. A known Internet troller named "Baked Alaska" who supported Trump after supporting Rand Paul. So what?

He also supported Black Lives Matter and worked at BuzzFeed. Does BLM or BuzzFeed have an Alt Right problem, Lewis?

2. Gavin McInnes, who does call himself a libertarian on his Twitter profile... where he also says he's anti-Alt Right.

So what good is his word for making your case, Lewis?

3. Some white nationalist creep who legally changed his name to Augustus Sol Invictus and ran in a Libertarian Party primary, and was widely and vocally opposed by the Libertarian Party.

The LP Chairman in his state resigned over Invictus even running in the primary, and rebuked him as a fascist and neo-Nazi.



4. Lewis also links to an article about white nationalist Richard Spencer crashing a libertarian conference uninvited, and getting kicked out by the libertarians!

Lewis thinks that establishes a libertarian-Alt Right connection. Reading comprehension, Lewis!

5. The only real example he gives of an actual libertarian who turned Alt Right and supported Trump, is Stefan Molyneux.

Just one real example in a sea of other "examples" that actually demolish his own argument.

And Molyneux has been disowned by many libertarians over his support for Donald Trump.

You're going to need a lot more than that to establish that libertarianism "is a gateway drug to the Alt Right."

We all already know that sometimes people are just sellouts.

The Real Racists in Politics


Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV),
Senior Democratic U.S. Senator
for decades until his death in 2010...
and former "Exalted Cyclops" in the KKK

Now if I seem annoyed, it's because I am.

Matt Lewis and The Daily Beast run a headline that there's an insidious connection between libertarianism and the Alt Right...

Accuses libertarianism of attracting racist kooks...

And then blathers on about nothing with no basis at all to back up his very serious and defamatory claims about libertarianism.

And who's calling him out on it?

Not even libertarians are calling him out for this!

Just me.

Hit the freakin' Like button!


I've been advocating for libertarianism for nearly ten years now.

It's annoying enough to be considered radical or odd in any way for advocating that people should be free!

Crazy, huh?

But during my time as a libertarian, it has not escaped my notice that opponents of liberty love to brand libertarians as racists.

We've got to fight back this vicious, underhanded attack on us from some useful idiot in the MSM at least once every other year.

And it's just plain bullshit.

Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason.com,
on white supremacists: "...they are the antithesis
of everything that the libertarian project stands for
—which is cosmopolitanism versus parochialism,
individualism vs. group identity, and libertarianism
or autonomy versus authoritarianism."

Now does anybody remember any of this?

Remember how the Democratic Party won elections for decades with over a million Ku Klux Klan votes a century ago?

And remember how the Democratic Party put Asian Americans in internment camps under FDR during World War II?

What about the Tuskegee Experiment that the U.S. government carried out on black men without their knowledge or consent until 1972? Who's racist: libertarians or big government?


I already mentioned Senator Robert Byrd above. This guy was just sitting in a U.S. Senate seat, spending all your tax money, respected and admired by everyone until his death in 2010.

He was a former Ku Klux Klan member. Back in the days when they were murdering black people. The New York Times gushed over him when he died, and swept his racist past under the rug.


Hey anybody remember U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) saying "macaca" on the campaign trail in 2006? I do.

What about U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) who addressed the white supremacy group, the Council of Conservative Citizens no less than five times, as late as 1998, and still got to be a Senate Majority Leader in the 21st century?


Or Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) who also had a cozy relationship with the CCC? And his 2003 Democratic opponent, then-governor Ronnie Musgrove, did too!

Anyone remember this racist gem from U.S. Senator and Democratic Vice President Joe Biden?

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man." -Joe Biden

Am I the only one who remembers the hate-filled and racist speeches of President Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright? His outspoken, racist pastor at a church that he went to for years?


Mainstream, big government conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly, the king of cable news ratings, has said enough racist garbage to fill a book.

Hollywood filmmaker Spike Lee has said he opposes interracial marriage: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street."

And I'm sure no one remembers what Matt Lewis' hero, U.S. Senator (R-AZ) and Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain said on the campaign trail back in 2000:

"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

It's understandable that John McCain has strong feelings about the Vietnam War, but going around decades later using a slur for Asian Americans, repeatedly, and unapologetically?

Don't go slinging mud at libertarians.

Mainstream Republicans and Democrats attract all kinds of racists, extremists, creeps, and weirdos to their ranks.

Let's get real. Politics is a total freak show.

And somehow these racists make it to the top levels of government and make policy for the rest of us.

We humble libertarians are not responsible for all the racism baked into the system.

That's all on big government, and big government's supporters.

So don't go slinging mud at libertarians.

Go hose your sacred cows off. They're filthy.



Thursday, August 24, 2017

How to Build Business Relationships


I learned just about everything I know about business from selling millions of dollars worth of cars, trucks, and SUVs at a high volume regional automotive dealership in just under three years.

And that’s saying a lot because my college degree is a Bachelor of Business and I majored in Entrepreneurship.

I learned a lot during those four years, but not even close to as much as I did selling cars during those other three years.

It’s a tough business to make it in because people are spending a lot of money when they buy a vehicle, they’ve never met you before, and you will probably never see each other again.

And the car business created its own bad image and sowed the seeds of consumer distrust for decades before most dealerships cleaned up their act in the era of the informed customer.

So I learned very quickly how to build relationships and trust in a very short amount of time.

Sometimes in as little as three hours from the time I met a potential customer to the time they were signing the papers.

Sometimes over three days of visits to the dealership, test drives, phone calls, and emails.

And sometimes over a year of keeping in touch with someone.

I will never forget what a veteran car sales rep told me my first month in the car business.

He said:

“Building trust with your customer is very easy. All you have to do is tell them you’re going to do something, and then do it.”

He was right.

In our busy world most people are so wrapped up in what they’re doing and swirled around in the inertia of the daily demands on their attention, that it is easy to flake on new business relationships when you decide you need to triage.

But if you want to stand head and shoulders above everyone else and be remembered warmly by all your business contacts, whether it’s prospects, past customers, co-workers, bosses, or vendors, just tell them you’re going to do something...

And then do it.

Follow up and follow through are so rare, the world will stand on its head for the person who takes initiative, establishes rapport, and offers even the smallest commitment (“I’ll send you an email with some information,” “I’ll call you later this week to set up a good time,” “I’ve got some samples at my office- what’s your mailing address?”), and then follows through on it.

Doing this in even the smallest way establishes that you are someone that others will want to work with, a known quantity, somebody who can be counted on.

Ideally the other business person will reciprocate with a small commitment and follow through (with a friendly, gentle reminder from you, Mr. or Mrs. Initiative, if they don’t follow through).

This reciprocal arrangement of making and keeping commitments should escalate toward the kind of business partnership each party is seeking, with each show of commitment, trust, and follow through building on the last one.

When someone has spent money with you they are absolute VIPs for your business forever. They are customers now. Treasure them and treat them like VIPs.

Tell them you’re going to mail them something, and then follow through with a nice hand written thank you note. People rarely get those these days, and such a small gesture means a lot.

And that’s ultimately how to build business relationships: doing what you say you’re going to do every time, and showing your care, and trustworthiness through the little things, the tokens of good will and attention that matter a lot to people.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Law Professor: Congress Must Act On Growing Sexbot Industry

Don't hate me cuz you ain't me

The College Fix reports:

"John Banzhaf, a well-known activist professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School, says experts disagree on the consequences of allowing people to engage in mock acts of rape with humanoid dolls, and lawmakers should vet this issue as soon as possible."

Okay, right off the bat, I already feel like I don't like this guy.

"activist professor of public interest law" just screams "worst kind of person there is" at me.

And how on Earth are you going to police "mock acts of rape with humanoid dolls?"

Are we just going to put a camera in every bedroom 1984 style, that you can't turn off, and if someone starts getting too rough with their sex doll, we send the police over?


Is this guy serious?

Is he thinking through what he's saying at all?

The article continues:

"Saying there’s evidence rape sexbots may significantly increase the chance of rape to real women, the law should 'no longer stand by and blindly ignore a major potential problem by doing nothing,' he said in an email to The College Fix."

Okay maybe it is a problem that someone would want to rape their sexbot, but what can possibly, realistically be done about that?

Don't hate

Ban sexbots?

Because someone might do something bad with them?

Well you'll just have to ban everything then.

So, what? Put a little tag on each sexbot, just like on a mattress, that says it's against federal law to rape your sexbot?

Yeah I'm sure that'll stop them.

Only way to stop this from happening is put a camera in every man, woman, and child's bedroom, and if the NSA sees anybody pulling their sexbot's hair too hard, we send in a SWAT team.

So, Banzhaf, what's your solution?

"The obvious first step would be to have hearings and do studies to determine just how serious the threat is, whether there are any real benefits to having sexbots programmed to simulate being raped, and then what if any new laws, regulations, etc. might be appropriate."

Oh yes. The obvious first step.

"I don't know, Sergeant. She looks pretty into it..."

It's always obvious to any busybody, lawyering, tax dollar grubbing, "there ought to be a law!" type of person...

That whatever bright idea or alarmist fear they have should be the subject of endless hearings and studies... and tax dollars.

"...whether there are any real benefits to having sexbots programmed to simulate being raped..."

LOLOL at this part!


This guy is worried about robot rape and his solution is to spend a million dollars on a study to determine if there are any real benefits to programming a rape setting into sex bots!

How does that study go?

Is he actually saying we should pay someone to rape a sex doll, then take a survey about the experience?

This is how legislators think. These people are nuts.


Let's skip the hearings and just get right down to it, Banzhaf...

(By the way, Banzhaf stands for "bans half the fun things in the world because you might be evil.")

Say they pass a law banning sexbot manufacturers from manufacturing robots that make crying sounds.

Because why would someone want a sexbot that cries?

Okay. If your sexbot is crying during sex, well, then you're having a rape fantasy with your sexbot.

But maybe someone wants more than sex from their sexbot.

Maybe they want a full-time, fantasy companion, someone they can pretend is their best friend and lover.

I don't know.


And maybe they would want a realistic as possible robot that expresses the full range of human emotions.

So they can simulate every kind of experience in a relationship with them.

Maybe they would want their robotic companion to cry so they can comfort them. Just like real couples do when sad things happen.

Maybe they want their robots to cry with them when they're crying over something sad.

"Sara, I'm so sad that I don't have a real woman to cuddle with."
"Me too, Bradley." *cries*
"Oh Sara! I LOVE you! Come here..."
*frantic sloppy tongue kissing*

Hahaha, I don't know.

But who the hell is John Banzhaf?

And how is any of that his business?

He's going to stop some sad, lonely guy from having the closest thing to a female companion he's ever going to get?

And from getting whatever features he wants that a manufacturer is willing to provide for his dollar?

Because somebody might act out evil fantasies with their robots?


And you think those guys aren't going to act out those fantasies anyways, even if the robot doesn't have a "rape" or "black out drunk" or "crying" setting?

I mean for a guy who's so concerned about other people's perversity, John Banzhaf seems awfully unabashed about public masturbation, because that's what his remarks amount to.

And calling for hearings and studies, bro...

The reason why the government does hearings and studies is because it cannot literally, physically masturbate.


Another relevant question:

What if someone's fantasy is to be raped by their sexbot?

Does Banzhaf want to study and regulate that too?

In a 2009 study published by the Journal of Sex Research:

  • 220 out of 355 undergraduate women surveyed said that they've had a rape fantasy.
  • If you picked a woman at random out of those 220, the frequency of this fantasy would most likely be about four times a year.
  • 49 of the 355 women surveyed said they indulge in a fantasy of being raped "at least once a week."


Meanwhile VICE Magazine reports that:

Search query data reveals women who search for porn are twice as likely as their male counterparts to search for ultra violent porn.

Dr. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, a former Google data scientist, was given complete access to PornHub's search and views data for an upcoming book. He writes:

"If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women."

Just so we're clear, that's porn with tags like:

"extreme brutal gangbang," "forced," "rape," "painful anal crying," and "public disgrace"

We live in a strange world.


Do what you will with this information.

But for God's sake, please do not shoot the messenger.

People who are a lot more valuable than me are dropping off like flies for reporting the results of scientific studies about women.

My point is there are almost definitely going to be people who want to simulate that they are the one being raped by their sexbot.

Are those fantasies off limits too?

"The safeword is 'toaster.'"

Does John Banzhaf not have enough of his own problems to keep him from wanting to make that his business as well?

What's so offensive to me about Banzhaf's remarks is the insidious underlying subtext.

It's more noise in the din of endless anti-penis propaganda by militant academic feminists.

It's part of the ugly slander against men that we are at base a bunch of violent rapists.

And that all it takes is a violent video game or sex with a robot to trigger our uncontrollable raping nature into action.


It's absolute horse shit.

Imagine John Banzhaf just crouching down with his pants around his ankles and shitting all over your dick.

That's what he's doing.

He doesn't have anything better to do with his time.

But even worse than all of that...

At an even more important and urgent level of analysis...


This sexbot alarmism is proof of the mental weakness and moral cowardice of public intellectuals in our era.

You've got Banzhaf turning to the U.S. government to regulate people's sexual activities with robots.

As if the U.S. government has any shred of moral authority when it comes to the use of robots.

You know, the very institution that loves to use drones to murder people from the skies?

I bet some family in Pakistan wishes this loser was at
home raping a sexbot all day instead of this shit.

How can you justify this organization's mass murder, Banzhaf?

Justify it by turning to them as a moral authority on other issues? Without a word against their worst of crimes against humanity?

You clearly lack any sane sense of awareness and perspective.

If you're concerned about robots with a fantasy rape setting...

Why don't you call for a ban on robots with an actual murder setting?




Saturday, August 19, 2017

An Open Letter to The White Supremacists

Dear All of Y'all,

You know if I'm talking to you.

I'm crazy to stick my neck out like this and even address you.

Most will likely disagree with me to say that I think society should have an open dialogue with you.

Because you're clearly unhappy, and we've got to live with you.

And the consequences of your actions.

So let's have it out.

First off, I wish there were no public square for us to fight over in the first place. Problem solved.

If I want to take a statue down on my property, that's my business. If you want to put a statue up on yours, that's yours.

Instead of a public square, I wish there were a lot more private squares. And everybody has their own private square.

And the size of your square is pretty much whatever you've been able to prove to your society that you're actually good enough to be responsible for.

The free market is the proving grounds.

And you can do what you want on your square.

And I can do what I want on mine.

So if you want to put up a statue on your private square, then I can't stop you. And if I want to take one down on mine, then you have to respect my property too.

Then there don't have to be any more fights.

And if you want a bigger square, find out a way to solve some problem that people have, that they're willing to pay to have solved. And your square will grow.

That's the libertarian idea, by the way.

Live and let live. And no fighting. And no pushing. And no shoving.

But I understand that there is a public square, and you are aggrieved that a statue you like is being taken down in it.

But let's be realistic. There are not a lot of you right? Like practically none of you compared to the rest of us.

Nobody sees these statues the way you do. Nobody.

You're outnumbered, probably 30,000 to 1 on this, generously.

You've felt the intense pressure from this after Charlottesville.

Surely no one is more aware than you right now of how unpopular your opinions are.

So it's unreasonable to expect the rest of us to have to look at the statue that we don't like in a public park when there are so many more of us and you are in the extreme minority.

Can you see how that's unreasonable?

And it's not like we're violating your rights in some horrible, or even some minor or petty way not to want the statues up.

So it's not like a tyranny of the majority situation, where you are being harmed somehow, so the appeal to the majority is invalid.

We just don't want the statues up okay?

We hate them.

We also can't understand how someone could like them as much as you seem to or at all.

And you're not going to be able to change that.

So what is it that you want? Realistically.

Understanding that you have to live with the rest of us too, and that you are in the extreme minority position on this, and that most of us have no patience for your point of view at all.

Would you call it a win and stop demonstrating if these cities just agreed to give you the statues, and you can take them home and do whatever you want with them?

I think that's a reasonable request.

Though maybe not now, after all the mayhem your rally caused.

Let me know what you think about that proposition.

Now on to a more central issue: Why do you group yourselves and other people together on the basis of being white or not?

How is that at all a meaningful distinction?

You don't group yourself in with other people on the basis of whether you're blonde or not, and band together over that.

Or whether you have green eyes. Or are left handed. Or have a second toe that's longer than your big toe.

You don't consider whether your earlobe is attached to your head or not a meaningful category.


So why all this nonsense about being white?

And how are you already so cynical?

I saw how young most of you are in the photos. What is all this talk about being "dispossessed" and "replaced?"

You can't start feeling like a loser already when you're only 20. You haven't even started trying yet!

You don't know how good you could have it if you stay out of trouble, and work on yourself, and do something good for your society every day.

It's going to be a lot harder now that you've taken part in something like this, but not impossible.

You're now in deep debt and have a lot to pay off to climb out of the hole and start building something.

Best thing you could do now is write and publish a lengthy, very well thought out apology letter.

And when people still don't accept it and most of the comments are venting anger at you, consider it your penance.

Those of you at the rally who were in your 30s and 40s, you've got even less time to waste if you're feeling dispossessed and like you're clinging to the bottom of your society.

I don't know how you can go on now, but the rest of your life will go better for you if you admit how foolish and unproductive this racial fighting business is and try to change.

Especially if you publicly apologize to the younger men in your movement, and tell them you've led them astray.

You will find the beginning of redemption in this act.

And when our time is over and people are looking back on the now, they will think the better of you for having the incredibly rare strength to admit you were wrong, and to pull back when you were so close to the edge.



Is The Eclipse a Message From God?


There's no such thing as a stupid question.

Let's just agree that we can't be sure it's a message from God.

And then ask ourselves:

"But what if it was?" for the sake of argument.

Well if it was definitely a message from God...

What do you think the message would be?

Okay well what if the first thing that flashed into your mind after you read that (if anything) actually was the message from God?

Might give you some critical insight to ponder that.


One thing that flashes into my mind is that we seriously don't have enough control over the Moon.

It's just flying around in circles up there willy nilly.

It's one of the few aspects of nature that mankind hasn't yet subdued, as we were ordered to do by God Himself.

And it's going and casting shadows on us while we're trying to go about our business!

Ya know?

Up there mocking us.


Did you know the Moon is drawing a big X over the United States?

No joke.

You can Google this if you don't believe me...

There's another total Solar Eclipse making its way over the United States seven years from now in 2024.

And it's going to criss cross the path of this one in an exact X.


So you've got the Moon up there laughing at us, crossing us off the map, mocking us!

There's only one way to show the Universe who's in charge here.

I think the message from God is clear:

God wants us to nuke the Moon.

"What, you're saying send a nuclear missile to the Moon?"


Yes, I'm saying send a nuclear missile to attack the Moon.

As a wise man once said:

"World peace cannot be achieved by sitting around on our duffs singing hippy songs to the moon. Peace can only be achieved through excessive acts of seemingly mindless violence."

It's a self evident truth really.


Consider a playground analogy:

Who do the bullies like to pick on?

Some unhinged freak who could easily snap for the most frivolous reason and irrationally savagely attack the nearest person?

Or a timid, harmless weakling?

And those are your only two choices really. If you're not the irrationally violent freak, then you're the harmless weakling.

Only two choices.


So here's what Donald Trump should do:

He should pick a country at random by spinning a globe and putting his finger on it with his eyes closed.

So long as they don't have nuclear weapons, we proceed. If they've got nukes, then spin again til we get the timid weakling.

Then he should pick the dumbest reason for an attack.

Something terrifyingly irrational.

Like: "Sorry Guam, we're going to take out every country that starts with the letter 'G' starting with you. I don't make the rules, but I do enforce them."

"But, but! We're not a country. We're a U.S. territory! We're U.S. citizens! Are you joking?"

"It's your own fault. Should have applied for statehood."


Then he should give the country one week notice that bombs are going to start dropping.

And after just 24 hours he should start bombing.

When the country's leader calls freaking out, Trump should clarify:

"No, I meant one week max. And by the way, I'm giving you one week notice for the ground invasion."

The first world leader who condemns the attack, Trump should just fire twenty cruise missiles at that country in response.

"Bewm"

And then Trump should make a big announcement on television:

"And listen, everyone. Just to make sure you know we mean business. We're going to show you tomorrow what's going to happen to the next country that breaks the rules."

The shuttle would already be en route to land in 24 hours.

It would be carrying an armament of one hundred 25-megaton, uranium-encased, deuterium-tritium boosted, B41 bombs, the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever fielded by the U.S.

That would leave us about 400 of these bad boys left to use back on Earth if we want to.


The next day, Trump tweets for everyone to go outside and look at the Moon.

The world looks up in horror and disbelief as a nuclear explosion visible with the naked eye lights up the surface of the Moon.


He tweets:

"That's one quick phone call to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for me, one giant nuclear explosion for the Moon."

Followed up by:

"USA! USA! USA! We're the first and only country land on the Moon. Now we're the first to nuke it. This truly is a historic day."

And:

"Next disrespectful tweet I get from anyone... we're dropping bombs on Gambia."

Freedom fries

Now all kidding aside, I'll leave you with a serious message from God, since the eclipse is coming up...

When I asked myself, "If the eclipse were a message from God, what would the message be?"

What flashed through my mind was a quote by James Cameron that I read for the first time last year and have carried with me:

"The universe is like a giant bank vault lock, where the tumblers are constantly moving and once in a while the tumblers line up and you have to listen for the click. So you must be prepared in that moment to step through the door." -James Cameron









Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet