The Long Road Out

Today's wacko news:  five or seven individuals, perhaps Chinese high school students, have been kicked off Facebook and Twitter for posting pro-Chinese depictions of the Hong Kong protests.  Presumably we've also kicked some Russian programmers off those platforms too because they posted stuff that supported Trump for president. The reason:  stating government points of view on the platforms so that you and I could possibly see them here in the United States.   Please note the ludicrousness of this--the Chinese government itself has banned the platforms domestically, so clearly China (and Russia) has very little reason to care what gets posted since their own citizens can't legally see any of it (not even all the selfies!). Still-- the media, including NPR for instance, characterizes the high school student posts as "an international propaganda campaign." Two points of insanity destroy this perspective: The Chinese government has been heavy-handed, but ...

I'm talking to you.   Hiding over there behind a piece of faux burned papyrus upon which the holy words of the US Constitution's Second Amendment have been written in magic marker. Yes, you.   Why not buy a bazooka instead?   Because, in the interest of civil peace and safety, you can't buy shoulder-mounted missile launchers.  You can blame a conspiracy of the deep state, but you can't.   Which reminds all of us:   The Second Amendment, as pathetic as it is, doesn't allow you to own any weapon.   It does, in fact, result in regulation of the amount of lethal force a private citizen can own. Don't worry--as currently understood, your hobby of retro-fitting guns is A-OK.   I know you love your hobbies! Here's the problem:   too much lethal force is now associated with assault guns.   They're no better than missile launchers from a civil rights infringement point of view.   (I'm describing being able to go to Walmart without be...

We've been through two cycles of Democratic Party debates.   This is what we get with a two-party system.   Not a single candidate challenges the system whereby the strategy appears to be to try to destroy whoever is on the stage next to you.   Isn't that exactly what we result about the tool in the White House? Pissing matches and horse races aside, now we can't get past the "electable" vs "idealism" debate.   In this year's version, you've got 20 candidates who all are within about 20 yards of one another policy-wise.   If you're middle of the road, you may be electable.   If you're an inch over the double yellow line (say, for instance, you believe the health policy used successfully by every other democracy in the world might work here in the US), you're an idealist. My point:  Here's my argument:   you probably think Elizabeth Warren is an idealist and unelectable.   And maybe Biden or Pete or some one else is a "rea...