Could Carnival over take the Mummers?

 Serious question since the Philadelphia Mummer tradition owes a lot to Carnival. Carnival being:

Carnival is a Western Christian festive season that occurs before the liturgical season of Lent. The main events typically occur during February or early March, during the period historically known as Shrovetide (or Pre-Lent). Carnival typically involves public celebrations, including events such as parades, public street parties and other entertainments, combining some elements of a circus. Elaborate costumes and masks allow people to set aside their everyday individuality and experience a heightened sense of social unity. Participants often indulge in excessive consumption of alcohol, meat, and other foods that will be forgone during upcoming Lent.

This question is something I've been asking myself for a while since I heard the Mummer's Parade in Philadelphia was having economic problems.  Carnival It's a big thing in the Caribbean and is called Mardi Gras in the US:

Carnival celebrations, usually referred to as Mardi Gras ("Fat Tuesday" in French), were first celebrated in the Gulf Coast area, but now occur in many states. Customs originated in the onetime French colonial capitals of Mobile (now in Alabama), New Orleans (Louisiana), and Biloxi (Mississippi), all of which have celebrated for many years with street parades and masked balls.

 So, the two traditions. Carnival and Mummers, have a lot in common. I found this article in Al Dia about another tradition, the San Mateo Carnavalero, linking up with the Mummers

 Up until recently the suggestion that masqueraders of "San Mateo Carnavalero" should  join the long standing and massive parade of the "Mummers" had been nothing more than our suggestion. However recently there was a real rapprochement between multiple local cultural carnivals, all of which had, until then, remained mostly disconnected.

 My opinion, here's a tradition which exists that could join up with other ethnic groups. The Al Dia Article pretty much sums up how I think the Mummers Parade should evolve to become more inclusive. The issue is whether blacks are willing to join their tradition with that from other cultures.

What you miss by being monolingual.

 The US really doesn't have much in the way of a balanced media.

So, it was really refreshing to see this interview with John McWhorter in L'Express: https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/john-mcwhorter-avec-sa-croyance-inebranlable-et-son-peche-originel-le-wokisme-est-une-religion_2165058.html

You can find English versions, but the French one is much more cutting about this movement.

You touch on a crucial point. There is certainly a form of theatricality in the way some blacks claim a place, and that can be traced back to simplistic attitudes already in the early 1960s. But I really think that the black American leadership doesn't think about black people as elected officials: it's not part of the black tradition. I think that Black America thinks of itself through a very troubled history, still in the present, and that this idea that Black people should have a certain place is not an egocentric idea, but rather a fear. It comes from the fact that it can be difficult, as a black person, why you exist in the world. The relationship with Africa, it goes back centuries, it doesn't make sense anymore. We are not Africans. What do we have? It is very difficult to think collectively in such a situation. For me, it's very important that we understand this because indeed, this aspect of black activism can be very irritating. But it comes from a deep insecurity. 

I find it interesting that Prof. McWhorter is a professor of Creole Studies and isn't offering the Western Alternative to Africa: Creole culture. The slaves made their own traditions in the Western Hemisphere.

While the narrative is that blacks "were stolen from Africa", the reality is that they were sold into bondage by other Africans (e.g., Mali Empire and Benin). Slavery has been part of African culture from Ancient times. Blaming white people won't change that.

US black culture is also not monolithic as is seen by examples like Prof. McWhorter.

Kwanzaa, Odunde, and what's that other one. Oh, yeah, Juneteenth: Reprise

 I'm sure that people are saying I am a racist because of these posts since they go against what we are told about how race relations SHOULD be in the US.

On the other hand, remember I am a francophone, which has been officially certified by the French government.

I wonder how many of the people calling me a racist listen to Radio France International (RFI)? They might want to since RFI broadcasts in one of the two most commonly spoken languages in Africa: FRENCH! 

TO AFRICA

And the other one is English.

As I said in the previous post:

The ethnic groups of Africa number in the thousands, with each population generally having its own language (or dialect of a language) and culture. The ethnolinguistic groups include various Afroasiatic, Khoisan, Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan populations.

So, having a common language is very helpful, even if those langauges happen to be the "imperialistic" ones, Arabic, Portugese, French, or English.

But another thing which is missing (or things that are missing) when I listen to news by and about Africans? Kwanzaa, Odunde, and what's that other one. Oh, yeah, Juneteenth...

There's a bit of local difficulty and the powers that be toss blacks a bone.

Unfortunately, like the ethnic groups in Africa, US blacks are not a monolithic identity.

I wonder how long it will take for the blacks to realise that maybe the people making the ctiticism might be their best friends. Although, they are probably smart enough to realise they are being pandered to.

Ann Coulter on Kwanzaa

This "holiday" would probably have blown by me except one e-mail  came with "What Kwanzaa Means to Black Americans—Now & Always" in its contents. I said "Kwanzaa has been built up, but I have yet to meet someone who seriously celebrates it other than my ultra liberal Jewish cousin. Get me somebody who is black who celebrates it! I don't know about "African-Americans", but this set of holidays leaves me dry." in a previous post on the topic.

On the other hand, the one e-mail did make me curious as to if this was a popular holiday.

Or just something being foisted on people as a distraction? (annoyance?)

I think I found one authentic site about a couple of black people in the Lehigh Valley trying to promote the "holiday". The rest were from MSM and business pushing it.

On the right, it was pretty much what Ann Coulter says:

Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity.

I don't think the issue is that people have forgotten anything, the whole story has never been discussed. It's like "Black Lives Matter", which started out as a good thing countering the "stand your groud laws". Now, its become a meaingless slogan to get people to work against their interests.

How can you have a world's series with only one or two countries participating?

There is a plaque commemorating the US High Speed Rail pioneers at Princeton Junction, one of them was my step-father. The US could have rail service like this if the government was willing to foot the bill. But these quotes pretty much sum up why France can leave the US in the dust sitting in a traffic jam.

Rail subsidies are largest in China ($130 billion) and Europe (€73 billion), while the United States has relatively small subsidies for passenger rail with freight not subsidized.

This film is in French, but you can get the point of WHY rail is important, yet the US is ignoring it.

 Cross-subsidies between lines go a long way towards explaining the development of the high-speed rail system in France. Thanks to those subsidies, it has been possible to develop a TGV service even in towns that are located far from LGV lines. TGVs also can run on conventional lines provided the lines are electrified.

 So, the US COULD easily develop high speed rail capable of speed in excess of 357 mph (or 574.8KmPH. TGV holds that record).

The sad thing is that the people chanting Make America Great Again are against a Green New Deal, which should have rebuilding rail infrastructure as an integral aspect.

Sadly, the clip is in French, because a lot of people in the US need to see it.

Move on--Nothing to be seen here...

Nothing like watching Fox News and being told about some péché mortale done by the "Democratic" party. Or the reverse on MSNBC, that is the "Republican" party is bad. Problem is that BOTH parties are pretty much the same thing, which is why they need those "Hot button", "culture wars" issues to differentiate themselves the same way Pepsi does from Coke.

Bad news: it's the big donors who call the shots otherwise Bernie Sanders would be well into his Second Term by now (there's a post simmering on why Sanders would have been more popular than most people think, but the short form is that he represents what was historically a red state and was popular with a focus group of Fox News viewers!).

Big money needs to be removed from US politics as one of the top reforms. Although that gives Tucker Carlson something to act surprised about when a Google consultant works to install an FTC head.

Anyway, the elections are not free and fair on a secret ballot by any stretch of the imagination in the US.

The US needs to start practising what it spend a good portion of the 20th Century telling other countries to do while pretending they were pratising what they were preaching. Here's this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

See also:

• David Sirota and Andrew Perez: Unchecked Corporate Power Is at the Root of America’s Democracy Crisis

This is pretty good too:

Not sure why I am thinking about firearms proof marks

 British and European firearms have been subjected to something called proof testing to ensure they won't blow up on the user from the end of the 15th century. From the Firearms History, Technology and Development blog:

The first type of testing we will study is the Proof Test. The idea behind such a test is to verify the strength of the barrel, breech and firing system of a firearm by deliberately firing an over-pressured cartridge. After this, the firearm is examined to make sure it is still intact and if so, the metal (usually the barrel) is stamped with one or more "proof marks" of the testing agency. The proof marks create indented impressions on the metal surface, so they cannot be accidentally removed. Such a test certifies that the firearm is free from manufacturing defects and will not explode under normal usage conditions. In many countries, proof tests are compulsory; and it is not possible to sell a firearm unless it has been proof-tested by an official testing agency approved by the government.

Some manufacturers in the town of St. Etienne in France started conducting proof tests around the 15th century, when firearms manufacturing started in that area. However, France didn't enact a law to make the test mandatory until the 1900s and hence, it was left to each French manufacturer to decide what the test standards should be or even whether to perform a test or not. In other areas, such as London and Birmingham in England and Liege in Belgium, even before testing became compulsory, most manufacturers used to do private tests in their own factories or in a trade testing house.

Compulsory testing laws were passed in most countries mainly due to the backing of the gunmaker guilds of those countries. By enacting such laws, the guilds sought to prevent the manufacture of firearms and stifle competition from non-guild members, even though they claimed that such laws were designed to protect members of the public. The first such compulsory law was passed due to the lobbying efforts of the London Gunmakers Company (a guild composed of firearm manufacturers around London). The initial bylaws passed by the London Gunmakers Company charter of 1637 marked the first introduction of proof tests in England, but didn't specify an official standard of testing.

https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/01/testing-firearms-proof-test.html

Proof tests were instrumental in protecting the end-user from weapon failures and compulsory enforcement of these laws helped reduce firearm-related accidents around the world. This is why they are still mandatory in many countries.

 

I remember discussing this matter with my Torts teacher in law school and he mentioned something about product liability, which has been something I filed away in my brain. I associated these tests primarily with British firearms, but they seem to be much more common. The point is that firearms have an inherent lethality which adds to their attractiveness. They cause serious injury or death when used properly.

On the other hand, it is their lethality and dangerous nature which leads to their being regulated in pretty much all civilised nations. And having been regulated for a very long time.

Kwanzaa, Odunde, and what's that other one. Oh, yeah, Juneteenth

The problem with people who have slave ancestors is that they have no real idea of where they came from short of getting their DNA sequenced: and I'm sure the results would be shocking. That's because the places the slave ships originated were ports where the slaves were brought from the interior for trans-shipment. I'm a Euro-Mutt according to my DNA so pretty much everywhere in Europe, except the Iberian peninsula can be considered my "roots".  In fact, I can't really name a country for a good part of my continental ancestors: only my maternal grandmother's ancestors came from countries (France and Germany). The maternal grandfather were from before the US became independent, so it would be something like Holy Roman Empire or Hanseatic League for the ones who weren't British.

Now, the problem with Africa is that there are lots of different cultures and most blacks who came as slaves came from the West of Africa. So, what to do: create a holiday based on what you believe might be your traditions.

Kwanzaa comes from Swahili, which is an East African language. Swahili is a combination of Bantu, Arabic, and Portugese. These people are too infatuated with Julius Nyerere to realise that Swahili is pretty much a creation of the Arabic Slave trade...

Odunde is probably the better choice if you gotta choose since it is based upon the Yoruba traditions. [1] Yorubas may be one of the largest ethnic groups in Africa, but.

The ethnic groups of Africa number in the thousands, with each population generally having its own language (or dialect of a language) and culture. The ethnolinguistic groups include various Afroasiatic, Khoisan, Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan populations.

That's about like me saying I feel most European when I identify as Kosovan (not to denigrate Kosovars, but that was what came to mind. And I don't particularly feel Kosovan. For that matter, I don't feel particularly German or Eastern European either). I'm a Euro-mutt, but some traditions I have a connection to leave me cold, but since I'm pretty much everything from East of the Iberian Peninsula to West of sort of a line through the Scandanavia, Baltic States, and Poland down to Turkey: I've got a lot of Latitude.,..

But when you don't feel a heritage: go for it.

Then comes JUNETEENTH which is pretty much an obscure event that received a huge build up in 2020 to become forgotten again. While having to do with former American Slaves, it would probably be a good candidate for a holiday. The unfortunate thing is that it only deals with a small population of slaves in Galveston, TX who were told not only had the Civil War ended, but they had supposedly been free for a few years. But celebrating like is like celebrating the end of World War II on the date the Last Japanese soldier holing up waiting for the glorious troops to return makes contact with the rest of the world..

Then again, the US does have this habit of making events that happened after the war ended into a big thing, such as the Battle of New Orleans.

The big issue here is that these events are small things even though there is a rich set of traditions for whatever you want to call this heritage.[2] Kwanzaa has been built up, but I have yet to meet someone who seriously celebrates it other than my ultra liberal Jewish cousin. Get me somebody who is black who celebrates it! I don't know about "African-Americans", but this set of holidays leaves me dry.

I'm pretty sure there must be something out there that could form a holiday and unify black people, but these three aren't great candidates. The problem is that like Europeans, Africans are pretty diverse. Actually, they've got us European beat by a lot in the ethnic diversity department. It's just that the colonisers changed the map to make the nations that now make up Africa. It's like me trying to classify my ancestors who came from what is now a diverse set of European countries.[3]

Footnotes:

[1] Toss in we have moved from East Coast Slave Trade to West Coast Slave Trade.

[2] There is a lot of European in the former slave population gene pool, plus not all people of African descent have slave heritage, and so on.

[3] It's slightly easier for me to choose ethnicity since there are a few "centres of gravity", although at least one of them (Rhineland) has been up for grabs for ages. But even British is up for grabs with not only English, but Welsh, Scots, and Cornish...And that's just a start.

It takes two parties to Gerrymander

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that Le Monde would blame the Republicans for the problems in US politics, while not criticising Joe Biden (Le sommet pour la démocratie de Joe Biden a déçu). In fact, France has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the US since both countries have similar problems in their political systems. The problem is that the US's duopoly system is a lot better at hiding the differences by using "hot-button", "Culture wars" issues which are fairly meaningless.

The nice thing is that people in the US are so heavily propagandised and insular that they don't know the difference. Although, one clue is that propaganda is visceral--it works to stir the emotions and short circuit logic. The US is good at propaganda since it has the advertising industry.

Unfortunately, a victim of the mindless, "hot-button" politics is any sense of political compromise as the situation becomes "US" versus "THEM". Bernie Sanders is frightening since Fox News listeners hear him in person and LIKE his policies. Greg Gutfeld lost any cred with me when he went on an ad hominem attack on Sanders.

Sorry, Greg, that shit is the sign of a loser.

Other victims are the media and information in general. I mentioned I was listening to Fox News, in particular Tucker Carlson, but that was because there is no dissent in the other levels of the US media. That's because the media are pretty much monopolised and can control the message worse than any governmental agency.

The problem with US politics is not the Democrats or the Republicans: it's the duopoly system which refuses to let any other party make any progress.

See also:

How the US Propaganda System Works

Domestic violence, Gun Regulation, and yet another reason that "Gun rights" is a fallacious concept.

 One of the many reasons I don't identify with people in the US who like to claim they are "conservative" is that they aren't. There are a lot of issues with Kyle Rittenhouse's actions that a true conservative would have problems with: the primary one being that he took a deadly weapon into that situation. He is quite lucky that his legal problems were the only fallout from his idiocy.

That said we have a lot of fun with constitutional interpretation if we include the “domestic violence clause” (Article IV, Section 4) for a couple of reasons. First off, the trend is to use popular meanings of terms such as “bear arms”. In this case “domestic violence” means something drastically different today from what the founders intended, which is a bunch of people deciding to overthrow the government.

Kyle Rittenhouse's unilateral action of going to Kenosha with an intent of exercising "self-defence" is not the intent of the US Constitution, which makes it clear that only an official band, the militia, are supposed to do that. Please don't comment until after you have read Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) and understood it. Also, look at US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, which are the miltia clauses and understand their relationship to other clauses in  the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-14, Article II, section ii, and Article III, Section iii. But back to Article IV, Section iv:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This doesn't deal with spouse battering. Instead it is discussing the people who for whatever reason have decided that the US is a tyranny and wish to use violence to overthrow it. The Constitution makes it clear that it was created to:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 Unfortunately, most people can't get past the first three words, which is amusing since anyone familiar with the Constitution's drafting and adoption know it was anything but a popularly written document.

Anyway, like calling an unauthorised gathering of armed people a militia, the US Constitution is pretty clear that having a gun for the purpose of "fighting tyrannical government" isn't intended in any way. As the US constitution says in Article III, Section iii:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You can't make it any clearer than that.

What if Gaige Grosskreutz had killed Kyle Rittenhouse?

Would all the people who are happy that the shooter in this incident managed to be acquitted? Would Grosskreutz have been acquitted had he shot Rittenhouse? Remember that BOTH Grosskreutz brought weapons into a bad situation and made the situation worse.

The question is do you believe that Gaige Grosskreutz should have been able to carry a concealed firearm?  Even more importantly: should he have been carrying in this situation in the first place?

 "Shall Issue" means that as long as there is no disqualfier in the system--the person must receive a permit. 

"May issue" allows the issuing authority latitude in whether or not to issue the permit. 

Now, Grosskreutz must be given a permit under "Shall Issue" since his felony arrest was expunged (technically, we shouldn't even be discussing that arrest since we can be sued). Unless his misdemeanours disqualify him, which quite a few do not in many jurisdictions.  In fact, he did have a permit to carry at one time.

Under "may issue" his arrests can be factored into the decision, even if they didn't ultimately end up as convictions.  

Let's toss in how would you feel had Grosskreutz managed to have killed Rittenhouse? Enforcing the laws on the books is harder than you understand since the laws on the books are intended to be unenforceable.  

BTW, the case which brought the "Florida loophole" to the attention of the Pennsylvania AG happened to be someone who was under indictment for several felonies in Pennsylvania. Not to mention, he managed to get a Montgomery County Permit to Carry during that period that he turned in. Alas, his record was expunged, so I can't say anymore in public.

The issue here is less Kyle Rittenhouse and more the fact that there were firearms at this "peaceful protest". I am pretty sure firearms were carried at other riots as well. The fact that guns in the hands of "private citizens" and riots are a recipe for disaster. Now, I'm going to quote from a previous post.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

Rittenhouse's heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. And what if Grosskreutz had manged to kill Rittenhouse? That's a really important question to ask.

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

 

Would the Conservatives who are praising Kyle Rittenhouse have supported the British who shot during the "Boston Massacre"?

 Fair question--especially given that the British were technically the people charged with preserving the peace at the time. Not to mention it seems that the British and colonists were closer than most people realise at that point in the move towards Independence. See this Boston Magazine article.

On the other hand, the use of deadly force was not a first option in self-defence at the time the founders were alive. That meant that the British soldiers would have had to have done all they could to de-escalate or remove themselves from the situation before deadly force would have remotely been acceptable. When I say that, I mean that deadly force would still be unlawful had there been lesser means to have stopped the threat.

I should add that some other nations require that the police and other security forces use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat. I talk about this in Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided.

Let's toss in there was a defence:

The statement issued by members of the Sons of Liberty, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, painted the event as a malicious and unprovoked slaughter. They attest that the Massacre was retribution for a quarrel three nights prior between soldiers and colonists. Captain Preston, the British commander on duty on the night of March 5, was reported to have ordered his men to fire upon the colonists on King Street, "without the least warning."

William Taint, a Bostonian who witnessed but was not directly involved in the events of March, provided testimony during the trial of the British soldiers. He maintains that a group of colonists was gathered outside of the British Customs House when a formation of British soldiers took position outside of the building. Colonists were yelling, "Fire, fire, and be damned," and throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. Taint heard a musket discharge and then the word, "Fire" yelled by an unknown speaker, after which several more shots were fired.

Taint's account differs from that provided by Adams and Hancock in several respects. Firstly, Taint clearly states that the colonists were taunting and throwing snowballs at the soldiers, while Adams and Hancock portray the colonists peacefully going about their business. Taint also brings an element of uncertainty to the question of who yelled, "Fire." The former account clearly states that Captain Preston issued a direct order to fire, while the latter implies that it may just as well have been a colonist who shouted, "Fire."

Captain Preston's testimony during the trial offers a third source of information regarding March 5. He states that his men were protecting the Customs House from theft by the colonists when they were physically and verbally assaulted. While Taint saw only snowballs being hurled at the British, Preston reported that his men were also beaten with clubs. His soldiers responded by firing upon the colonists, later claiming that they heard the command to fire and assumed it came from Preston. Preston blames members of the mob for yelling, "Fire," and (unsurprisingly) denies issuing any such order.

The outcome was Captain Preston was found not guilty. The remaining soldiers claimed self-defense and were all found not guilty of murder. Two of them—Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy—were found guilty of manslaughter and were branded on the thumbs as first offenders per English law.

See also:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre

Defund the Police, Get a Kyle Rittenhouse

 Art. 12. La garantie des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen nécessite une force publique : cette force est donc instituée pour l'avantage de tous, et non pour l'utilité particulière de ceux auxquels elle est confiée.

XII. A public force being necessary to give security to the rights of men and of citizens, that force is instituted for the benefit of the community and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it is intrusted.

Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

What Kyle Rittenhouse did was wrong. That is travelling to another jurisdiction to "preserve the peace". He was lucky that he wasn't shot by the actual militia, or National Guard (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16), for being on the street with a weapon.[1] On the other hand, I understand why he did what he did.

The Document that I quote above is contemporary to the US Constitution and is equally influential on the Constitutions of other nations beside France and former French Colonies.  There are parallels between the two documents, but the most important piece of the Constitution tends to be neglected. That is the preamble. In other laws, there is a statement of purpose, or why the document was adopted. The US Constitution states it was adopted for the purposes of:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution DID NOT repeal previous sections of the Constitution, which describes the roles of  the militia as:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And while the uneducated like to claim membership in the militia as members of an "unorganised militia", that is the equivalent to saying that being subject to the draft makes one a member of the US Military. In other words, the "unorganised" miltia is a body which can be called into service under the call up provisions of state laws. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

His heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. 

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection
  

Why I don't regret leaving Facebook

 And why I think the Tech Giants should be heavily regulated.

Actually my list is probably as long as the attached photo of Le Monde's coverage of this issue: if not longer. The Tech Giants misadventures are enough to get Radio Fance International to mention it instead of the election results in Burkina Faso!

At least the European Commission has sort of been on the backs of the Tech Giants, but not riding them as hard as the Tech Giants deserve.

Normally, I would be writing in French these days, but this is something that people should be irate about: even if I am using Google's services to complain about them. The question is whether I will be censored? or heard?

While I like the concept of freedom in the marketplace of ideas, there needs to be some moderation. the question is whether that moderation comes from one's self or from an external source. Also, it depends on how evenhanded the moderators are.

Anyway, the moderators in cyberspace tend to be incredibly biased, and not in a good way.

You can see the contents of the picture if you go to: https://www.lemonde.fr/facebook-files/. They may change from what is pictured, but I doubt this issue is going away.

And while I'm at it, this podcast gets to why Big Tech and deregulation of industry is idiotic (Je suis désolé, mais ceci est en français): https://www.lemonde.fr/podcasts/article/2021/10/27/facebook-files-dans-les-rouages-deregles-de-l-entreprise_6100002_5463015.html.

26+6=32, but it was much less painlful under the EU

Or EU membership as the solution to Irish Unity.

 I would put in that the European Union was the solution to the "Irish problem" in the things I would have pointed out had anyone asked me department. People either didn't realise, or just forgot, that the Good Friday Agreement wouldn't have been possible if both sides hadn't been members of the EU.

What made it possible was the right of free movement, which is the thing I like most about the EU. That means that internal borders within the European Union went away. No hard border between the UK and the Republic during the EU period.

So, the Irish could be happily Irish if thy lived in either set of the 26 or 6 counties that make up Ireland's 32 counties. They could be citizens of the UK, Ireland, or Both.

Which led to some amusing situations once the reality of Brexit set in.

Especially since both sides during the "Troubles" hated the concept of the EU. Maybe because it would make their positions untenable once the borders went away.

So, the Democratic Unionists, the group who were the most glued to the United Kingdom, and Brexit supporters, were the biggest block to Brexit. Mostly because they realised the return of a hard border meant a return to the Troubles. The amusing bit is that Ian Paisley's son told his supporters to apply for an Irish Passport. Trust me, the irony isn't lost on me.

It may be an "EU Document", but it preserves your European Union rights.

So, while the rest of us who supported remaining are scrambling to get EU citizenship, the Ulster Irish can get their Irish Passports. And keep their UK passports. Sadly, Irish Citizenship only goes back to your grandparents (unlike Italy, which will give you citizenship no matter how far back your ancestor emigrated as long as it was post-Unification).

Anyway, I have been laughing my ass off about the current Irish Situation since one of the largest contingencies for Brexit is turning out to be one of the worst problem of leaving the European Union. I only hope it serves as a warning to the other countries who are trying to break out of the EU.

Another issue for the people who pushed for Brexit is that the United Kingdom had a pretty good situation when it was last in the EU (another thing no one asked me about). I hope that any return will not be as accommodating. Again, I want to see Brexit as a lesson that the EU is here to stay.

I just hope that a hard border in Ireland doesn't mean a return to bloodshed, but one of the reasons for the EU was to end wars by removing borders between member states.

The right to life: France v Texas. (avis: ici est un peu de polémique)

 OK, this is my French homework. Those who might read my personal blog know that I am studying for the DELF level B2 French language proficiency test. This was inspired by the reportage from the France 24 evening news and Le Monde's coverage of Macron's and Badinter's speech at the Pantheon (read the other linked articles) . It's been translated, but you can read the original french version at my blog, which is linked to on the left ("Encore mes devoirs: un peu de polémique"):

The Texas Rangers take a lesson from the Gestapo.

The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, says he believes everyone has a right to life. This is fascinating since Texas has both the death penalty and the "stand your ground" law. Self-defence laws change the concept of self-defence to depend on the subjective fear of the person invoking this legal defence. In contrast, Emmanuel Macron wants to "relaunch the fight for the universal abolition" of the death penalty, which he announced in a speech made at the Pantheon to mark the 40th anniversary of the abolition of the death penalty in France. There is a clear difference between the attitude towards the right to life in Texas and in France. 

The Texas government seems to believe that the death penalty is effective in preventing crime: even extrajudicial killings. But is the death penalty effective in preventing crime? One of Britain's former executioners, Albert Pierrepoint, disagrees. He said: "It didn't deter them then and it didn't deter them when they committed what they were convicted of. All the men and women I faced at that final moment convince me that in what I did, I did not prevent a single murder...". Robert Badinter, the former Minister of Justice who led the repeal of the use of death Penalty in France in 1981, agrees with "absolute conviction: the death penalty is doomed to disappear in the world because it is a disgrace for humanity. It does not defend society, it dishonours it (...). Long live universal abolition! 

One moves from criminal justice issues to health issues when linking the right to life to family planning choices. Instead, Texas chose to remake Claude Chabrol's Une Affaire des femmes. It is a story set during the German occupation of France. It is based on the true story of Marie-Louise Giraud, one of the last women guillotined in France. Madame Giraud's crime was to provide abortions to poor women in France. The Texas law may not be so extreme, but the effect is the same: it is the poor who will be affected by this law. Wealthy women will be able to go to places where abortion is legal, which is not an option for the poor. 

The abortion providers for the poor would be women like Ms. Giraud, not medical professionals, but women who want to help other women. I have to wonder if Texas really understands what a criminal justice system should do? Does it seek justice or revenge?

 Maybe not too far out:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/abortion-law-germany-nazis-women

Hey, I could have gone on a lot longer if I had the time. I would really pass the examination if I could crank out something like this during the exam!

Of course, Brexit is a failure

The best way to explain Brexit is to point out that  the European Union had the right of free movement. That is the Union allowed someone from one member state the ability to move from one member state to another. So, if someone was a UK citizen, they could move to any other member state. In addition, they would retain the benefits of their home country (sort of).

The UK retiree who wanted to move to France, Spain, or some other EU member state could do so with a minimum level of BS.  This is the same as someone who lived in Michigan could move to Florida or California.

Brexit removed Britain from the European Union, which took it out of the regime of free movement. In other words, it re-established the pre-EU membership border between the UK and the European Union member states. In terms of the US,(or another Federated State such as Canada or Australia) that would be the same as suddenly setting up a hard border between one state and the rest similar to what exists now between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico. 

What was once a "quick commute" has returned to being a wait to be processed at the border. And this wait also goes for goods and services. Imagine how it would be if a hard border with customs and immigration bureaucracy appeared between US states. You sort of have the idea if you traveled between the US and Canada after the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which was introduced in 2004 by the U.S. government to strengthen U.S. border security and standardize travel documentation. Now, one requires a passport to travel between the two nations.

The tyranny of "Brussels", which is silly. Especially if you consider that UKIP leader Nigel Farage was a member of the European Parliament.  Additionally, one of the reason for the European Union "dictation" of laws was to make commerce flow easily by harmonising laws.

Sadly, I am European, not British, if I have to choose. And I will happily put up with any bureaucracy I have to to keep my European Citizenship. I would prefer the minimum level of bureaucracy, but that isn't my choice anymore.

Systemic racism if Black Lives Really Matter...

 I mentioned the Senegalese Series "Wara" on my blog. It's about corruption in a fictional Senegalese city of Tanasanga. While the show is fictional, I think the portrait of African society is pretty realistic.

I mentioned this quote in another post:

It’s a cheap shot to blame Jamaica’s economic malaise entirely on the evil white bogeyman when successive post-independence administrations have overseen an economy with annual growth of less than 1% for the past four decades and a currency in freefall. Social dysfunction is rife, with murders ballooning 20% so far this year and youth unemployment nearing 40%. 

Jamaica – and the wider anglophone Caribbean – must come to terms with the inconvenient truth that, though the British slave masters were barbarous, when polled a couple of years ago the majority of Jamaicans said the country would have been better off if it had remained a UK colony. That indictment lies at the feet of Jamaica’s black governing class.

While it's great to pound on the  "Western, "White", "Imperialist" bogeyman, is it really fair to do so when the post-Colonial/racist societies still have problems? As I have pointed out frequently, how can one say the system is racist if "people of colour" are  a part of that system While some blacks like to call themselves "African-Americans" they are about as much "European" as the average "white" American is (not at all/pas de tout).

What's lost in this nonsense is the history of Liberia:

Liberia began in the early 19th century as a project of the American Colonization Society (ACS), which believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States. Between 1822 and the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, more than 15,000 freed and free-born people of color who faced social and legal oppression in the U.S., along with 3,198 Afro-Caribbeans, relocated to Liberia.

So, there is (was) a place for slaves to go to in Africa however this is yet another bit of the puzzle that is left out of the "critical race theory" nonsense. Maybe because the CIA Factbook describes Liberia as:

Liberia is a low-income country that relies heavily on foreign assistance and remittances from the diaspora. It is richly endowed with water, mineral resources, forests, and a climate favorable to agriculture. Its principal exports are iron ore, rubber, diamonds, and gold.

The thing is that places like Liberia aren't the only African Countries with post-Colonial Societies that are resource rich, but poor as heck. The Democratic republic of Congo comes to mind.

Anyway, my opinion is that Wara is pretty typical of what African Societies happen to be like, which is why there aren't a lot of African Americans who want to really go back. it's also why it's hard to blame "systemic racism" when blacks are a part of the system.

Fesses de Bouc (Facebook) goes "offline".

I

'm not sure how much of a Luddite I happen to be, but I have been complaining about social media and surveillance capitalism for a while. One of the reasons I like Europe more than the States is that the EU and European Commission have been strict with the tech giants for a while. Not as much as I might like, but still far stricter than the US government has.

There are a lot of reasons to celebrate this blackout in that it shines a light on how stable tech companies actually happen to be. Personally, I am far more of a believer in "open-source" software than having the control of the operating systems in the hands of tech giants. Sadly, the "digital revolution" kept the monopolies and made more of them instead of having a diversified economy.

And while I like Ubuntu/Linux far more than "legacy" OSs, I now use Apple. But Apple is like the drug dealer which offers you a taste to get you hooked. Sadly, they take over your system. Apple wants to control my music. They now also want me to use their cloud.

The problem is that I want control of my data, not to give it to some faceless corporation which does whatever it wants with that data. Amazon is far more sinister than you realise, as is Facebook. These companies use of data has put them into conflict with the European Commission. Margarethe Vestager's attitude to the tech giants has put her indirect conflict with the US and China.

The US is looking into regulating big tech, but like most everything else in US politics, the action is too little way too late. Maybe the blackout at Facebook will shine a light on this problem.

Bernard Tapie has died

This is a translation of a blog post on my personal webpage. It's about a French Businessperson and Politician who died. I'm surprised that the comparisons to Trump are few and far between. But, ublike Trump, Tapie has received respect:

I wore an OM (Olympique de Marseille) cap today. More by chance than by intention, it was the perfect cap for today. I didn't know he was dead until I heard he was dead on the radio right now. Yes, I had read the headline that he was dead, but I didn't make the connection until now. I'm more French than I thought and more by chance than design!

Yes, I wore a L'OM cap in tribute to Bernard Tapie despite his reputation. Is it fair to compare Bernard Tapie to Donald Trump? What do they have in common? In the opinion of former footballer Basile Boli: "With Tapie, lying is a way of life." Both Trump and Tapie have dubious beginnings and shady deals. Unlike Trump, Tapie has been convicted of criminal activity. Unlike Trump, Tapie presents himself as a socialist-type leftist. Tapie's socialism ran counter to his predatory capitalism. Barnard Tapie has said that "In the fifteen years of building my route, I've stepped on the yellow line 200 times. Given where I come from, I have extenuating circumstances."

In contrast, Trump has not admitted to his transgressions. Both Trump and Tapie are creatures of entertainment in sports and business. Trump is a member of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Tapie was the president of Olympique de Marseille from 1986 to 1994 as well as a promoter of other sports (e.g. cycling). Perhaps if Trump had stayed in the entertainment business and not entered politics, things would have been different. Yet Tapie also had a political career, but not on the scale of Trump.

The interesting comparison is the way Tapie's death is perceived by the media. Tapie's scandals are mentioned, but he is honoured for his achievements. Even if those accomplishments were shady.

The Woke prove me correct (or the Bizarreness of the Woke Part 3)

I made a comment about gender and pronouns way back when I was in Law School (over 30 odd years ago) that said something along the lines of "let's stop using pronouns and maybe people will go away". Now, the ACLU removes women from the pro-choice equation.

Russiagate and Russian Collusion!!

I've been saying this all along: There wasn't Russian Collusion. 

Russell Brand talks about Glenn Greenwald's, another Russiagate critic, coverage of "Russian collusion".

 I want to know how many Russian Agents are in the "Democratic Party"?

Are Liberals & Conservatives REALLY That Different?

 

This points out that both want to protect. The conservative wants to protect the group and is sensitive to threat. The Liberal also wants to protect, but comes from a different point of view.

Take the issue of firearms. The right winger sees firearms as something which can be used as protection. The liberal sees the harm that comes from them. There is far too much based upon emotion and not enough relating to what the actual cost is to society.

A longer version of the above interview:

The Bizarreness of the Woke Part 2

 I said that:

A black and a Hispanic, unless she is pretty much 100% indigenous to the Americas, is about as "Colonising" as you can get.

Now Mexico City has removed the statue of Christopher Columbus. The bronze Columbus statue was featured prominently on Paseo de la Reforma, Mexico City’s main avenue since the late 19th century. The reason for this:

Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum made an announcement on Sunday, the Day of the Indigenous Woman, said the Italian colonizer’s legacy is seen through “two visions”: One that is Euro-Centric, and another that recognizes that civilizations existed in the Americas long before Columbus arrived.

As I also pointed out in the original post that just having a "Latina" in the role doesn't eliminate the "colonising" aspect since just being Hispanic doesn't remove the colonialising aspect: One would have to be pretty much 100% indigenous. Not all Hispanics born in this hemisphere were kind to the indigenous people. Some were downright cruel.

The problem is that unless someone is writing in  an indigenous language (i.e., not Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, Swedish, Dutch, Russian, or Danish), they are acting in a colonialising way. Any of the aforementioned languages were all those of countries which had Colonies in the Western Hemishphere.

We could get into that no one is native to the Western Hemisphere since there is the theory that the Native Americans migrated from Asia. How long does one's ancestry need to go back to be "native"?

I'm not a fan of Christopher Columbus. His real role was to open the Western Hemisphere to Spanish colonialisation. We can get into other European settlements, but none were as extensive as the Spanish was in post-Columbian history. Which makes any comment about "HIspanic Culture" somehow not being "colonising" an absurdity.

The culture of the Western Hemisphere is pretty much a result of "Colonisation".

The Bizarreness of the Woke.

 Is all too evident in this headline:

Billy Porter’s fairy godmother sweeps out colonizer morals in inclusive ‘Cinderella’

This is a serious "What the fuck moment" because the reasoning behind this is something along the lines of a black and hispanic/Latina in a gender fluid fairy tale, which just happens to come from Europe I might add, somehow is anti-colonialism.

A black and a Hispanic, unless she is pretty much 100% indigenous to the Americas, is about as "Colonising" as you can get. The Spanish were responsible for colonising most of the Americas. And Blacks were brought to the Americas by the Portuguese and Spanish in the 15th Century. 

 

They might want to learn the actual meaning of the buzzwords they use instead of mindlessly parroting them. Additionally, They might want to learn something about the Spanish colonisation of the Americas before making silly statements.  Spanish culture is controversial amongst Latinos who are well aware of their history since some Conquistadores were born in the Western Hemisphere. Not all "Native" Latinos were kind to the indigenous peoples of North America.

 

Given "Western Culture" in and of itself makes any reference to colonialism pretty much a thing for the Americas since most of Europe happens to be in the EASTERN Hemishphere. And some of Africa happens to be in the Western Hemisphere as well. But the Americas are firmly in the Western Hemishpere.

The problem with trying to paint "European Culture" as somehow being removed from influences of other cultures is silly as the above map also points out. Europe is right above Africa. There has had contact with between Europe, Asia, and Africa since Ancient times. In fact, the oldest known oral version of the Cinderella story is the ancient Greek story of Rhodopis, a Greek courtesan living in the colony of Naucratis in Egypt, whose name means "Rosy-Cheeks". The story is first recorded by the Ancient  Greek geographer Strabo in his Geographica  sometime between around 7 BC and AD 23.

"When she was bathing, an eagle snatched one of her sandals from her maid and carried it to Memphis; and while the king was administering justice in the open air, the eagle, when it arrived above his head, flung the sandal into his lap; and the king, stirred both by the beautiful shape of the sandal and by the strangeness of the occurrence, sent men in all directions into the country in quest of the woman who wore the sandal; and when she was found in the city of Naucratis, she was brought up to Memphis, and became the wife of the king."

There are around 500 varients of the Cinderella story just in Europe. It is a common theme throughout the world. But the familiar one, which this article mentions, is firmly from the European tradition.

 

Their ignorance made me laugh uncontrollably.

Assault Rifles won't be going away anytime soon.

This goes back to the joke about the World Famous French lover who was on a game show as a lifeline. The punch line is that he wouldn't have done anything the contestant suggested. The "gun violence" situations is really like that. With pretty much everyone knowing that the US needs to rein in the weapons.

Yet nobody is doing anything about it.

Come on! You are worried that assault weapons are going to be banned whether you are "pro" or "anti". The pro-AW crowd is hording the things knowing that there will be a huge rise in their price the next time they get banned. That is if the current ones aren't removed from circulation. But I doubt that will happen.

I think the ones in circulation will be "grandfathered" and remain in circulation.

Any gun buyback would cost a lot in the US because the situation was allowed to get out of control.

And the current situation of US politics has ensured that guns will be a problem.

This is worth a read since it gets into the problems this issue raises:
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/09/how-many-assault-weapons-in-the-us/

I'm glad I never worked for the CIA.

Never as far as I know.

I do have to admit that I like reading foreign language newspapers. It would have been super to have a job where they sent me to exotic places to meet people and get them to provide us with sensitive information.

On the other hand, I have been saying that it is idiotic to ignore Islamic Fundamentalism for a long time: especially before the fall of the Shah. I remember the Iranian Protesters who camped out in front of Foyles in London showing pictures of SAVAK brutality. I always wanted to ask them if they were sorry the Shah Fell, but never did.

Charlie Wilson's War was a recipe for failure, yet no one had the balls to come out and say it. Well, other than me, but I have never been in that much of a position of power to do that much. I can write things, but they have about as much of an effect on policy as my blog posts.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are happy they didn't get (re)elected president. I know I am happy I never made it with the CIA since they have shown what clowns they are.

I am amazed that anyone would admit to working for them these days because what happened was pretty obvious. It has been obvious it was coming for a long time.

Unfortunately, it's like the joke about the World Famous French lover who was on a game show as a lifeline. The punch line is that he wouldn't have done anything the contestant suggested.

Maybe they need to go and find some experts.

It was going to be a failure.

Take a country which went "Socialist" and then was "invaded" by the Soviet Union during the cold war. Forget that the country in question is next door to an Islamic Fundamentalist state (Iran), or at least one that had a problem with Islamic Fundamentalists. Toss in Cold War blindness that the Soviet Union is "the Evil Empire". Then fund Islamist warriors, the Mujahideen, to fight in that country.

And you have a recipe for disaster.

Especially since the Mujahideen dislike the United States as much as they hated the Soviet Union. To them, the "West" was the "Evil Empire", which included the idiots who were funding their battle in Afghanistan.

This was the confrontation of Realpolitik and Idealism. Which is worse, communism or Islamic Fundamentalism which has the goal of destroying the west?

The blowback happened on 9-11 and 7/7 along with other Islamic Attacks in London and France. The Zastava AKSU used at the Bataclan was bought legally from Florida.

The Taliban doing their impression of US Militia Members on 6 Jan 2021

Not that gun control will totally disarm the Islamic fighters since they have the technology to keep cranking out guns. Sort of like the AR15 underground can keep cranking out AR15s for as long as the 80% receivers are lying about. Unfortunately, like the problem with Islamic Fundamentalism, the US gun problem was allowed to fester due to the same mistakes in judgement which allowed Islamic Fundamentalism to get out of hand.

I look at the pictures of the Taliban with their assault rifles and beards and it reminds me of the current state of US politics. What will the outcome of the mess that the world finds itself in?

Oligarchies are also totaliaraian states.

While someone may not like "collectivist" belief such as socialism or communism, they should start to realise that monopoly capitalism and Oligarchic societies are just as dangerous a proposition. In this case, I am referring to "Big Tech".

I left Fesses de Bouc in late July because I was getting tired of its attempts to control my opinions. I have long disliked Microsoft and Google for various reasons, mostly due to their poor quality products.

Yes, there is an alternative, but I'm not really happy with Ubuntu 20.04. The misspellings this time are due to the fact that the mouse is out of whack in this iteration of Ubuntu. That means the zoom is also.

I am writing on a nearly microscopic screen.

But, that's an aside.

Youtube is censoring various news sources, usually right wing ones. I may not agree with Skynews Australia on most points, but it's one of the only places to get dissenting opinions about the Biden Administration. They have been shutdown from posting for the last few days by Youtube, which is part of Google's empire.

The concept of Free Speech is to allow for dissenting opinions in the marketplace of ideas. Shutting down dissenting opinions, especially ones which aren't commonly held is dangerous to society.

Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris probably wouldn't be in charge of the show had the dirt on them been aired early on. Now, it's looking like there will be a republican party landslide. "Another 1994".

Update: Sky News was banned by Youtube for alleged violation of its Covid-19 policies.
https://www.6pr.com.au/disgusting-sky-news-australia-banned-from-youtube-over-covid-19-misinformation/

Critical Race Theory, Systemic Racism, and People's reactions to it.

OK, I am sure the fans of "Critical Race Theory" want to tell me how I am an oversensitive white person who is feeling threatened instead of wanting to admit that their basic premise may be seriously flawed. Let's take this quote about the racist nature of slavery:

And while slavery is over, a racist society continues to exert dominion over black men and their maleness in ways more subtle but hardly less castrating than during slavery...

Which rates an overwhelming "what the fuck?" from me.

This is because, as a European, I am very familiar with "systemic racism".

There wouldn't be a "race issue" were slavery anything vaguely like the genocides perpetrated in other countries. That's because instead of the mental castration which blacks feel due to slavery, even though NONE of them have been slaves, actual genocides result in the killing of people.

Part of Eastern Europe which were once centres of Jewish Culture, such as Vilnius, were purged of any Jewish influence during the Holocaust. Were US slaves actually castrated, there probably wouldn't be any blacks in the US. And were the slaves treated as the slave labour was in Auschwitz? Auschwitz's purpose was to supply workers for the I.G. Farben factory: it wasn't predominantly a Vernichtunglager like Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Majdenek.

Well, you get the picture.

The slave labour in concentration camps was barely fed. Even the prisoners who worked on Operation Barhard, the operation to forge British Banknotes, were poorly fed. They also suffered from the diseases caused by poor sanitation in the camps. And these were skilled labour!

US Slavery was bad, but the owners saw an economic purpose to their slaves. Slaves were like livestock and had value. They were fed and probably cared for when ill. The Jews, Armenians, and other victims of genocide aren't valuable. The victims of a real genocide are exterminated like vermin.

Additionally, true systemic racism doesn't allow the oppressed race to have positions of power. We would not have blacks who were in positions of power, such as CEOs, legislators, or the head of State, let alone people who wish to teach these theories in classrooms. Idi Amin ordered the expulsion  of some 50,000 Indians from Uganda and told them to leave in 90 days.

There is a big difference between a "systemically racist" nation and the United States. I guess that having had more than 50 years of desegregation has caused an amnesia for some people of what things were like.

Remember the graffiti from Baltimore that said "blacks killing blacks" was genocide. Maybe it's time that blacks started taking responsibility for their own community instead of blaming "whippl" for what is going on in their communities.

Windows and Bridges

I am an unabashed fan of the Euro. I think it's the best thing about the European Union next to the right of free movement.

The coins are really cool with national designs that distinguish one nation's from another.

On the other hand, the notes are pretty boring. They are architectural designs of windows and bridges. But there is a reason for this: one nation's important person might piss off another's. Who do you put on the note so that everyone will like it?

Nobody!

Instead the architectural motif, which is OK since most people use other methods than currency to pay for things. Let the drug dealers use the notes.

Hey, I live near that bridge!

The reason I mention this is that there is a battle over the US $20 Note. Current personality is Andrew Jackson, a person who makes Donald Trump seem palatable: even for the people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Some people want to replace Andy with Harriet Tubman, who has a picture that looks like Don Warrington in drag.

The big issue here is racism. Jackson sold and owned slaves. Tubman was a slave who helped some of them escape to Canada and Freedom. Some people have issues with both personalities. I would just like a different picture of Tubman if you're going to use her.

The Euro has a solution to this problem: scratch the people and use something inanimate. There's a point to being boring.

BTW, More on Andrew Jackson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHRdZGauyDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-RAfQJYlWE

Why I am on the "outs" with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention Organisations"

Actually, I should say most "legacy" advocacy groups since the issue is less whether I agree with their position on the issue and more that I disagree with their becoming partisan (and it's more than just GVP groups that are guilty of doing this). The partisan aspect not only has caused the groups to support and reinforce a system which is toxic: it has caused these groups to stray from addressing the issues they SHOULD be addressing. That makes these groups totally ineffective and counterproductive.

I'm finally getting to this since I have been receiving a lot of "Trump  is bad" campaigns instead of something relating to the issues in question. First off, I never suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome the way a lot of people on the left have. Trump isn't the problem: he's very much a symptom of a terminal illness which is US politics.

And one which most of the groups trying to get people to act viscerally have contributed to way more than they should.

"Gun Violence Prevention" isn't on the top of my list. On the other hand, a lot of groups on which it should be a priority are ignoring it, or just making the situation worse. I would agree that people shouldn't have "assault rifles" under most circumstances, but that changes a lot when people are in Cloud Cuckoo Land about the nature of the "peaceful protests" and saying "defund the police".

Patricia and Mark McCloskey should not be laughed at or prosecuted, but should have been given compassion. Especially since I think they represent a good portion of urbanites who are feeling under siege. You don't have an apartment building a few blocks away from where you live burn and not feel a twinge of concern. Saying "defund the police" is total insanity.

The problem is that society is  polarised and the advocacy groups aren't helping things if they join the fray. They should be trying to figure out how to make progress, not make the situation worse. We should be talking to each other, not entrenching ourselves in untenable positions. I'm supporting the non-partisan, not the partisan.