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 one of the things I like most about the EU.(1) 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.

(1) OK, I like the Euro a lot and maybe I should acknowledge that given that I was using it more than the right of free movement for a period. Since the right of free movement isn't as solid as the Euro, I have to admit being a little more partial to the Euro.

But, the notes are really awful looking. Fortunately, it's more of a virtual currency. 

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/