Bill Maher defines "woke"

I normally don't agree with him, but he's pretty on the money here. Woke seems to be a way to stop any serious debate or conversation of the issues.

 

Flygsam och Tågskryt

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is making dire predictions about the need for addressing climate change. It's 2023 Climate Change report highlights the need for serious action NOW!

More than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and unsustainable energy and land use have led to global warming of 1.1°C above pre -industrial levels. This has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world. But there are multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are available now, said scientists in this IPCC report. Taking effective and equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits, the report points out, underscoring the urgency of taking more ambitious action now to secure a livable sustainable future for all.

The US bizarrely holds onto the car as a practical form of transportation while pretty much neglecting high speed rail. The reason I say bizarrely is that the US was once on the vanguard of train technology, but cars were subsidised and have led to the destruction of cities, which is another post, and are enviornmentally unfriendly.

The French are incredibly train friendly with the National Assembly voting to abolish certain domestic air routes, in case of alternatives by train of less than 2h30. This climate bill intends to eliminate links between Paris (Orly) and Nantes, Lyon or Bordeaux, but provides for exceptions for connecting journeys. The Citizens' Climate Convention had called for domestic flights to be waived in the case of alternatives of less than 4 hours by train, not 2.5 hours.

Transposing that onto the US, transportation on the east coast would be pretty much transformed to primarily rail: especially if the four hours by high speed train limit were imposed. Fortunately, US trains are pretty slow compared to those in other countries. Even Acela is pokey by the standards of other countries.

Again, there are other issues here in how environmentally and socially unfriendly modes of transport have been supported, which don't make sense here. What I really want to talk about is the concepts of Flygsam and Tågskryt, or flight shame and train pride. Greta Thunberg hasn't flown since 2015 in order to reduce her carbon footprint. Some Swedes are trying to emulate her. I would like to do so, but unfortunately, I have to fly sometimes, but I buy carbon offsets and have been doing so for a while now.

On the other hand, she has the option of taking the train in Europe. The US continues to invest in technologies which are soon to be obsolete, if they haven't been obsoleted based upon their harm to the planet. Yes, people can pretend that change is unnecessary until it becomes obvious to even the most ignorant.

The US needs to reassess itself in the light of reality.

Trigger Warning--Literally!!!

I've been thinking about posting this video clip since I first saw it. 

I have a weird feeling this post will be pulled by the overly sensitive pro-gun crowd: which is why I titled it what I did. 

This video is (1) A good reason to check out the words to a foreign song...and also the video (2) disturbing. 

"Tu me Manques" is French for I miss you. Of course, It can also mean "missing" in the context of "missing the target".  She misses him in the first sense, but not the other.  It's a nice song if you just listen to the lyrics and music. 

The video is something else. 

 

It's weird how even "progunners" when pressed begin to realise that maybe the right they believe to exist is actually limited. 

It would be nicer if they would just use their brains and do some serious research. But that would mean that they would have to admit that they have been living a lie.

It would be nice if I gave a translation of the words:

I'm wasting my time and my spring
Wandering around Paris
I don't care about the people who are always telling me
You gotta forget about him

I should erase your face
I'm not sure what to do, I'm not sure what to do
But your words are echoing
I'm drowning in them

I'm drowning in it

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd like to forget you but you haunt me

I'm pretending, absent gaze
To fill my boredom
I don't care about the people who keep telling me
You gotta forget about her
I should erase you
And go straight to the front
But there's your words that resonate
I get lost in it

I get lost in it

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd like to forget you but you haunt me

We've got our whole life to do over
We're wasting time, we're wasting time
I don't care about the whole world
I'm not pretending, I'm not pretending
I'm ready to do anything to please you
I'm not gonna let you down, I'm not gonna let you down
And you're gone in a flash
I'm waiting for you

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd have to forget you but you haunt me

℗ & © Dorcas 2023

Hey, Mitch, change your blog's name to "a shot in the foot".

Wow! Thanks. I've screen capped the Good Guys And Gals With Guns?  post since you just made the argument for why the relaxing of concealed carry is bullshit from a practical point of view.

According to some reports, the Nashville Covenant school was not a gun free zone...

Some of the usual suspects are already trying to use this factoid to indict the idea of armed school staff:...

Even in “Stand your Ground” states, self-defense law doesn’t as a rule allow citizens to close with and engage perpetrators, acting as cops or infantry.

The proper role for an armed staffer, according to the way actual self-defense law works, is to barricade themselves and the kids they’re responsible for into a room, and be ready to shoot at a perp who comes through the door with mayhem in mind.

So, really armed citizens are as ineffective as unarmed ones since as you point out the only people who should be going after the "orcs"are the first responders. Armed citizens with handguns can only hope to stop someone with a long gun which is going to be far more accurate and have a higer velocity than their weapon. 

So, the armed citizen hopes they might get a shot off before being turned to hamburger by someone with an AR-15 or similar weapon. Which does jackshit since the progunners neglect that sometimes mass shooters have shoot outs with real trained professionals to go on to further carnage as was the case with the Columbine Shooters.

Quite likely a mass shooter could have a bullet proof vest which would protect against handgun rounds as well.

Let's toss in the armed citizen could be confused with the active shooter for good measure as to WHY someone has to have shit for brains for even buying this argument for concealed carry in the first place. Nothing like adding to the confusion by being a halfwit with a gun. 

Alas, the dumbfucks who have bought into the "pro-gun" horseshit have probably bred and are not candidates for Darwin Awards. They have progeny which we can only hope will be smarter than their parents. Emphasis on hope since I would hope most people would use their brains, but most people, especially Amerloques, tend to be intellectually challenged.

It would be nice if other pro-gunners were as honest as you. Although, it would be nice if you took your statements to their logical conclusion and realise that you are just full of shit. Also that you have been lied to by the people you see as "leaders". You are one of the sheep if you have bought into this without question.

As I like to say, the pro-gun arguments don't stand scrutiny.

And you just shot yourself in the foot.

Stop shooting in the dark, Mitch. 

And thank you from all the anti-gun organisations who now have copies of this post. You are going to be the anti-gunner poster child for this statement against interest.

You should have a serious rethink of the "pro-gun" position since deep in your subconscious you know it's a pile of horsehit.

Oh, and stop using the word "ignorant" since you obviously have no idea what it means, or you would understand the irony of your posts: this one post in particular.

Russell is right!

I couldn't agree more with what Russell is saying here: 

One thing is for sure – the Democrats more interested in bringing him down than understanding what led to his rise.

Toss in addressing the issues surrounding this mess brought to us by the duopoly.

The fun thing about not only not using US media, but moving to another language

French media is talking about this in a disinterested manner.

And pointing out how much the Democrats have blown it with continuing their witch hunt on Trump while ignoring their own problems, which I'm not going to bother mentioning if you aren't aware of them by now.

This story is only "à la un" on the broadcast media. The print media are like the Private Eye "Heir of Sorrows" series where it listed off headlines from the British dailies. In this case, the French are concerning themselves with issues of French interest.

That is pretty much the strike relating to the change in retirement regulations making people have to wait longer to retire.

And you wonder why I prefer Europe to the US. Especially when the US has become a banana republic having to resort to political prosecutions instead of addressing the issues it needs to. The partisanism is totally disgusting to me.
 

As I said, I have no illusions about the reforms I wish the US would adopt

On the other hand, we can keep going with two parties which don't represent most people and are out of touch with the electorate.

Also, Italy uses first past the post (winner take all) instead of the ranked choice voting/instant run-off which is another reform I like. I am in favour of proportional representation and run off elections/ranked choice voting.

As the mans says: "democracy needs policies. And it needs effective policies."

Not the "partisan" bullshit that is going on the the US.

Dissent editor Michael Walzer on "the crisis of liberalism"

It's interesting what he is saying.  It's not exactly what my last two posts have been about, but very similar.

Liberalism in Europe, today, is something like “libertarianism”—it is a right-wing ideology. There used to be a left libertarianism, which is probably better called anarchism, and that persists in various sectarian versions, but it isn’t much in the public eye. And then in the United States, liberalism generally means “New Deal liberalism.” It’s our very modest version of social democracy, and it isn’t a very strong doctrine, since many of its practitioners became neoliberals much too easily. So, the -ism is not a strong or coherent doctrine. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t liberals. But liberals are people who are best defined morally or psychologically; they’re what Lauren Bacall, my favorite actress, called “people who don’t have small minds.” A liberal is someone who’s tolerant of ambiguity, who can join arguments that he doesn’t have to win, who can live with people who disagree, who have different religions or different ideologies. That’s a liberal. But those liberal qualities don’t imply any social or economic doctrine. So, there are liberals in the world, and I can recognize them, but liberalism does not describe their actual political commitment. The word is better used to qualify the kinds of commitments that I write about: democracy, socialism, nationalism, et cetera.

He's making a good point since "liberal arts" is a field of study "based on rational thinking, and it includes the areas of humanities, social and physical sciences, and mathematics. A liberal arts education emphasizes the development of critical thinking and analytical skills, the ability to solve complex problems, and an understanding of ethics and morality, as well as a desire to continue to learn." That means the division is between closed mindedness and open mindedness: not whether one is on the left or the right.

The problem with US politics is that it is based upon fallacious thinking. "The Democrats are progressives/socialists/liberals/etcetera" and "The Republican Trump supporters, etc." Is the divide that clear cut? Fox news calls the democratic party "socialist", yet that party has a long track record of destroying the moderate "socialist" policies of the new deal. What Sanders was proposing wasn't too far out from where FDR was going, and what is pretty much expected in the rest of the world as far as social policy goes.

As I said, not exactly what I have been saying in the past few posts, but definitely something I agree with:

Liberal Commitments An interview with Michael Walzer on The Struggle for a Decent Politics. in Dissent Magazine

I'm not sure how true this is, but...

I was told the French government subsidises newspapers, which is an interesting concept if it is
true. Although, I was under the impression I was reading a wider variety of viewpoints then just centrist. I read the following: Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, L'Express, and L'Obs. The first three being dailies and the last two are weeklies. This list puts me at being left of centre in French/European politics.

On the other hand, I am extreme fringe left in the United States being aligned with Bernie Sanders. I find my home in the US with the Green Party and Democratic Socialists. I'm trying to figure out which party comes closest when I start looking at European politics, which gets interesting since some things which are called "Socialist" in the US are taken for granted in European politics. In fact, trying to take them away would make one an incredibly unpopular candidate.

But the US doesn't talk about how overworked it is until someone mentions that Europeans usually start a job with 3 weeks of vacation and work up. They also don't work more than 40 hours a week.

It's things like that that make me question the 2020 election where people were prevented from working, yet a candidate who talked about not living in fear during a period of enforced unemployment lost the election. Things like Universal Basic Income make sense when someone is told they cannot work. Likewise, so does having housing and medical care paid for.

On the other hand, it is easier to play the ad hominem card of "that candidate/party/person is a progressive..." when it's obvious that the term doesn't really apply when one properly looks at the issues.

As I like to say, if the Democratic Party were as socialist or progressive as the right/Fox news likes to claim: wouldn't it have made sense to run Bernie Sanders instead of the candidates who they did run????  Of course, Fox news would be even more embarassed since it seems that Sanders was popular on a town hall they ran.

Anyway, despite this I have to admit that I am blissfully ignorant of US politics, which was made apparent since I had no idea who Ketanji Brown Jackson was or what made up the US Supreme Court. For good reason, the institution is blatantly political. It makes decisions which are not really based in law.

And it fucking well doesn't need to.

I'm not sure if being a US Supreme Court Justice is something worthy of being: especially since it it is a purely political position. The reason I go by Laci is that someone joked that my dog had been in more courtrooms than Harriet Miers, which was probably true.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to pretend reverence for a document most people don't understand and is horrible out of touch with modern society. And they forget can be amended. Even though they say they like certain of the Amendments.

Yes, diversity is a good thing, especially if it is properly applied. 

Unfortunately, there isn't too much diversity in the marketplace of US ideas, despite the First Amendment. Which is why it is amusing to me that French Newspapers could be government subsidised.

How the bloodless revolution will happen in the United States

The United State is locked in partisan nonsense and needs to get parties which actually represent the people. The only way that will happen is on a local basis, where the duopoly have less control. The non-duopoly parties begin to "infect" the legislature, which is where the real change comes. 

 I was pleasantly surprised when Doggone told me that Antonin Scalia agreed with me about the parliamentary system. 

I don't like it because of Westminster. I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature. Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for political cooperation. One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus, which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".^[1]

When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.

Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign.

Given how many budget crises happen in the US, it would probably go through governments like Italy or Belgium until the teething period was over. On the other hand, digging in on the budget would make it clear where the real power lies in government.

The presence of third parties would ensure that there was a way to gain consensus, or withhold it to bring the government more in line with the will of the people. There's a reason why the duopoly do everything they can to keep the power to themselves.

I don't have any illusions about some of the reforms which would be nice to see in US politics since Europe has them and people like Marine Le Pen are prominent in politics. On the other hand, there is a far better representation of political viewpoints in Europe than the One Party-Duopoly United States.

There's a reason I don't like discussing politics with Americans: they are worse than people who lived behind the Iron Curtain in how badly they are propagandised.

There needs to be a real free market of ideas, which isn't happening in the US.

I'm not afraid of artificial intelligence: it's easy to defeat them--just pull out their plug.

I've had this problem quite a bit with voice recognition, which shows as anyone well versed in this technology will tell you: "it would make more sense to call it artificial stupidity, than intelligence." In fact, it was dealing with artificial intelligence only to be shunted to a call centre where they don't speak my language (yet again) that led to me writing this.

Yes, a computer can appear intelligent as can someone with dementia appear lucid. But as Alan Turing pointed out, a human can tell the difference. Where artificial intelligence appears superior is that it can process a lot of information quickly. But there'a another computer saying: "GIGO" or "Garbage in, Garbage out." I wouldn't trust a machine to make decisions without a human there to veto that decision. And computers need electricity or some sort of power. They can only run things as long as their batteries can power up. Otherwise they are just expensive paper weights. The reality is that they can only deal with what they are written to do. They might add some other variations to their data base, but it might confuse them since it's really just pattern recognition and not true knowledge. Or as this cartoon points out:

Of course, later versions of the Daleks could fly. The aliens in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs were able to achieve interstellar travel, yet were unable to deal with doorknobs. Or the fact that Earth is covered with water. I think Robots would have even more difficult tasks to deal with if they had to actually deal with the real world instead of their limited universes.

Fred Hampton talks anarchists, SDS, Weathermen and the white working class

I've known about Fred Hampton for a while, but I became much more interested in him post-Riots. I've tossed "gun rights" in here since he talks about "self-defence", which would be be a very heated argument since Hampton was assassinated by the Chicago Police. A lot of people, myself included, believe this was because Hampton was very charismatic and unified, rather than divided. I'm sorry I don't live in the alternative reality where Malcolm Little became the first black US Supreme Court Justice and Hampton the first black president.

And a black composer for you!

Black History Month - What we don't know and are not taught: "Black Mozart"

Joseph Bologne, lived during the era of the American Revolution, 1745 -1799. He was French, the son of a slave mother and a wealthy planter father. His father essentially bought a title in 1757, and had taken his son to France for his education, along with his mother who continued to be a slave. He excelled in swordsmanship. He was SO unusual, so excellent at this skill, that when he graduated he directly became a member of the King's bodyguard, and was knighted. He also fought duels with prominent swordsmen who insulted him because he was bi-racial.

An obvious polymath, Saint-Georges was also an accomplished violinist at an early age (hence the comparison to Mozart) and became an accomplished composer in his own right as well. Saint-Georges was subsidized during his younger years by his father, but that money went to his apparently white and legitimate half-sister when his father died, leaving Saint-Georges to support himself by what he earned from his music and from the Orchestras he conducted. He continued to enjoy both tremendous popularity, but also periodic racism against him. He became a great favorite of Marie Antoinette. Saint-Georges began writing operas, met other famous talents in the music world, including the actual Mozart and Haydn. During this time his mother, who had continued to live with him, died - apparently still at least technically a slave by legal status if not in how she lived.

Subsequently, Saint-Georges spent time in England, including rubbing elbows with the Prince of Wales. Throughout his life among the nobility and wealthy, Saint Georges was an ardent supporter of the abolition of slavery.

When the French Revolution began, Saint-Georges volunteered, and headed up a legion of 'colored' troops, holding the rank of colonel. He fought on the side of the Republic against the monarchists, was imprisoned during the 'Terror', was released when the worst excesses of the Revolution were over. Without the patronage afforded him by the nobility prior to the revolution, he was somewhat less successful.

At one point he left France for about two years when there was a slave revolt on Caribbean island where he was born. Two years later he returned to France, again tried to rejoin his legion and again began composing and conducting music, as well as resuming playing the violin. He died in 1799 in comparative poverty.  He left behind as his legacy a large body of musical compositions, including operas, symphonies, concertos, chamber music, music for string quartets, and vocal music, many of which are still performed and recorded.

And he was also a character in the TV Show Nicholas Le Floch (Le Dîner de Gueux)!

A Black Author for you!

Next time the Politically Correct crowd want you to read a "black author" tell them you are a fan of Alexandre Dumas.

And the more European the title sounds the better, but any of the Three Musketeers/The D'Artagnan Romances series (The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later) would be the best bet.  There was a reason the BBC cast a mixed race actor to play Porthos in their version of the books.

Alexandre Dumas, AKA Alexandre Dumas père, author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo (and father of Alexandre Dumas fils, who wrote La Dame aux Camélias). Alexandre père's father (or, if you prefer, the père's père), General Alexandre (Alex) Dumas, was black Haitian, the son of an aristocratic French father, Marquis Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie, and a freed slave, Marie-Cesette Dumas. Toss in that the father was a general in Napoleon's grande armée!

The writer's father's dad sold the boy as a slave to pay for his passage to France (that's remedial parenting classes for you, Marquis de la Pailleterie) before buying his freedom. Later, Alex rose through the ranks of the army to become a general before he was 30. He was so effective that that the Austrians called him Der schwarze Teufel ("the Black Devil"). During the French revolution fought with other black men in a unit called the African Legion.

Study up on this French writer and have a great time challenging people's stereotypes on race.

Neil Oliver - '...new covid facts are starting to seep out...'

I've been a fan of Neil's for a long time now. I'm glad to see he's now on Patreon.

A vote for the Green Party is...a vote for the Green Party (or any other third party for that matter)

 OK, I didn't vote for John Fetterman in the last Pennsylvania Election (FYI once one emmigrates from the US, one votes in the last place they were domiciled--it seems I am currently stuck with Philadelphia due to bureaucratic BS). I don't like him for a variety of reasons, but I also Demexited in 2016 and haven't looked back on the duopoly since. I'm not going to get into why I dislike the "Berners" who have remained within the Democratic Party other than to say that I dislike them.

I voted Green in 2022 even though Dr. Oz was not my type. Although, I was walking around singing "Arc en Ciel" the day of the election...

 

De toute façon...

My point, My vote for Jill Stein in 2016 didn't change the election result, the electoral college did that. And the Russians had nothing to do with that, unless you want to tell me that Catherine the Great promised the Continental Congress a "Donkey Show" a few centuries later on.

My Green Party votes haven't changed the results since the duopoly pretty much runs things for the time being in the US. And no matter what Fox news tries to tell people, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties.

Seriously, if the "Democrats" really were socialists, they would have run Sanders in 2016 (and 2020) and won.

Electoral college or not.

But the duopoly doesn't want that to happen. And anyone who remains within the duopoly is a traitor to the movement behind Bernie.

The Real Reason to be Afraid of Artificial Intelligence | Peter Haas | T...

I definitely agree with this: AI needs to be taken with careful skepticism. My car can pretty much drive itself, but I wouldn't trust it to drive anywhere without me having a veto power over what it does.

Lets toss in mistakes Siri and other voice recognition systems make. I used to collect them, but they became overwhelming.

AI cannot be trusted blindly, but it can help make life better when used WITH a human check on the system.

'We the People' - the three most misunderstood words in US history | Mar...

Like it or not, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are anything BUT popular documents. It was written in secret by a select group of people. Sure, there were debates, but they were anything open and above board until after the document was written. People forget that some people, the anti-Federalists, were against ratification of the constitution.

I don't totally agree with his analysis (the pronouns bit is anachronistic as heck), but he does make some very good points.

It wasn't written for the benefit of my ancestors who fought for independence and revolted at Morristown. It was written for the elite who said "We the people".

An interesting interview with Jeffrey Sachs

I agree with him about the quality of the current debate: especially that opposing opinions tend to be ignored.

Kari Lake and Election Denial

I occassionally watch Fox News for an opposing opinion, which is where I heard about Kari Lake. I am pretty sure I don't agree with her on most issues, but her being questioned about "election denial" was very interesting. One thing I learned is that one needs to use the same vocabulary when discussing an issue. If "election denial" is a term meaning that there is some sort of conspiracy to steal an election, then it makes things look like anyone who points out the fact that US elections are anything other than free and fair and held on a secret ballot sound cray-cray.

On the other hand, one of the essential principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. . . . 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."

Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The United States and other western nations spent a good part of the 20th Century pushing these principles on other countries, yet the US has moved further and further from this principle since the end of the Cold War.

The funny thing is that the election denial comes from the results of the electoral college and the fact that US elections are not "democratic".  Bernie Sanders would probably be president if that were the case.

And people would probably love him. Just remember that Vermont is pretty much a "red state", and I mean that in the ass backward US sense where "red" is conservative. Otherwise, it might make sense that they have a socialist representing them. Yet another thing which gets lost in the US media. 

Which is another thing Kari Lake attacks.

The reality is that the US needs serious election reform, yet it won't get it if it obfuscates the issues. The Electoral College is problematic, yet no one is willing to address it. Point out that Trump won the election despite losing the popular vote and his supporters aren't upset. I won't get into the machinations of the 2020 elections, but they are another glaring example of the need for election reform in the US. Had Barack Obama won an election with only 23% of the vote, I am sure that the people defending the "Constitution" would realise what an Amendment actually means and that the founders were well willing to use that process when the Constitution proved to need tweaking.

After all, the 12th Amendment was enacted in 1803 to reform the electoral college after a heavily contested election (Election of 1800).

Maybe what is needed is to have some serious, adult discussions about the issues facing the United States instead of tossing ad hominems.

See also: https://www.bitchute.com/video/P5ayS6uzV5c6/