If Cryptocurrency Was Honest | Honest Ads

This is a humourous take on why crypto is a scam. 

And Robert Reich giving a more serious take on this issue.

How to break the two-party hold on American politics

The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium). 

The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.

The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.

Digital Blackout: AWS Outage Plunges Millions into Disarray, Revealing the Internet's Fragile Core

The internet would be much better if it were decentralised and out of the hands of the oligarchs. As this points out, it's only as strong as its weakest link: which seems to be the oligarchs.

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

 It’s nice to say ignorant things like « no kings » when Canada has a king and things are much better. The even more important aspect of that is that Canada IS BRITISH NORTH AMERICA!

Anyway, your tweedledum-tweedledumber two party system is responsible for the issues you decry: not just Donald Trump.

As is the US Constitution, which gave you the first Trump administration through the electoral college.

And for that matter, you might want to look up the history of the insurrection act and how that « trumps » posse comitatus. 

So, you need to work to destroy the oligarchs and the two party system if you seriously want to get the power in the hands of the people.

Only a real multi party democracy will do that.

A Canadian view on "no kings"

Just remember that Canada is British North America and you don't need to take a guess about alternative history.

And you would be having new elections if you were like Canada and still had a king.

 

What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News

There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

They are ignorant of the fact that you would be having new elections if you still had a king because you would be under the Westminster system. Failure to pass a budget bill requires that the government disolve because of Loss of supply, which implies a loss of confidence in that system.

Toss in that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles and honours (except that of prince) because of his association with Epstein by King Charles.

Think about that when you say ignorant things about having a Constitutional Monarch.

Also, realise that the taxes levied by Britain on the Colonies were the bill for the war caused by George Washington. I'm sure things could have come to a screeching halt had the British asked for money up front instead of letting things slide during that conflict.

Just look up Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union for how the British could have stopped any seeds of independence arising.

Because you might be living under a French system where militarised police (Gendarmes) are the norm had the British not funded the defence of the colonies.

Think about that.

There's a reason this man is looking so smug.

Windows 11 Is a Lost Cause. Truly Destined for the Garbage. Don't Upgrade.

I am amazed that hacker, open source culture didn't prevail in the computing world. 

Wozniak v Jobs

The old Apple II, which was something you could configure anyway you wanted. The iPod that allowd you to listen to YOUR music, not something pushed on you.

Like having Rachel Maddow invade my French Jazz playlist. PUTAIN DE MERDE!  Je me fous complètement de la politique américaine.

 OK, maybe the last statement isn't exactly true.

But, I don't want tech oligarchs running my life. 

 

Meet Hugh Jeffreys, a right to repair advocate

I want to give a shout out to this person since he caught my eye with a video about fixing an old MacBook Pro. This, of course, would be something of interest to me since one thing leading to electronics ending up in landfills is planned obsolescence. 

And there are lots of reasons electronics shouldn't be ending up in  the waste cycle, but the tech giants couldn't cre less about your health and well being. So, heavy metals (and I'm not talking music) in the environment isn't something they are too bothered by.

So, good on you, Hugh!

Bring Down The Government!

Or why is this man looking so smug?

The bottom line is that if the US had a Westminster system, the government would be dissolved and there would be new elections.  One of the characteristics of a government run under this is a llegislative body with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget).

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"

It's also amusing that septics in their ignorance don't realise that the English Civil War was about who had the power: the monarch or the legislature.

The legislature won.
The

Dell sells Linux computers!

I moved from the Microsoft operating system a while back, I'm guessing in 2011 from my old blog posts. I have a serious dislike for tech giants having worked with computers for over 50 years (I started young), The hacker culture runs strong in me.

Besides, most tech pros use linux/unix.

Getting a linux computer for me meant using an old computer, or one that had originally been configured for windows (or Mac OS). I didn't realise that Dell sold them. The only drawbacks are you can't get these in most retailers and there's a five week wait: https://www.techradar.com/best/linux-pc#section-best-linux-mini-pc

On the other hand, this is a computer which is built for Linux.

For those of you who want to try this OS, you can make a trial USB drive and see how you like it:

 

Windows AND Linux Security - What Should You Know

There is more reason to switch to linux and ditch the tech oligarchs than you know.

Find a COMPATIBLE Linux Computer for $200+: Roadmap to Linux. Part 1

I have been seriously thinking about returning to Linux for the reasons mentioned. Apple's Mac OS is based on Linux, but has proprietary things which force you to use their products. It's also fairly stable, which can't be said about Microsoft. 

The one sickener for the switch is that Macs have some excellent tools for multilingual people. 

We Went to a Crypto Conference: We Left Terrified

You can't trust banks or financial institutions, but you trust something which is based on computers?

What type of stupid are you?

RIP Jane

I have to admit that she was one of the people in my circle. She actually preferred dogs. So long, Jane.

 

Will Trump cause the collapse of the US Government?

 Perhaps it's time to admit that the US is a de facto Westminster Parliamentary Democracy. That is a system where the lower house of parliament has an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget). This automatically leads to a call for new elections. 

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". 

A similar deadlock can occur within a presidential system, where it is also known as a budget crisis. In contrast to parliamentary systems, the failure of the legislature to authorize spending may not in all circumstances result in an election, because some such legislatures enjoy fixed terms and so cannot be dissolved before a date of termination, which can result in a prolonged crisis. 

Wouldn't calling for an election to see how popular the government make far more sense than this? 

Other than it would put paid to the myth that the US system lives with compromise. Your governments would make Belgium or Italy look stable if you went to a parliamentary system.

Civil War? The REALITY You NEED to Understand

Adam Kinzinger on why talk about civil war is misguided.

And the US Constitution does not give you a right to fight the government, which is pretty explicit in Article III, Section iii. That defines the only crime mentioned in the US Constitution: Treason.

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.

And your Second Amendment right as a "constitutional militia" is

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

After all, a document which is suppose to insure domestic Tranquility isn't going to tolerate a civil war.

Anyway,

I'm sick os seeing the Second Amendment misinterpreted to mean things which are not in the US Constitution.

Show me where it actually mentions "self-defence"! 

Christopher Hitchens on The Rise of Political Violence

This man was a genius. May he rest in peace.

Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

An interesting reflection on this event.

This makes the situation all the more ironic if true:

America's Downward Spiral With Political Violence

What the supporters of "gun rights" fail to comprehend, despite their saying guns are "inanimate objects" is that "inanimate objects" can be turned against them. 

It's also poor policy to allow your opponents to be well armed.

Unfortunately, the concept of "gun rights" has allowed for the US to have way too many guns in the hands of the wrong people.

London Broadcasting Corporation's James O'Brien asks, 'Why are Charlie Kirk's words suddenly off limits?' Especially since Kirk did say about gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

 

The best sentence I've read on this subject is: "I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did."

How can you condemn me if Kirk said, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.  

Anyway, here's Tim Black for a final comment: