Stop talking sex with women!…?…~o~

There’s no more touching, no more sexual flirting, no more physical expression, involving a single man who finds a single woman attractive. Not even once! Even”testing the waters” isn’t permitted. You know, when you touch a woman’s arm or back or hand on purpose to see if she accepts it or politely pulls away from you.

Although people are supposed “to be who you really are”, you, as a man, are not supposed to be the initiator of anything romantic. “Being who you really are” is more about being a pain in the ass or being sassy or opinionated or in your face or expressing your gender forcefully to people who offend you.

The only acceptable male-female communication permtted right now is eye-flirting with your mask on. At least, I think it is acceptable, considering how many women appear to have eye-flirted with me over the past year. Ok, maybe I’m reading it wrong. Maybe they were just smiling at me but I like to think they weren’t. At my age, I’ll happily accept an eyeflirt.

But here is Governor Cuomo. Single, good looking, money, power, and without a romantic partner. Shoud he join a dating service to find a partner? How would that look in the newspaper? Should he find a NY matchmaker to be his go-between? How about he hires escorts? (Ha! that got another NY governor in trouble, Elliott Spitzer, when it became public.)

Exactly how should a single political man look for companionship?

OMG, Cuomo asked a woman for a kiss…he asked…and now he is a pariah for expressing his peacock-iness in public venues? He isn’t chasing his secretary around a conference table or acting all “Jeffrey Toobin” or “Anthony Weiner”. He is polite, he is direct, and as near as I can tell, the man takes “no” for an answer. Absent a “no” answer, he tries again.

And this is sexual harassment in 2021. He tries again for a date or a hook-up. Sexual harassment?

Should he proffer a woman his social card to see if she wishes to have a date with him? Something Victorian or Edwardian in nature? Should he simply wait and then date any woman who asks him out to dinner?

I have three daughters in the work place and I want to protect them at all times from the Lotharios that run amuck in professional offices. And I am fairly certain men have made overtures “testing the waters” for a relationship. All three of ny daughters have situational awareness and they are confident in their own skin as well. I don’t expect they had a problem telling bad men where to go or what to do.

I want to be au courant and be offended by Gov Cuomo’s overtures to women but I just can’t. And to attack Gov. Cuomo for sexual harrassment seems over the top. But maybe there is more to this than I know. But until I know more, I lean to defending Gov. Cuomo.

Am I a Neanderthal or bad man for thinking Cuomo did nothing wrong?

The War on Reputations

There’s a new Civil War in progress and nobody’s winning. This Civil War is all about destroying the reputations of political partys, politicians, news media, government institutions, and ordinary people who have found themselves in extraordinary situations.

This is a many-sided war with battles being fought over the reputations of participants. In politics, it’s about Republicans vs Democrats and who will bend the government to their will while it loots USA national treasure for its party.

Outside of national politics, it’s about the reputations of celebrities, businesses and their leaders, and the burgeoning growth of internet personalities. The destroyers attack the reputations of famous people, the reputations of historical events, and the reputations of religion, morality, and financial institutions. And they especially attack the reputations of hard work, civility, deferred gratification, and common decency.

The weaponization of social media is the suitcase bomb of the 90s. The tools of social media allow everyone to become a potential bomb maker and everyone else a potential bomb thrower. In the hands of irresponsible people, the innocent-and-imperfect are attacked with weapons in which there is no defense. There is no defense from the lies that are told or the misrepresentations of the truth. It is scorched earth warfare.

The War on Reputations is an ugly war. It is anarchy on the internet. A “hater” chooses a target and launches his/her hate bomb. Others pick up the same material and fashion it for their own purpose. When government or businesses attempt to stop the bombmakers, other haters attack those same governments and those same businesses and accuse them of denying free speech or being fascist, communist, anti-this, or a sympathizer for that.

The only way to win this war is either not to play the game (a la War Games) or become totalitarian and control the content. For humankind, it appears that controlling the content is the only viable option. Self-control is preferred but “from the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”

Just as newspapers and magazines controlled the content of their publications, the ISPs may be required to control the content in their e-publications.

Accusations and mudslinging will need an outside force to control them. And that is exactly what many fear.

The legislation that controls the content of the US internet will be foreboding at best; but to live with a free market of smearing, sneering, and fleering seems impossible. To give every person access to social media bomblets and permit the desecration of the innocent-and-imperfect seems too permissive. Not everyone is an adult and not everyone is equal. We should recognize that.

The War on Reputations could use a few Rules of Social Media Warfare and violations of those rules should likely become Social Media War Crimes with attendant consequences. Perhaps a new Geneva Convention is needed to craft those rules.

Any takers?

Equal Opportunity vs Equal Outcome

Now that the races, the sexes, the genders, the aged, and the religious have equal opportunity in America. We are being told that equal opportunity is simply not enough. We must have equal outcome.

Regardless of your DNA, your parental upbringing, your geography, your DISC assessment, your whatever, it is racism if you do not have an equal outcome in life as other people. You should be compensated in some way for the “disparity” in your life versus the life you perceive others have.

Maybe we should call it Outcome Envy. Outcome Envy is the “need” you have to be like all the others not of your kind. You already know your kind, of course, but this is about you being equal to those who are not like you.

( Speaking of “needs”, does it bother you that nobody asks respectfully for anything? Instead of “May I have a light?” It’s “I need a light.” Instead of “Could you please do this for me?”, it is now ” I need you to do this for me.” I hate that.)

Equal outcome. Why in the world should people with more talent than others have more success? Why should people with more ability have more benefits?

We are all the same aren’t we?

Now, really, doesn’t that phrase conflict with “you are unique”? Or “you are special”? Of course it does.

The socialists in the world still wish to dominate who you are inside. The real you, the eternal you, the you with a soul. They try to convince you that you are not unique and do not have special talents. If everyone is the same, then you should have what everyone else has.

Equal opportunity means you are not burdened by laws and access to fulfill your dreams. You can make your life a success with the natural elements around you. Equal Opportunity is the opportunity to compete ; it is not a guarantee of success.

Equal outcome is like a Participation Award. Regardless of your effort, your DNA, or your abilities, you fit some generic idea of a human being who lived and you should be awarded a prize for being alive. Equal outcome is a horse race in which every horse wins regardless of which is first, second, or last. Like an adoring mother and father, the STATE will reward you with kisses and love for participating. It is the way parents treat children and it is demeaning to treat an adult that way. At least, it ought to be.

Some choose the word ‘bigot’

Silence your opposition by calling them indefensible names. It works for gays and others.

Poor Phil Robertson is in the same category as Pat Robertson for different reasons. Phil spoke his mind about sin and gays and Pat Robertson spoke his mind about Israel and the United States.

If you wish to be called a bigot, simply say something against homosexuality or transgendered individuals. You see, we don’t use words to describe people’s behavior anymore. We use words to describe how we feel about them. This is why you hear so many comparisons to Hitler and fascism. It’s not because anyone is like Hitler or is actually being a fascist, it is because we hate the word and we use the word to describe the person we hate whether or not it accurately describes the person.

The word “bigot” is bandied about by gay/homosexual/transgender/asexual persons to mean someone who does not like gay/homosexual/transgender/asexual persons. Merriam Webster defines ‘bigot’ as: “ a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

If you know what Phil Robertson said about gay men, then you know that he does not fit the definition given above. “Intolerant”.”Hatred”. How does that square with Phil Robertson saying : “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Do you think there is any hatred or intolerance when Phil was asked about sin?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

There is no hatred there. No intolerance. But in today’s culture, expressing an opinion that others do not wish to hear can get one branded as a bigot.

If you really wish to start an argument in a group of people, start talking about sin. Nothing gets people going as much as saying that an everyday behavior they practice is sinful. It seems to be okay to say that people should have standards to live up to but it is never okay to say that failing to live up to that standard is a sin. I am not talking about persecution, that is an extreme action just like bigotry is an extreme position.

But I have written before about how words are corrupted today to mean something other than the definition. What did Humpty Dumpty say to Alice?

 “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

And that is how the defenders of the gay lifestyle operate. They imply that the words they choose, the indefensible words, are master over all others to describe people who say things that gays don’t like being said.

Stereotyping a gay person is abominable. But isn’t it also abominable to call a person a name that does not fit? Isn’t it stereotyping to call a person a bigot just because he says things against gay people and their lifestyle? Isn’t there a level of hatred and intolerance that has to be crossed before a person becomes a bigot?

Of course, Phil Robertson said everything crudely and he could be criticized for a poor choice of words but he wasn’t. He was called a bigot and the word did not apply.

Some of us don’t like other people and some other people don’t like us. It does not matter if it is sexuality, race, religion,beauty, height, weight, gender, or age and yet we find a way to celebrate our differences and accept those who are different than us. Perhaps we should do that now without the name calling.

In which I surrender and hope for an escape?

The very fact that Pres Obama, VP Joe Biden, and Sec’y John Kerry say that there is evidence that Sarin gas was used in Syria makes me not want to believe it. Guess who is not saying anything? Chuck Hagel. The Sec Def has been remarkably silent on the issue although what he has said is supportive of the Administration.

So yesterday I heard two things; 1. It will take three weeks to test the UN evidence from Syria before the Sarin results will be known and 2. The US says that it has already tested the evidence and that the results are consistent with Sarin gas.

Who are you going to believe?

John Kerry actually said:

“I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody from East Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin,” Kerry told CNN on Sunday.

“Each day that goes by, this case is even stronger,” he said on the cable network’s State of the Union program.

Please note that it tested positive for “signatures of Sarin”. There is an interesting characteristic of American politics in which when the administration wishes to tell you a lie that it uses words that imply,but do not explicitly state, a fact. I noted that the media is reporting that it tested positive for Sarin gas but that is not what Secy Kerry actually said. I also note that it did not come from the Veep or the Prez or the SecDef Chick Hagel. Why is that?

Do you remember the 16 words “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” This statement places all of the veracity on the British government and no responsibility on American government to determine if it was true. Reminds me of an old canard used by corporate sharks “I’ll lie and you’ll swear to it”.

So now what do I do? Do I accept the US government is telling us the whole truth that residue of Sarin gas was found present in Syria? Or do I say, ya know, maybe our government used weasel words in case the truth is different? And even if the gas is present, does that mean that the Syrian Army used it?

Close only counts in horseshoes, doesn’t it?

I am going to suspend (not withdraw) my critical thinking skills on this and presume that the Obama Administration is telling the truth. Ok, so the Syrian Army used Sarin gas in a raid in neighborhood of Damascus.

Why have we not convinced our allies of this and why do they resist getting involved with Syria? (Except for France, of course, who likes living/hiding underneath America’s skirts during confrontations).

So if it is true that Sarin gas was used, why are we waiting for weeks for Congress to take action? Shouldn’t Exec Branch have been working on that already?

We have a government of lesser men, I fear. And that is why I don’t believe John Kerry and Joe Biden in my heart.

 

Who is using chem weapons in Syria?

But U.S. and allied officials also said it was unclear how much sarin may have been used and who actually used it. Syria is known to possess large stores of chemical weapons, including sarin, but questions remained over whether its use was officially sanctioned by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We apparently do not know.

Gregory Koblenz, a nuclear and biological warfare specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the chemical warfare allegations are based on two basic forms of evidence from Syria, neither of which alone provides enough information about what really happened.

“One is video footage of alleged chemical attacks in Syrian hospitals,” he told VOA.  “Some of the symptoms we see are consistent with exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, but the problem is that there are other chemicals that can cause similar reactions, and just the videos alone don’t provide enough information and context to really assess what happened to these people.”

There has also been mention of soil and human tissue samples that have been taken out of Syria and analyzed by labs in the United States and Britain.  But Koblenz says these samples are also unreliable.

More to know:

Dr. Zaher Sahloul of Chicago, president of the Syrian-American Medical Association, has just returned from his sixth mission in Syria, where he spoke with medical personnel in seven hospitals in and around Aleppo.

“In the six or seven attacks that we spoke to physicians about, they all reported similar symptoms. And these attacks happened in Homs in December of last year—that was the first reported one—and then we [had] two in Aleppo.  The largest one was on March 19^th in the area of Khan al-Asal, and there were about 40 people who died and more than 300 who were admitted to the hospitals for symptoms.  Some of them ended up on the ventilator in the ICU (intensive care unit),” he said.

Sahloul said all these patients were reported to have symptoms “consistent with cholinergic syndrome,” which is usually caused by drug overdose, eating certain poisonous mushrooms or exposure to nerve gas or certain pesticides.

“So the patients had respiratory and neurologic symptoms—respiratory, including shortness of breath, bronchospasm, a lot of secretion and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, large concentration oxygen—and also neurologic symptoms, confusion, convulsions, and some of them went into comas—and also eye symptoms,” he said.

Sahloul said the only other chemical agent that could cause similar symptoms would be certain insecticides, which he rules out in this case.

One would think that if the Syrian government was using Sarin gas that perhaps the deaths would be in the thousands, yes?

Which means that maybe, just maybe, the rebels have some small supply that gets away from them sometimes and causes local damage. Who knows?

We are waiting to hear more from the US government. And it better be good. None of this “Israeli intelligence intercepted communications” crap. Sounds like the same “British intelligence has confirmed” crap we heard ten years ago.

And good Lord why would the Syrian government allow UN inspectors in to seek the truth if the freakin’ evidence is “undeniable”?

I remain skeptical. Even Doctors Without Borders who reported the 335 deaths said that they had no idea who used it.

And knowing that some insecticides can cause the same symptoms makes me wonder if the war shelling was responsible for causing an insecticide storage area to blow up and create the damage.

This does not sound like a dictator desperately trying to hold onto his regime who has used sarin gas to destroy his enemies. This event has no logic on the face of it but I am willing to pay attention to any evidence that the US government brings forward.

 

Why I hated Elysium… the movie

I went to see Elysium expecting a good science fiction movie in which technology has changed the world we know and Matt Damon is going to set it right. That is not what I saw.

Stop now if you plan to see the movie but if you aren’t, then read below the fold why I hated this movie propaganda…

The Federal Nudge Squad…

The federal government is hiring what it calls a “Behavioral Insights Team”  that will look for ways to subtly influence people’s behavior, according to a  document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there  could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team  could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White  House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal  departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services  and the Department of Agriculture.

“Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work  better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,” reads the government  document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply  for positions on the team.

The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on  social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that  it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the  team would “experiment” with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking  behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more  in energy costs.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/#ixzz2aYpwioY3

There is a difference between advocating a behavior and nudging a person’s behavior. I like the first and abhor the second. To me the issue is about respecting the individual. Federal nudging does not do that.

I believe that Reasonable Citizens are rational actors capable of determining what is in their best interest. Attempts to influence their behavior is unacceptable. Efforts to provide valid infornation to establish a basis for decisions is acceptable.

Tell me what I ought to know to make a decision but don’t tell me only what you think I should know to act the way you want.

You can imagine how unsuccessful nudging will be dealt with: More money to nudge, more power to nudge, and more damn nudging over all.

This government is full of lesser men, don’t nudge me.

 

 

Where have all the vibrant black communities gone?

So what happened in the 1960s after civil rights was obtained that destroyed/removed/eliminated the black economic communities that once existed?

That question was posed to me today and I said there were three things that decimated the black communities since civil rights: Freedom to live anywhere caused the black movers and shakers to relocate, drugs brought to the black community ruined the workers and businesses moved as a result, and the forced integration in schools and businesses ruined a sense of black community.

My colleague said he thought it was welfare. I did not agree. Welfare was and is for poor people and not middle class church-going black workers. Something altered the black community and it wasn’t money for food and shelter.

I am open to other thoughts. What say ye?

Texas Abortion Bill and Common Sense, if any

You all know the story by now: Texas woman legislator filibusters to prevent vote that would change abortion law in the state of Texas.

Which of the following did you take issue with in the law:

1. Abortions were not legal over the 20th week of pregnancy

or

2. This bill would have closed down all the abortion clinics in Texas save one.

If you are pro-life you supported number two over number one, if you were pro-choice you could live with number one but not number two.

Using the force of law to control human behavior is a problem. It is one thing to enact laws that punish people for acts they commit or laws that protect people from institutional harm but when one tries to use a law to control a person’s choices there is going to be a problem.

There is a moral universe that says aborting unborn children is immoral. There is also a moral universe that says it is immoral to make one carry a child to full term that one does not wish to have. And there is also the force of Law that says when one thing is acceptable and when the other is not. When the Law favors one universe over another then the law becomes immoral.

For society to exist in peace, ways must be found to live with each others morality and immorality. Legislators must find these ways, it is the responsibility they have in order to faithfully execute their offices.

In Texas, Governor Perry committed an immoral act by using the force of law to call for a special session of the Texas legislature to pass a law intended to control the behavior of others. He is a lesser person for doing this.

In Texas, state Senator Wendy Davis committed a moral act by defending her universe from the force of law that would control the behaviors of her universe. She is a greater person for doing this.

Today in America, it is two sides fighting to control your behaviors and/or the behaviors of your children. You must begin to take the side of agreement; not the side of compromise, agreement. And that agreement must be how to permit the morality and immorality of all to coexist at some level for the sake of a good society.

We talk about a national debate but there is no such thing. There is news. My million dollar idea is to support public debates on national topics. Are you in? “A National Debate of Reasonable Citizens on the Topic of…”

And Governor Perry is working on making himself a smaller man still by calling for a second special issue to take up the Texas abortion bill again.