Why facebook is like mowing your front lawn naked

PDJT’s shake up
No. Hell no.  I don’t know what to make of the legal shake up and WH turn over, but I’m a big John Bolton fan.  So, I’m happy that he’s aboard.

The omnibus
PDJT should veto the spending bill.  Shut it down if necessary.  Tell Pauly Walnuts and Mitch to grow a pair and send up a budget bill that looks something like what they were elected to support. 

Facebook
I’m confused.  People get on facebook to vomit every aspect of their lives from when they get out of bed to when the go to sleep; to what and where they are eating; to what they think about every issue under the sun; to all of the cool videos and memes.  It’s truly interesting and creepy. 

But given what the platform is used for, how the heck can anyone claim that their privacy has been violated when their peculiar wants and desires that they have posted for all to see become known/sold to “outsiders”?  If you insist on mowing the front yard naked, you should not be surprised when a photo of it shows up in the church bulletin or a cease and desist order arrives by special courier.

So if you don’t want a picture of yourself mowing your front lawn naked to show up in the church bulletin, put some damn clothes on.  Same with facebook.  If you don’t want “your data” to fall into the “wrong hands”, don’t put your data on facebook for everyone to see/steal.  

Call me crazy but if you insist that you have 21,000 “friends” that you want “share” every aspect of your life with, you ought not to be surprised when one or two of them turn out to be creeps selling data. That’s what the interweb does.

Try this.  Go on the interweb and search “patio furniture”.  Wait 30 seconds and watch your mailbox fill up with spam from patio furniture companies.  Watch the little ads on the side of the page fill up with patio furniture ads. 

And just how monumentally stupid are facebook users?  First they insist on sharing every aspect of lives on a public forum, then they are supposedly shocked when people notice them.  They start out ardent Shrillda the Hutt supporters. Then, when some nefarious limey tech company “steals their data” that's out there for the world to see, they fall head over heels for Trump.  It’s as if the mere act of someone noticing them (AKA stealing their data) on facebook is enough to change their political outlook from being stark raving lunatics into right thinking thoughtful people.

Can they really be that stupid?  Apparently. And now we know “what happened”. 

Today’s JG rant

Re: Walter Martiny's letter, Unlikely the founders endorsed armed revolt, of Mar 23, 2018

One of the great problems with having a debate with gun grabbers is that they are ignorant of nearly every issue required to have that debate and sadly, I believe, willfully so. 

Take Walter Martiny’s letter.  Martiny claims that “every case” where arms were used “to interfere or stop the federal government from imposing its regulations” failed. 

Martiny leaves out the first and most obvious incident where armed colonists threw off the yolk of the most powerful military in the world at the time – Britain and its mercenaries.

Purists who have no argument against history will resort to wordsmithing saying, “Well England wasn’t the ‘federal government.’”  Well it was the most powerful government in the world at the time and its heavy hand was pressing down hard on the colonies who defeated them in armed conflict.

Martiny thinks that, “no one can say with certainty what these great politicians had in mind when they drafted [the constitution]”.  But we can. Read Federalist #46 which says in part:  

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

We cannot have a serious debate on the Second Amendment because for 30 years now, one side has remained willfully ignorant of the law, the traditions, the statistics (which like global warming they insist on manipulating on a good day and outright lie about on a normal day) and even how the very guns they wish to ban operate.  Instead they rely solely on appeals to emotions.

For 20 years now the gun grabbers have whined about the dreaded but still undefined “military-style assault weapon.”  Look it up and see if there is a single reasonable definition of this beast that apparently is as deadly as the plague, as common as nitrogen in the atmosphere but after 20 years still lacks a reasonable, easily understood and common definition.

Let me offer one:  A semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that is capable of receiving more than 10 cartridges.  Why should that simple definition be so hard for gun grabbers to get their heads around?  Because it’s not invoking hysteria.  Most importantly, because it is easily understood, people will know exactly what the grabbers are after – their semi-automatic rifles, then their shotguns, then their handguns, then all guns. It is no more complicated than that.

Emotional hysteria is all the gun grabbers can rely upon. 

Unlikely that founders endorsed armed revolt

There is a great deal of controversy regarding the intention of the men who in 1791 drafted the Bill of Rights to gain ratification of the Constitution. Certainly, no one  can say with certainty what these great politicians had in mind when they drafted this important document. However, there are facts that can help.

At that time, the nation consisted of 13 previous colonies on the East Coast between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian Mountains. The total population was less than 1.5 million people. Most lived in rural areas, many on  plantations. Only five cities were 10,000 or more people. There was constant danger on the border from foreign powers and Indian raids.

Some have suggested that the “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is required to protect citizens from the established government.

There have been many attempts to use this freedom to bear arms to interfere or stop the federal government from imposing its regulations. The first was Shays Rebellion, then the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, on down to Ruby Ridge and Waco. In every case, the government prevailed.

Only twice to my knowledge was armed revolt successful. During Prohibition, gangs succeeded importing alcohol. Also during the 1920s, the Terminal Gang in New Orleans held off the police until the mayor appointed the gang to the police department, ushering in the most corrupt regime until after World War II a new mayor fired them and appointed a new force. I leave to your interpretation whether the Black Panthers moved the equality argument forward.

I don't think the brilliant founders ever thought that armed mob rule was in the best interest of the country.

Walter Martiny

Fort Wayne