We the people…

How can our students, who only need a 1oth grade education to graduate high school, ever comprehend the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States when they require a 12th grade education to understand?

Readability of important english-language texts

Since the liberals have control of the schools (by a 2:1 margin, per this NPR article), could this be by design? One has to wonder…

The Twilight Zone

Social media sites create a false reality where we may seek solace. They attract us with a narrative we want to hear, and so we settle in. Things seem right; the sun rises and sets, the stars shine, and the moon cycles. Everything is as expected. As a result we become complacent; even when 9 Canis Major falls from the sky no one sees the man behind the curtain – or in this case, the man in the moon – pulling all the strings.

And like the proverbial frog placed in water that is slowly heated, no one notices that soon the narrative changes.  Instead of what you want to hear, it becomes what you are expected to believe. The change is subtle and imprecise; you don’t recognize it until it is too late. Your peers, suitably brainwashed, all chant the same mantra – one that you are no longer allowed to dispute. The transformation is complete; you are now “One of us! One of us!” And it’s all in the name of power and control. Oh, and ad revenue (as required to maintain that control).

Welcome to the Truman show. Only you’re not the audience; you’re the star.

Good luck. Say “hi” to Rod for me….

Frederick Douglass

As someone with an ongoing connection to academia, I am forced to endure a barrage of “woke” emails each day. And even if there is a legitimate message in the endless stream of propaganda, its constant implication that I am a racist simply because of the color of my skin (ironic, no?) makes me blind to it.

And then one slipped through. This email contained a snippet of a letter written long ago by Frederick Douglass. He was corresponding with his former slave master, and in this letter he spoke of his integration into the fabric of a growing and prosperous nation. He was proud; he described how he felt as he received his first pay – pay that was his, and his alone, born from his own productive work. He was earning his way in life by his own effort and with the mutual consent of those with whom he interacted. And as I read his letter I thought to myself, ” This is truly what it means to be an American.”

Below is the snippet of the letter contained in the email that caught my initial attention. But there is much greater depth to his letter, and the full version (here) contains elements of fear, confusion, discovery, courage, freedom, growth, understanding, and even forgiveness. It is definitely worth the read.

Since I left you, I have had a rich experience. I have occupied stations which I never dreamed of when a slave. Three out of the ten years since I left you, I spent as a common laborer on the wharves of New Bedford, Massachusetts. It was there I earned my first free dollar. It was mine. I could spend it as I pleased. I could buy hams or herring with it, without asking any odds of anybody. That was a precious dollar to me.

I wish I could have known Frederick Douglass; I think I would have liked him.

Unmitigated gall

So it’s a human right to be able to access the Internet? This from the company that controls who can speak and what they can say?

Twitter declares access to its platform a ‘human right’ amid censorship of conservatives

It’s actually funny given the circumstances; it seems Twitter had blocked a tweet from the Nigerian president, so their government blocked Twitter from Nigeria. Fire with fire, as they say…

Here’s a particularly interesting quote from the article attributed to Twitter corporate:

“We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria,” Twitter’s Public Policy division tweeted in response. “Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society.

Free and open? But only if it’s moderated by Twitter? Only if the opinions expressed are Twitter-approved? What about free and open access for all, without Twitter’s  “Ministry of Truth” filtering our thoughts or controlling what or who we hear?

The sad thing is that the obvious hypocrisy of their position will change nothing for Twitter. People are simply too stupid to see the danger and too lazy to find/fund a free-speech alternative.

The interesting thing about racists….

…is that they are nothing without hate. They count on the hate of others to fuel their “cause” – crusades that often enrich only them and their brethren at the expense of the social and psychological well being of others. They are parasites of the worst kind, and yet we continue to fall lock-step behind them in the march to our own destruction. Why?

NYC shrink tells Yale audience she fantasizes about shooting White people in head

Demagogues such as this are not interested in solving real problems; they are only interested in placing blame. Blame gives them purpose; it gives them power. But in the end such campaigns must fail. Think not? Ask Hitler – his blame campaign against the Jews killed millions, and eventually consumed his country. Ask Nathan Bedford Forrest – the blame campaign he inspired as leader of the KKK in the 1870’s cost many thousands of African-Americans their lives, and at its peak claimed over 4 million adherents. Do we really want to go down this path – again?

When will we learn that hate only enriches the hate-mongers? That racism cannot be fought with more racism?

Arbiters of truth?

Does anyone else realize the significance of this move (and its predecessor) by FaceBook?

Facebook ends ban on posts claiming COVID-19 is man-made

If you recall, Facebook originally claimed that this particular COVID-19 source narative had been debunked and thus flagged a New York Post article on the subject as false, effectively limiting its distribution on their platform. FaceBook had decided the “truth”, and competing “truths” were simply not to be heard. But what entitles FaceBook to be the arbiter of all truth?

The argument has been made by some, and seemingly accepted by FaceBook, that facts are facts and thus no dissent should be allowed. But “facts” are frequently temporary; until only a few thousand years ago most people took as “fact” that the world was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. If it were not for the competing opinion of naysayers we might all still be living in the dark ages. Progress is driven by questioning the opinions and facts of the day, but if no competing opinions are allowed…  well, the world might as well be “flat”.

Social media companies can get away with selective censorship because the 1st amendment only applies to the government – not private companies or individuals. Facebook is therefore exempt from the free speech requirements of the 1st amendment. They are free to censor what and whom they want.

But what if these companies are subject to regulation by the government? Worse yet, what if they are protected by the government? Do you think these companies could act in a purely independent manner with respect to their censorship activities? Or do you think they might be swayed by political interests? By people capable of wielding the hammer of regulation? By those whose political support acts as the thread suspending the Sword of Damocles over their heads? Would they be independent of the government then?

An entity whose protection depends on the government (in this case, by Section 230 of the Telecommunications act) cannot act independently. So long as these government guaranteed protections exist, social media companies should be held to the 1st amendment as agents of the government. They should be allowed to reject these protections and censor if they wish, but if they accept them then they should be held to the same 1st amendment restrictions as the government. But they should not have it both ways.

Section 230 was intended to encourage “… a true diversity of political discourse …” on the Internet – not an environment where politically-motivated overlords could control who can speak and what may be heard. If social media companies don’t want to allow free political discourse, so be it – revoke their protections under Section 230.

George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth was fictional. Let’s keep it that way.