Reflections From a Murky Pond

Western society, especially America, has in recent decades become increasingly skeptical and distrusting. Put simple, we lack faith and trust in each other and almost anyone in positions of authority or who claims some authority on a topic.

Pics Or It Didn’t Happen – Not That We’ll Believe The Pics

Cries, often less than joking, of, “Pics or it didn’t happen,” “Show your work,” and “What are your sources,” are rife in most discussions, debates, and arguments in the modern Western world.

More often than not, if these demands are responded to, the result is that the people do not either accept or review the image and/or sources provided; instead they declaim them as fraudulent or impugn them for some other reason, most often perceived bias due to whatever funding mechanism are in place for those sources.

Little or nothing is believed. This is certainly true of anything that contradicts people’s opinions and beliefs and I believe that even holds true for things that agree with said people’s opinions and beliefs, though they’re willing to “suspend disbelief” enough to use it to further their various agendas.

It seems to me that we as a societal whole have become cynical and skeptical enough that we’re actually proof against proof.

In the past decade huge advances have been made in the field of transgenic research, the study of transferring genes from one species to another. What was once limited to a small number of crops has expanded out into a broad spectrum of animals as well.

Transgenic Marmoset Expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP)

To date the highest order of animal that scientists will admit to having genetically modified by the inclusion of completely foreign genetic material is the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).  The marmoset is a primate though and the changes they’ve made since 2009 have been genetically stable so there’s little in the way of technological hurdles left for them.

This, without even considering its use on humans, opens the door to some “interesting” possibilities. 😉

Transgenesis 1:24 ( New Atheists Bible )

I’m approaching this with a little humor, and not all of it ill-natured, because there is a definite potential benefit from creating transgenic organisms. Even the “sports,” which history tells us will be some of the first commercial applications, have the possibility of bringing people a lot of wonder and joy.

There’s, however, just so very much that could go wrong because scientists often ask, “Can we…” but rarely ask, “Should we…” and we really know very little about the interactions between genes or how transgenic creatures would affect the biosphere as whole.

I’m not even going to go into the nightmares this will cause when, not if, we start doing it with humans. Too many of the scenarios that instantly come to my mind are too deplorable and too plausible.

Obama just doesn’t seem too happy with the job of POTUS. It’s apparently not living up to all the dreams that he had about it. The appalling lack of gadgets and cool toys in the Oval Office seems to be particularly upsetting to Obama.

The president, in an unscripted moment with donors in Chicago, was talking about the need to innovate in technology.

“The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones and stuff,” he said during a small fundraising event at a Chicago restaurant. “I’m like, c’mon guys, I’m the president of the United States. Where’s the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn’t happen.”

The president made his off-the-cuff remarks with donors as he took questions and after reporters had been ushered out of the event. But the question and answer session was piped back to Washington by mistake and into the press briefing area where a few reporters were still working late.

Sorry, Boy; there’s no fancy toys with lots of amusing lights and buzzes to delight yourself with and feed to your ego. There’s just fine furnishings befitting a head of state and whole lot of work to do, much of it thankless but all of it important.

On the other hand, if high tech “bling” is all it takes to keep Obama amused, quiet, and safely occupied in pursuit other than political endeavor, it might well serve the nation well, especially during foul weather when he can’t be sent golfing.

There is seemingly no sphere of human endeavor that the puling Leftists won’t attempt to invade and subvert into a mockery of itself all in the name of what they try to foist off on mankind as “Human Rights” and “Social Justice.”

It was only a matter of time before these Leftist filth made a push to pervert and control the internet in the same manner.

As always, they seek to wield fictional rights as a sword in their broad ranging jihad against individual liberty, capitalism, and any thought that merit should hold any meaning whatsoever.

The current case in point is the filth from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition and their 10 Internet Rights And Principles with my specific rebuttal in-line:

1. Universality and Equality
   All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled in the online environment.

One – people may well be born equal in dignity and rights but their later actions will not result in equal worth or outcome.

Two – neither rights nor privileges must be protected on the net anymore than they me protected in any other venue and, in no case, is fulfillment required to be enforced.

2. Rights and Social Justice
   The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human rights and the advancement of social justice. Everyone has the duty to respect the human rights of all others in the online environment.

The internet is a method for communication, nothing more. Any other idea is phantasmagoria meant to further a non-normative agenda.

3. Accessibility
   Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.

Technically true – everyone has the right to purchase whatever level of access they can afford unless their crimes have resulted in their forfeiture of this right.

4. Expression and Association
   Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on the Internet without censorship or other interference. Everyone also has the right to associate freely through and on the Internet, for social, political, cultural or other purposes.

No; everyone has the right to use their purchased access to seek, receive, and impart legal information without government censorship except when that censorship is for reasons of national security.

Technical limitation required by internet providers are to be expected and no individual, group, corporation, or government is required to provide a forum for such expression and can, within their own systems edit or delete information at will.

5. Privacy and Data Protection
   Everyone has the right to privacy online. This includes freedom from surveillance, the right to use encryption, and the right to online anonymity. Everyone also has the right to data protection, including control over personal data collection, retention, processing, disposal and disclosure.

People have no more right to privacy online than when using any other form of communication. Government can surveil people within the limits set forth by their nations’ laws.

Additionally any entity may require any level or type of personal data as a prerequisite for providing to an individual an online service of any sort.

As for control over the later use of one’s information – that is a good thing and a privilege that should be maintained wherever possible but it’s not a right.

6. Life, Liberty and Security
   The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to infringe other rights, in the online environment.

This one beggars the imagination of any and all rational humans. I can’t even begin to address the gross stupidity of this point in their manifesto.

7. Diversity
   Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate plurality of expression.

If there’s a market for such things they will happen organically, without significant intervention by any governing body. Nor should such ghettoization be actively encouraged.

This idea is counterproductive to the free flow of information, ideas, and knowledge and is nothing but another example of Leftists’ hatred for normative / majority behaviors, ideals, morality, and cultures.

8. Network Equality
   Everyone shall have universal and open access to the Internet’s content, free from discriminatory prioritization, filtering or traffic control on commercial, political or other grounds.

Translation – The productive members of society must pay for the internet access of the worthless eaters and looters; this is ever the generalized goal of “Social Justice.”

9. Standards and Regulation
   The Internet’s architecture, communication systems, and document and data formats shall be based on open standards that ensure complete interoperability, inclusion and equal opportunity for all.

If there’s a market for this it will happen organically, without significant intervention by any governing body. In point of fact, it already has to a large extent.

These puling Leftists real point is the “inclusion and equal opportunity for all;” by which they really mean equal results for all. It is nothing but an attempt to suborn the standards to bring everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominators.

10. Governance
    Human rights and social justice must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive participation and accountability.

The Internet’s normative foundation is as a communication medium, nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing intrinsically to do with human rights or “Social Justice.”

Most of the above are nothing but but Leftist “dog-whistles” for nationalizing – actually “extra-nationalizing” as in the UN – the internet backbone and providing broadband access to everyone and anyone without direct charge – unless, of course, they’re a productive member of society, in which case they would not only have to directly pay for internet access but also indirectly pay for the internet access that would be provided for the useless eaters of the world.

I freely admit that the moment anything starts jabbering about “Social Justice” my first thought is to put few hollow-point rounds in their guts and that I rarely get past that thought.

That is simply because I believe in defending my real rights from their supposedly benevolent tyranny and their goal to steal from me and mine in order to give to those without measurable worth or merit.

And, as is always the case with these vermin, they want some form of monitoring / governing body to police the internet to ensure that nobody except the productive and normative members of society are ever offended by what is said on the internet.

When dealing with these sorts it’s absolutely necessary to remember that their goals never change and their attack vectors rarely do so. It’s always the same thing, incessant attacks upon individual liberties, capitalism, and national sovereignty with the goal being to subjugate humanity to a tyrannical nanny state world quasi-government devoted to enslaving the productive to feed the needs and desires of the worthless dregs at the bottom of society.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉

There’s a fair amount of discussion lately about how the internet has supplanted printed media as a news medium and how this is affecting newspapers across America.

There’s also been discussion about these newspapers moving to “paywall models” for their digital content. Whether or not such schemes will allow any individual newspaper to survive is, I believe, more upon who their target audience is than upon any other factor or or factors.

So who reads which newspapers?

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.
6. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
7. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
8. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
9. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
10. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
11. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could find the time from indoor tanning, teeth whitening, and botox – and if they didn’t have to leave Southern California to do it.
12. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped people-of-color feminist gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy — provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

NOTE: Variants of this list / joke have been circulating since at least 2005 but this version came from Fellowship of the Minds.

So which group, if any, do you think will find paying for a digital subscription to their newspaper to be of value? The movers and shakers,the would-be movers and shakers, the Frustrati, or the prurient masses seeking enjoyment through Schadenfreude?

Personally I think the newspaper, such as it is, with by far the best chance of having a salable digital market is The National Enquirer. It has a large consumer base, none of which want to be seen purchasing it! 😉