According to this story, the parent company of Truth Social is merging with a nuclear fusion company. I'm not going to attempt to claim that I understand this specific merger.
In other news, President Donald Trump has announced that he's created a new type of fusion.
I've been working in IT for almost 30 years. When I started, I had virtually no knowledge about the field; I just knew I wanted to get into the industry because I enjoyed computers, and because it was an up-and-coming sector with virtually limitless possibilities.
I landed my first job at the help desk level with no formal education or training. Fortunately, I had excellent troubleshooting skills and brought a relaxed, casual style of interaction with my end users. It took virtually no time for me to master the workstation and my desire to learn and grow took me to server management. Since then, I have designed and managed several networks, served as an IT manager, worked in the IT security sector, and built compliance processes for multiple companies. By any measure, I have a wide array of expertise.
With this in mind, it would be easy to assume that I consider myself an expert. I know for certain that a lot of my colleagues, past and present, recognize my skill set. I don't consider myself an expert though. I have a reasonably deep understanding of a few areas, and a broad knowledge of the industry as a whole. This comes from working for small companies. Small businesses require a can-do mentality because they don't have the resources to continually hire people who are experts in one small area.
One of IT's dirty little secrets is that Imposter Syndrome is very common. I believe this is because when we say "I work in IT," the public believes this automatically means we know all things digital. Whether it's using programming skills to write the next big program, building a hot rod gaming rig, or figuring out why the iPhone isn't connecting to the home WiFi network, people assume we know it all. That's not the case.
IT is very much like the medical profession. Your primary physician sees you for check-ups. A surgeon works on your insides, but only to an extent. There's further specialize for brain surgery, heart surgery or severely damaged broken bones. The anesthesiologist knows how much sedative you'll need for surgery, but doesn't have the specialized training to perform a bowel resection.
IT also has a pecking order. Help Desk is at the bottom. Server and network administrators are one rung up. At the top, you have architects who design complex networks. Security is its own world. Programming is yet another realm. They both have multiple possible specialties. In short it's impossible to know everything. If you do, then you know everything about one tiny, specific aspect of IT. This, of course, is prime breeding ground for Imposter Syndrome. No matter what, you will find someone who carries knowledge you don't possess, and when they pull out jargon you've never heard, you feel like a kindergarten kid in a college physics class. It becomes easy to second-guess your skill and feel like you understand less than you should. The trick is not getting over it, it's learning to live with it.
At this point in my life, I've developed a pretty consistent routine for my day. I get up around 6:00 AM, head to the gym, come home, shower, have some coffee and maybe a bit of breakfast, and I check my email, touch in on social media, and read the news while I drink my coffee and eat my sometimes-breakfast.
Every... stinking... day... that I do this, I find something that pulls me from the peace and reverie of my morning. Whether it's the latest stupidity of our elected officials, a story about a mass murder half a country away, or an unhinged rant from someone on social media, I always manage to find something that raises my blood pressure. This, of course, is the electronic media companies doing exactly what they're supposed to do... find a sensationalistic story or tidbit that will engage and entice me for the maximum possible period of time, so they can present me with "personalized and relevant" advertisements. It's not about keeping me informed, and it's not about building relationships. It's about getting me to spend money.
I'd like to clarify that I consciously realize what's going on, and I've gotten pretty good at recognizing click bait. I avoid stories with headlines about Entity A "destroying" or "owning" Opponent B. I steer away from articles that start with "People do this [or these X things] to achieve (insert objective here.) I scroll on past the latest rant of the day from my friends on social media. But it's not enough.
Generally, I try to read the news so that I am an informed citizen. I was raised to believe that it's my civic duty to know what's going on in the world around me. I delivered newspapers as a boy, and when I got home, I'd read that very same paper while I ate my morning cereal before going off to school. When I was in the military, I subscribed to Time and Newsweek magazines so that I could understand why I was deployed to remote locations throughout the world. I watched the evening news so I could hold my elected officials accountable when I cast my vote in elections. I talked about events and ideas with friends and family. Over time, my method of ingesting information evolved from print to electronic media, but the underlying rationale generally remained the same... that core belief that awareness is my duty. I've also come to realize that this duty at its root brings me zero peace and happiness.
If you take a look at my past posts, you will notice that I tend to write about two things: politics, and my personal life. I suspect you'll also notice that when I talk about the goings-on in the world at large, it tends to be criticizing or critiquing things I disagree with, whereas my personal stories come from a place of gratefulness and peace. For the majority of my life, I couldn't understand how someone could choose to ignore the world around us. After all, we live in a dumpster fire. How can we tackle the latest COW (Crisis Of the Week) if we don't even know about it?!? Heck, I even ran for the state legislature because I desired to be the change I sought.
At the end of the day though, nothing changed, except my frustration level. A few years back, I went on a week-long vacation and because I was off grid, I had no access to the outside world. It was just me, those around me, and the events of the day... exploring the wilderness, and meeting my immediate needs of food, water and shelter. When I got back from vacation, I fell into my old pattern of catching up on the news of the day; and I consciously noticed how much it riled me up. I instantly wanted to drop out of society and live a simple life.
Since that time, I've slowly modified my behavior and reached the internal compromise that I alluded to earlier in my post. I still read the news, and I still cruise social media, but I avoid click bait articles and I ignore rage posts on social media. I'm still a bit agitated, as even recent posts can attest, but my blood no longer boils. I still hope for a better world, but acknowledge that my ability to bring about that change is quite minimal. I've come to understand the profound wisdom of a simple life, and am consciously working toward it.
It looks like Sunny and I have created a game of ping pong posts over the theme of Christmas. Today's post is just a ramble of random Christmas memories and traditions, listed in no particular order.
Sunny mentioned the 3 gift rule. This is honestly the first time I've heard of it. It certainly would have made life a lot simpler when I was a young parent.
I never had stockings as a kid. That tradition showed up when I got married.
As a kid, I always wanted a tree with long needles, but my mom hated them because the vacuum wouldn't pick up the long needles. That was a change I made while I still used real trees.
I always had a ton of string tinsel on the tree as a kid. That's another tradition that changed when I became an adult, because the tinsel kept getting caught in the beater bar of the vacuum. It seems that the vacuum had an outsized impact on my Christmas traditions. At least I never bought one as a Christmas gift. :)
I definitely agree that Christmas should be about the memories. As a kid, we always drove around town at least once to look at Christmas lights. That's a tradition I carried on and I think my kids still do it with my grandkids. Also, as a kid we were allowed to open one gift on Christmas Eve. That's another tradition I carried on as a young dad.
I do have a couple of Christmas gift memories from my childhood that I'd like to share. My mom used to let us shake the boxes. One year in particular, she got my brothers and me ice skates. I shook the box, and part of the blade shot through the side and I figured out what it was. I then realized that my brothers each had a box that was about the same size and I pointed this out to them, spoiling part of the surprise. My mom was p1$$3d at me for that one! Another year, my brothers and I received sleeping bags. We slept in the living room for a week afterwards. Which brings up another story...
There was a year where I was a single dad. 1.0 had left and I hadn't yet met 2.0. I decided to get my younger daughter her first bicycle as a Christmas gift. I made the mistake of telling my older girl about the gift, at which point she got really upset because she wasn't getting a "big gift." To calm her down, I promised that I'd get her something big. I searched... and searched... and searched... for the right thing, spending hours racking my brain and browsing dozens of stores, looking for the right gift. It had to be big, but it also had to be inexpensive because money was really tight that year. I finally thought I had figured it out. When I spied the sleeping bag, I remembered how much I loved getting one as a kid, and how much joy and practical use it gave me for many years to come. Yeah, that was a mistake. She hated it, and I still hear about it at least once a year, even though she did come to appreciate it when she had big sleepovers with her friends in following years. I'm glad we can all laugh about it now, and I'm glad she knows I really tried.
My favorite tradition is getting Christmas ornaments for the wife, kids, sons-in-law, and grandkids. This tradition actually started while I was married to 1.0. One year the cat knocked over the Christmas tree, breaking dozens of expensive, hand-blown Christmas ornaments. 1.0 was wildly upset, so I bought her an ornament. She loved it, and that's where the tradition was born. The tradition continued after we split up, because she took most of the ornaments with her when we split up, so I had to rebuild. That first year, I bought a bunch of unpainted ceramic ornaments and painted them with the kids. I also bought a glass snowman ornament with a girl on each side of the snowman, representing my girls and me. The kids loved that, cementing a tradition that's continued for decades. This allowed me to send ornaments with my kids when they left the nest, and I've hit a point where I have more ornaments than tree space, so I have to rotate every year, though "rotate" is too formal of a term. We just open a random box and start there, and we quit when we feel the tree looks full.
I call myself a minimalist because I don't deck out my entire house, I don't blow a ton of cash on gifts, and I don't host a huge Christmas gathering. I'd like to clarify though that shedding the excess allows me to focus more on the aspects I enjoy. I love my tree and the memories that come with each ornament. I love getting new tree baubles for my family. I very much enjoy sitting on the love seat with 2.2, watching Christmas movies one or two at a time between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I look forward to spending Christmas with my younger daughter, and her new family, which includes a large family on my son-in-law's side. It's wonderful that I've hit the point where I can primarily kick back and enjoy. For those of you who go all out, I'm not judging. You do what makes you happy. I fully support it!
Today's post is inspired by Sunny, who wrote a couple of posts about Christmas. Based on my readings, Sunny is one of those folks who looks forward to Christmas all year long and goes all out for the holiday. That's not how I operate.
When I was a kid, I remember getting a live tree every year, decorating the tree, and having a lot of Christmas cookies. My brothers and I spent a ton of time looking through the Sears catalog (remember those?!?!) and building a Christmas list. The tree was brimming with presents. We spent at least one evening driving around town looking at Christmas lights while drinking hot cocoa in the car, singing Christmas carols during the drive. On Christmas day, my dad, my brothers and I would go pheasant hunting while mom made dinner. (As an adult, I learned this was done to get us out of the house so mom could cook in peace.) As you can see, Christmas as a kid was all about receiving.
When I was in the military, I went home for Christmas a couple of times, but for the most part, Christmas wasn't a big deal. Immediately after I left the military, everything was flipped on its head. I was newly married and we'd just had our first daughter. Wife 1.0 was all about gifts and appearances. As a young father, I disliked going to the lot to find the right tree, because it was expensive, 1.0 was incredibly picky (wanting a Cadillac tree on a bicycle budget), and worst of all it was cold! It seemed to me like we spent every day from Black Friday to Christmas Eve buying stuff and setting stuff up, only to tear it down on New Year's Day. The kids wanted a ton of stuff but it was mostly untouched by end of January. 1.0 was horribly difficult to shop for, and she was never satisfied with what I bought. Add financial stress to the mix, and you can certainly understand that Christmas stressed me out. And did I mention the cold?!?
Things eased up a little bit when 1.0 and I parted ways. I no longer had to worry about meeting her standards. But I did have to start shopping for my two girls. That was also hit or miss. I didn't have to put up as many decorations, but what I did, I did solo. Dinner was also all... on... me. And did I mention the cold?!?
Things have gotten better since those days. Wife 2.2 (she's the second wife, hence 2.x, and she's got a new knee + new lenses in her eyes to fix cataracts, making her wife 2.2) made things a lot easier. She's much more low-key. She took over shopping for the girls, and quite frankly she's better at it than I am. She's content to spend one day putting up decorations, she's far easier to shop for, and we work together for Christmas dinner. Somewhere along the line, we got a good artificial tree. I miss the smell of a real tree, but it's so much faster and easier! The fake tree has lights built in, so it's up in about 10 minutes and fully decorated in less than an hour. The ornament collection is wildly eclectic, with each ornament telling a story. It's still cold outside, but over the years I've managed to acquire high-quality cold weather attire, so I don't mind as much.
As a young adult, I spent a lot of time and energy working to satisfy a woman who couldn't be satisfied, and trying to please fickle children. As the one who handled the budget, Christmas stressed the living Sh!+ out of me. The result was that I downright resented Christmas and only focused on the commercialism. When I remarried, I gained a partner who helped me carry the load. When the kids moved out, expectations dropped further, which allowed me to start seeing Christmas through fresh eyes. I fully embrace the fact that I'm a Christmas minimalist.
According to this article, POTUS has signed an executive order creating a task force that will look into "potential risks from price fixing and anti-competitive behavior."
An unnamed source reported that "we don't plan to change any of this price fixing or monopolistic behavior. We are only studying it so we know the risks when we fix prices, and so that we can continue to reward hard-working CEOs with maximum profit and minimum accountability."
In completely unrelated news, the CEOs of Tyson Foods, Cargill, Hormel and several other food companies are rumored to be preparing documents seeking pardons. An anonymous source has quoted multiple CEOs as saying "it's early in the negotiations, but we could see the government or Trump personally being awarded a few golden shares of our company." One mentioned free chicken nuggets for life. "It's a small price to pay," the CEO was reported to say. After all, he's in is late 70's and he lives on junk food. How much longer can he have?"
Shortly before Thanksgiving, transportation secretary Sean Duffy encouraged airline passengers to "dress with respect" during air travel. From my perspective, this was a tone deaf recommendation, designed around the concept that if one is "properly dressed" they will behave in a manner consistent with their attire. The ostensible goal was to bring back the golden age of travel, and to reduce the frequency of bad behavior by travelers.
Americans gave the most American response possible, with one subset of people maliciously complying by wearing prom and bridesmaid dresses, and another subset flat-out rejecting the call and showing up in pajamas.
My take? I find it shocking! Shocking, I say, that Americans would so quickly dismiss the sage guidance of our Executive Branch's personnel.
I'd like to provide a quick update on my post-accident injury recovery. As a quick reminder, I was in a car accident just under a month ago. My car was rear-ended and then hit broadside. While I walked away from the accident, I was diagnosed with a mild concussion and experienced some internal bruising in the chest.
The concussion left me feeling stupid and foggy, and I had periodic headaches for a couple of weeks. That seems to have fully worked itself out. I went to the gym this morning and was able to successfully complete my full strength training routine, though I will admit that I had to work up to my normal weight on bench press and lat pull-downs. I also did fewer reps of each exercise because I've been out of the gym for almost a month. What matters though is that full recovery is in sight. I plan to run tomorrow. My usual run is three miles in just under 30 minutes, but it's the first time I'll be running post-accident, so I'm going in with no expectations. If I don't hit my normal time, okay. If my still-stiff ribs can't keep up with the aerobic requirements, and I don't make three miles, okay. But I'm cautiously optimistic.
As I share the news on my healing, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge what's made this possible:
-Time. You're a cruel mistress who always insists that I do things at your pace, but I love you nonetheless.
-NSAIDS. I'm specifically referring to Ibuprofen and Naproxen Sodium. You guys frequently don't get enough love and recognition, especially when compared to the cool drugs like Oxycodone. But Oxy is fleeting and needy. You two are low key and always available. I love you.
-Hot Yoga. When I was unable to challenge myself like a stereotypical manly-man, you were there for me. I've spent the last year dabbling with you in order to increase balance and flexibility, but you were the one exercise that met me where I was. You were there when I needed you most.
-My wife. She's freaking awesome! She encourages rest and recovery, without letting me be a b1+ch-@$$ helpless husband.
We had our first snowfall of the year this weekend, and it was a doozie! When I measured the snowfall, we had received 10 inches of the white fluffy stuff, and it hadn't yet stopped snowing. It was that heavy, wet stuff too, and I am still recovering from the car accident I had earlier this month. Fortunately, a neighbor kid offered to help (for pay, of course) and I happily hired his services.
While the storm was rolling in, my older daughter called and asked if she and her hubby could crash at Evan Manor. A cousin of my son-in-law passed away from Leukemia, and they're coming into town for the funeral. Duh! Of course they can stay here! Their trip was kind of like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, without all of the wild mishaps. They left on short notice. The first leg of the flight was okay, but their connecting flight here kept having delays. My son-in-law understandably wanted to get here, so they rented a car and drove the last four hours. I'd like to reiterate that the weather sucked! I've driven long distance in crappy weather, and it's no fun, so kudos to them for making that decision.
Once they got here, my younger daughter, who lives in town, came over to have some family time. It was my bride, both of my girls, my son-in-law, and me, and it was great! The girls stayed up late watching movies and TV shows they watched as kids. Son-in-law, wifey, and I stayed up a touch late, but didn't pull an all-nighter. As I drifted off to sleep, I heard the TV and my girls in the background, and I had one of those perfect moments of love, peace and happiness. I know they're here for a lousy reason, but regardless, I'm glad they're here. I'm happy they chose to crash here instead of at a hotel. I'm ecstatic that my girls have such a wonderful relationship. I'm truly blessed.
I saw this article about West Virginia Senator Jim Justice agreeing to pay $5.2 million in overdue taxes. Based on my recent articles, you would logically think that I'm going to rage against the fact that this elected official managed to accrue over $5 million in overdue taxes. After all, it's ridiculous that an elected official could unintentionally accrue this kind of debt. It's quite apparent to me that we have another corrupt politician on our hands. There's no reasonable excuse for this behavior, yet somehow, once it comes to light, his only penalty is apparently to pay what he already owes. How's that for privilege of the elite? And to make matters worse, I'll bet the constituents of West Virginia re-elect this guy... not because I believe that WV is stupid, but because I believe that we as constituents are collectively stupid. Oh, but wait. I'm totally digressing...
What I really meant to say is that when I read this article, I thought the guy looks like the illegitimate brother of Lindsey Graham. And that's my only official comment about this article.
A few days ago, several lawmakers got together to urge troops to disobey unlawful orders. In typical fashion, POTUS said that people who told the military to defy illegal orders committed sedition at the highest level. This is factually incorrect, unless POTUS intends to issue illegal orders; and even then, it's a dubious claim.
The general definition of sedition is the act of inciting people to rebel against the government. By this definition, it could reasonably be argued that our current Commanded in Chief engaged in seditious behavior, because his words had the net impact of inciting Americans to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Sorry, I'm digressing... back to my point.
It is NOT seditious behavior to tell people to obey the law, or more accurately to remind military personnel that they have the right -- nay, the DUTY -- to disobey orders if they are against the law. In fact, sedition requires that the instigators cause rebellion against the government. This would imply the government as a whole. The president is not the entire government.
Furthermore, the Geneva Convention, American Law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (AKA military law) all state, very clearly, that military personnel are required to follow lawful orders. In fact, we have a long-established history of refusing to acknowledge the "I was just following orders" defense if those orders were unlawful. So, Mr. President, when you say sedition, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I've got to admit that I was almost ready to throw in the towel on Artificial Intelligence. With all of the false information and hallucinations, I was prepared to give up. I'd like to clarify that I had zero intention of selling my stocks though... the fact that I was going to stop using it didn't mean I should stop investing in stocks that keep appreciating. But I'm digressing... sorry... squirrel!! Back to the matter at hand...
Anyway, as I said a second ago, I was just about to give up on AI entirely, because AI is an unreliable source of truth. Imagine my pleasant surprise when I found out that Grok is perfect. I assume this is because its creator, Elon Musk, is also perfect. Take a look at this article and see yourself. Yep, I'm now All in on AI!
In a recent post post, I mentioned that the the legislation that ended the government shutdown included a rider that would make it illegal in most cases to obtain a senator's phone data without disclosure, and violation would allow impacted senators to sue the Justice Department for $500,000 per violation, plus attorney fees and costs. Furthermore, the legislation was retroactive, providing several senators with the legal ability to sue the DoJ for previous action related to the January 6 capitol riot.
Today the House of Representatives unanimously approved a separate piece of legislation that stripped that rider, and it was subsequently sent to the Senate where, lo and behold, Lindsay Graham, one of the senators who would stand to personally benefit from this legislation, single-handedly stopped the bill in the Senate.
My summary is a gross over-simplification of the issue, but it's once again good to know that our elected representatives have only our best interest at heart.
A recent news article is reporting the US President purchased corporate and municipal bonds in sectors that benefited from his policies.
I'd like to remind you, dear reader, that POTUS spent a LOT of time bashing on his predecessors and others in Washington for engaging in this exact behavior.
I don't usually agree with Tucker Carlson. I also am relatively unfamiliar with Zohran Mamdani, other than knowing he's the mayor-elect of New York City, he ran on a Democratic Socialist platform, and he's been accused of antisemitism. Specifically note that I have not researched the antisemitic claims.
I will say though, that I was surprised and a little impressed when I read an article about Tucker Carlson saying that Mamdani is not antisemitic. Carlson has a reputation for being rabidly conservative, and playing fast and loose with facts. I found it refreshing to see him willing to defend the character of a political foe.
Reports are coming out that the latest government shutdown is coming to an end.
According to this article from Reuters, the legislation that would end the shutdown also contains a provision that will allow eight senators to seek up to $500,000 (each) from the Department of Justice for privacy rights violations from the investigation into the January 6 Capitol riot.
Per the news piece, "[t]he legislation retroactively makes it illegal in most cases to obtain a senator's phone data without disclosure, and allows those whose records were obtained to sue the Justice Department for $500,000 per violation, along with attorneys' fees and costs."
From where I sit, this runs afoul of the ex post facto law, which basically says it's unconstitutional to retroactively punish an action that was legal when permitted. To me, this screams money grab on the part of these eight Senators.
Senator Marsha Blackburn was quoted as saying "We will not rest until justice is served and those who were involved in this weaponization of government are held accountable."
The senators in question are Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson and Cynthia Lummis.
In a twist that will surprise nobody, all eight senators voted to pass the bill. It's good to know they ONLY have our best interests at heart.
I'm sure you heard the absolutely wild story about the guy in Washintgon D.C. being arrested and criminally charged for assault after throwing a sandwich at an ICE officer. Reports have indicated the sandwich slinger was found not guilty.
This was an absolute waste. It was a waste of time and energy arresting the guy in the first place. It was a sandwich for God's sake! Then, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro tried diligently to get a grand jury to indict Sandwich Sean on a felony assault charge, wasting the time of everyone who sat on the grand jury. After that attempt failed, she pushed the issue with a misdemeanor charge that eventually went to trial. Again, a colossal waste of taxpayer time and money. It was an absolute abuse of power!
But the biggest waste of all? The sandwich! What a horrible use of a perfectly good meal!
In a chaotic world that sensationalizes tribalism, I'd like to take a moment to point out that the Berlin Wall came down 36 years ago today. This was the beginning of the end of the standoff between the US the Soviet Union.
I distinctly remember when this happened. There was a worldwide celebration, and a feeling of change in the air. Peace was within our grasp. Unfortunately, that sentiment did not fully take root, and our planet is in much the same place as it was then.
But for one brief minute...
I got rear ended last night. I was driving in the left lane of a 4 lane highway with a concrete dividers. As I was driving, I saw congestion ahead in both lanes, and a police vehicle on the shoulder at the intersection ahead. I took my foot off the accelerator so that I could smoothly and safely slow to a stop at the congestion point. I believe I was close to or at a complete stop, but I'm not 100% positive.
Suddenly point, my vehicle was struck from the rear by the driver behind me. She collided with the right rear of my car, spinning me to the left and into the concrete divider. At this point her vehicle collided with mine a second time, in the front left quarter panel.
I distinctly remember the instant of the collision, experiencing a split second of disorientation as I wondered what just happened, and instantly realizing Oh shit, I've been rear-ended. This realization hit me as my car hit the center divider -- I was looking directly at the concrete divider. It then registered that I had been hit a second time (broadside) while still I was going sideways down the highway, and in a detached manner, I thought something like Oh shit, I've been hit a second time, broadside. I wonder how this is all going to play out.
Shortly after coming to a stop, I felt pain in my ribs on the right side, about in the middle. The pain was caused no doubt by the seat belt. I also noticed a puffy feeling in my left cheek. I touched both locations and concluded there were no serious injuries. In the back of my dazed little brain housing group, I kind of wondered if the Nissan logo from the steering wheel was imprinted on my cheek. I then realized that my air bag hadn't deployed, ostensibly because of the angles at which the collisions occurred.
I distinctly recall thinking about how well the safety aspects of the car performed... I was rear ended, but had no neck pain at all, because of the headrest design. (I'd previously disliked it when the new headrest design was released, because I couldn't effectively use it as a headrest anymore, but when I'd heard it was about preventing whiplash, I begrudgingly accepted the design change. After the accident, I thought "that was pretty cool.") I looked around and the cabin was fully intact. The seatbelt held me in place. If the airbag had deployed, wouldn't have hit the steering wheel, and I wouldn't have this bruise on my cheek accompanied by a black eye, but geez... in the grand scheme of things, that's insignificant.
After the collision, when the police arrived, I saw that the young woman who had hit me was quite rattled. I asked her if this was her first accident. She said it wasn't her first accident, but was the first time where it was her fault, and she apologized repeatedly and profusely. I told her that it was okay. We're both alive and we walked away from the collision, so no worries. I had a a choice between being a dick and being kind, which was no choice at all. Kindness is always the best way forward.
The cops were good too. They saw that the young woman was rattled and operated in a professional yet compassionate manner to calm her down. At the end of the event, one of the cops handed me the driver information sheet and started saying that this contains personal information. When he said that, I replied that I'm an IT Security guy and that I really appreciate him saying this. He followed up by saying that the sheet had the necessary insurance information, so there was no need to contact the other driver directly. As a girl dad, I appreciated that he said this in order to protect the young lady driver.
It was a crappy situation, but everyone involved performed as their best selves. Even though I went in feeling like a pinball, I came out feeling the overall good of humanity. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go stretch my neck.
I've spent a lot of time and energy bashing on the current administration. I'd like to take a moment to divert your attention to a recent announcement that Nancy Pelosi is not running for re-election. Good! While I respect the fact that Pelosi broke the glass ceiling and became the first female Speaker of the House, she's also a partisan shill. She is one I've raged against previously, because she puts party over people. She's long since passed her expiration date, and held onto power just for the sake of power. Now, if only we could get all of the other old guard politicians to stand down... (But I'm not holding my breath.)
I'd like to take a little time to talk about how the current administration has handled export restrictions. To ensure we're on the same page, let's start by explaining what they are, and why they exist. In a nutshell, some technologies and products have government-imposed export limits. These controls are generally imposed to achieve national security, foreign policy or economic objectives. Export restrictions are not universally bad based on this rationale.
Earlier this year, the current administration prohibited Nvidia and AMD from exporting chips to China, with the stated reason being that China doesn't play fair. China has a long history of reverse-engineering cutting-edge American technology, and then selling essentially the same product at a far lower cost. This is achievable due to China's centralized control of the economy. (AKA communism.) In other words, the administration's allegation is reasonable.
When the restrictions were announced, AMD and Nvidia were justifiably concerned. China has historically been a lucrative market for their technology, and there was a strong possibility that the companies would take a huge profitability hit. It certainly made sense that they'd ask the Oval Office to reconsider.
In relatively short order, agreements were made that allowed Chinese exports to resume. But there was a twist. Nvidia and AMD agreed to give 15% of profits from Chinese sales to the American government.
Historically, the government has rarely held a stake in private businesses, such as during wars, or when the government bailed out stressed businesses deemed too big to fail. The government relinquished control once the crisis has passed.
What's troubling in this case is that Nvidia and AMD are giving up a portion of their profits in exchange for being able to resume certain exports to China. This certainly gives the appearance that money is more important than national security. In other words, it looks like pay to play. This, of course, is counter to the premise of capitalism, where businesses succeed or fail on their own merits, and it brings up the specter of future conflicts of interest. It's quite possible that future legislation grants these businesses an unfair advantage over real or potential competition. (As I say this, I freely acknowledge this is nothing more than slippery slope speculation on my part.)
It's certainly interesting to see an administration that decries anything remotely socialist, taking action that could certainly be interpreted as a step toward a command economy.
There's a problem with our society that few people seem to discuss... large corporations. While they can occasionally serve a purpose, I believe that, for the most part, they are a drag on our society. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to fix this problem because of how much leverage they have on our economy and with the federal government.
Let me start by acknowledging what they do well. By virtue of their size, large businesses are far better suited to undertake large research and development endeavors, because they have access to large amounts of human talent, labor and capital. Furthermore, if an initiative fails to pan out, larger corporations are better suited to absorb the loss. Larger companies are also able to operate more efficiently than smaller companies due to the economy of scale, because companies can spread fixed costs over a larger number of goods and services, and because they can take advantage of bulk discounts in purchasing.
The downsides of large corporations are myriad, but all boil down to one thing -- a lack of accountability. If you go back to the days before the industrial revolution, businesses were small, and integral to their community. Business owners had an incentive to produce quality goods, and to behave in an ethical manner because they directly interacted with their customers. Seeing people face to face, and living in the same area as your clientele tends to keep honest people honest. The consequence of dishonesty served as a strong deterrent back then, because being a crook could get you run out of town. A similar relationship existed between employer and employee, for the same reason. If the townsfolk found out that a business owner treated employees poorly, word spread quickly.
The industrial revolution changed all that. In today's modern society, large business executives very rarely interact with their customers, and only with the upper echelon employees. As a result, it's easier for top-level company executives to anonymize and dehumanize their customers and employees. Human nature has demonstrated that it's easier to screw someone you never see. To clarify, this screwing can take many forms, such as price gouging, poor quality products, toxic waste, and inhumane treatment of labor.
The funny thing is that America had learned this lesson, but we seem to have forgotten it. The government created anti-trust and labor laws during and shortly after the industrial revolution specifically to address this problem. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the experience, because starting in the 1970s or so, we stopped enforcing these laws in the name of increased profits and efficiency. I'd love to think that the pendulum will eventually swing away from consolidation, but I'm not going to hold my breath. As I said at the outset, I understand that large corporations can serve a purpose. But I believe that we've taken it too far by allowing companies to grow just for the sake of larger profits, where society in general gets nothing in return.
As requested by a reader, I'm going to briefly discuss why the government is shut down, and add my own observations.
The STATED reason the government is shut down is that Democrats oppose cuts to Obamacare and Medicaid. Republicans claim that illegal aliens use these programs to receive free healthcare on the taxpayer's dime, though I have been unable to locate a single credible instance that corroborates this allegation.
I will say that federal law requires hospitals with emergency departments to provide essential medical care to all patients, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. (This is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, also known as EMTALA.) In certain circumstances, hospitals could receive reimbursement through Emergency Medicaid for the costs of care provided to people who would be eligible for Medicaid if they weren't illegal immigrants.
From my perspective, the policy above is reasonable, because it's unfair to require a business to provide a service to any and all, without any expectation of reimbursement. Furthermore, in true emergency, seconds can mean the difference between life and death. Let me clarify: On one hand, the hospital takes the time to determine the immigration status of an ER patient before rendering life-saving aid. That additional time will inevitably cost the lives of Americans. On the other hand, the hospital provides life-sustaining assistance to everyone, yet the government will only reimburse the cost for Americans. This choice puts the hospitals in a no-win situation. I agree that Emergency Medicaid is the least offensive way out. While it is theoretically true that illegal immigrants receive some amount medical aid on the taxpayers' dime, I suspect the rate is relatively low, and it's certainly less offensive than letting low-income Americans fall through the cracks.
If I were forced to pick a side in this dispute, I would stand with the Democrats, because I generally believe that human life is worth more than money. (That's a very simplistic statement worthy of a separate post discussing the cost of healthcare, but it's adequate for my point in this article.) I would choose to stand with the Democrats here because the Republicans have had over ten years to refine Obamacare and Medicaid, and they have produced no realistic plan, other than to say 'Obamacare Bad' and attempt to repeal it. Realistically though, both parties suck! They've had over a decade to behave like adults, but consistently choose to act like spoiled little children. And THAT -- their entitled, selfish, uncompromising action -- is the reason the government is shut down. And as I said in an earlier post, that behavior is a reflection the American public. WE collectively elect partisan shills who place party over people. In other words, it's OUR fault the government is shut down, because we keep electing representatives who refuse to compromise.
I've recently seen a meme running around conservative circles on Facebook, saying something along the lines of 'This is why the government shouldn't provide food aid. The government that provides food can also take it away.' The statement is ostensibly referring to how SNAP benefits are in danger of being interrupted due to the government shutdown. I submit for your consideration that the logic in this statement is flawed.
While the statement is technically factual, it overlooks a couple of facts, which I will quickly point out...
-The government isn't exactly taking away food aid. It's more accurate to say there's a lapse in aid during the shutdown. To use a crappy analogy, it's kind of like having two angry parents in a heated argument, meanwhile the kids are in the living room, really hungry and waiting for dinner. It's not like the parents plan to stop feeding the kids permanently, they're just being stupid and focusing on their petty argument.
-The logic of the original post implies that it's less offensive for the government to let people starve than it is to provide sustenance for the hungry, because later on the government could take it away sometime down the line. I don't know about you, but if I'm hungry, truly hungry, I don't care where the food comes from. Whoever came up with this concept has quite obviously never had to worry about missing a meal.
-As an extension of the same logic, maybe I should stop my charitable giving, because that puts me in a position of power where I could stop giving. Oh wait, that's circular logic.
I'd like to dedicate today's post to a discussion about why I'm once again writing my blog. Before I do that though, I'd like to go back to the beginning, and talk about why I started in the first place. If you look, you'll see that my blog goes back to 2005, which means I started over 20 years ago.
When I started, blogging was a reasonably established way to publicly write, and to directly engage with readers. MySpace was the big social media platform of the day, and Facebook was in its infancy. I originally envisioned this space as a pseudo-diary, where I could share my thoughts and interact with like-minded, intellectually curious and socially aware individuals. I secretly held the delusion that my ideas, thoughts and words were somehow enough... that my words were uniquely profound, and if I were to publicly share them, I would magically rise to my deserved level of notoriety. This statement is, of course, a bit of hyperbole, but it's not completely inaccurate if I'm honest with myself.
Time passed, and reality settled in as it always does. I didn't become famous. However, I found a small but relatively tight-knit group of fellow bloggers, and we fed off of one another. Some of us had never met in the real world, but I knew enough about them that I cared about their well-being, and I believe they cared about me. I continued writing because I enjoyed the creative process. I started a personal journal in 1995, and moving to a blog seemed like a natural progression. It allowed me to share my intimate thoughts and feelings with a select few people. I still kept the journal, and I still write in my journal to this day, but my original scope and aspirations changed based on the reality of life.
Then came Facebook. I skipped out on MySpace because that platform was really geared toward teeny-boppers. Facebook was a different animal, because it wasn't about flashy backgrounds, ugly fonts, and over-the-top attention-seeking. It was about social contact. I found myself posting on Facebook because I had a group of individuals who seemed to care about me, and I cared about them. This blog was not abandoned, but my posts certainly cratered.
Of course, we all know what happened with Facebook. It's now turned into a toxic cesspool, an ugly reflection of our society at large. There's no room for nuance, and there's no room for discussion. One person makes their point with a pithy meme, and people love or hate it, and those of us in the middle are excoriated by people on both sides. Most of the anger and vitriol are due to political tribalism. Democrats think I'm a Nazi, and Republicans think I'm a hippie. I haven't deleted my Facebook account primarily because I have a select few people I really enjoy interacting with. By and large though, I spend a few minutes a day there, and that's it. I can't tolerate more.
That brings me to today. This blog allows me to say things I feel that need to be said publicly, while allowing me a low level of readership, the space to discuss nuances, and the anonymity to share my thoughts without the vitriol of modern social media.
You will notice that my recent posts are highly political. You will likely notice as well that they're not in support of the current administration. I will freely admit that I do not support the Trump administration. He behaves like a spoiled rich kid. He claims that he's smarter than he is. He lies more than he speaks truth. He bullies those who don't fall in line with his topic of the day, while simultaneously being unable to tolerate truth to power. I can't just sit in silence. I have to speak.
As I say this, please understand that I also believe that his political opposition is just as bad. I'm back because I am angry at the system as it exists today, and I cannot remain silent. However, I don't have the stomach for those who are unable to consider positions outside of their insulated echo chambers. I need to speak, even though my words will likely be unobserved by the world at large. I stand like a man alone in the desert. I know I will not be heard, yet I cannot remain silent. I find it objectionable to be shut down by the partisan masses. I would rather speak where none hear my cries than to be stoned by partisan idiots. This is my soap box in the wilderness.
I hope and expect that one day I can get back to sharing mundane thoughts. I also anticipate that I will share those thoughts here, because social media has failed as a forum for advancing human connectivity. But for now, I'm going to focus on political stuff, because it's the one place where I can do so without being excoriated by everyone around me.
The last few years have been a wild ride when it comes to politics and science. I believe that COVID is what really caused things to go sideways. Before COVID, the public generally trusted the scientific method (notwithstanding the conspiracy theorists.) COVID brought about a clash between politics and science, primarily because our personal autonomy was infringed upon as a result of quarantine requirements and vaccine mandates.
Let me start by reminding readers that the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) were created to keep Americans safe from diseases, and from snake oil salesmen. The FDA came into being to combat unsafe food and medical products. The CDC came into being to combat infectious outbreaks. Since their creation, these entities have served as gatekeepers, ensuring safe food and medicine, and acting as a command and control center for disease outbreaks that could cause widespread loss of life.
COVID threw the system into chaos because of fear, uncertainty and doubt, all of which resulted from the unknown. We were scared of widespread death, and we were told to isolate ourselves. From a scientific perspective, this makes perfect sense! Isolation is the single best method for containing contagion. From there, the world started collectively working on a cure, though "remediation" is likely a more appropriate term.
The problem is that humans are social, short-sighted, and stupid. We had too much time on our hands and access to too much incomplete information. We forgot that the CDC's primary mission is to keep us safe. They recommended isolation because they knew it would work. They knew that COVID was lethal, but otherwise had precious little information. Furthermore, scientists are a conservative bunch, and they want indisputable facts before reaching a conclusion and recommending a course of action. One of the great things about scientists though, is that they are willing to revise their position based on additional information. Unfortunately, that information came too slowly for the comfort of the spoiled, entitled American public. It's also unfortunate that we realize in retrospect that we were unnecessarily cautious.
But it was too late. The public rebelled. We wanted to go out and play. We wanted to socialize. And we didn't want to inject an unknown magic cocktail into our bodies. Sigh. And, of course, the politicians and media had a field day! A single swan song event undermined America's trust in science.
As a result, the current administration has installed a conspiracy theorist as the head of Health and Human Services. He's saying that Tylenol causes autism, after he said that vaccines cause autism. He claims that wireless technology causes cancer. He claims that fluoride causes diseases. He claims that mass shootings are linked to prescription drugs. He claims that seed oils are inherently unhealthy. There has been study after study after study on all of this, and every... single... claim... has been debunked by science. RFK is not a scientist. He is an attorney. Taking his word with zero skepticism is no different than listening to your doctor over your mechanic about a car problem.
At the end of the day, we, the American people, somehow lost our collective way and started listening to politicians over scientists in this arena. And we're doing this with the full understanding that politicians lie to further their self interests. Politicians will do anything to get re-elected. Meanwhile, scientists are pursuing a lifelong passion. I encourage you to ask yourself who you should believe, and I exhort you to advocate the concept that science and politics should remain separate.
[EDIT:] I'd like to also point out that the US considered the measles eliminated in 2000, yet here we are a mere 25 years later, experiencing multiple outbreaks. While I am not an epidemiologist and cannot validate causation, I must admit that I find the correlation noteworthy.
Using warships and military aircraft to blow up cigar boats, then bragging about it and saying they're drug boats without providing proof, is not war, it is execution without due process. It is murder.
I'd like to share an article that indicates this is an unnecessary escalation of conflict. The article discusses our previous approach, which has historically been to intercept a boat, fire warning shots if needed, and then fire to disable the outboard engines if the warning shots didn't work. The article claims the approach was 90% effective at stopping the boats, was non-lethal, allowed us to prosecute drug runners according to the rule of law, and enabled us to gather evidence for the prosecution of higher-echelon traffickers.
At best, this new approach is a mistake. At worst, it is a cynical, self-serving disregard of life, pursued in an attempt to divert the public's attention from other inconvenient issues facing the current administration. It isn't war.
According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the Hatch Act is a federal law passed in 1939 that limits political activity of certain federal employees. The purpose of the law is to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion at work, and to ensure that employees are advanced based on merit, not political affiliation.
To translate, federal employees are prohibited from engaging from partisan activity while at work. For example, you can have a bumper sticker on your personal vehicle that supports your favorite elected official, but if you use that vehicle for work, you need to cover up or remove that bumper sticker.
To rephrase the reason for the law, it's there to make sure that employees don't feel coerced to do things out of fear for their job, and to ensure that Americans are free to engage with the various agencies of the government.
When the government shut down at midnight September 30, 2025, many government workers were furloughed. This resulted in government services being reduced due to lack of funding. Various departments wisely put up notices saying that the government shutdown is impacting available services until the government reopens. This type of notice is sensible.
What is NOT sensible is the partisan spin that some agencies have placed in their notices. To wit:
State Department
Due to the Democrat-led shutdown, website updates will be limited until full operations resume.
HUD
The radical left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.
USDA
Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.
Department of Justice
Democrats have shut down the government. Department of Justice websites are not currently regularly updated. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.
All of the above notices are clearly partisan in nature.
The Hatch Act applies to all federal civilian executive branch employees, except for the President and Vice President. This ostensibly includes the heads of each of the above departments. Furthermore engagement in in political activity that is "directed at the success or failure of a political party..." is expressly prohibited. It's also illegal to "post a comment to a blog or social media site that advocates for or against a partisan political party.."
Based on my reading of what's prohibited by the Hatch Act, the people who ordered the statements on the web sites mentioned above are in direct violation of the Act, as are the people who carried out the order. Government agencies are here to serve the public, not a political party. Government agencies should remain apolitical.
Though the phrase did not originate with Abram Lincoln, he's credited with coining the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people." He didn't create the phrase, and what I wrote is a paraphrase of a paraphrase. The point stands, nonetheless. "Of the People" essentially means that government's authority originates from us. It's not a rule imposed by external power. "By the people" means that we choose our leaders. "For the people, means that government exists to serve OUR needs, such as promoting our rights.
Somewhere along the line, our elected officials succumbed to the trappings of power. The outcome of this capitulation by our representatives was that they manipulated this power to perpetuate and enhance their control and increase their leverage.
Gerrymandering is a wonderful example of how this power corrupted the government. For those of you not familiar with the concept, Gerrymandering is the manipulation of one or more boundaries in electoral districts to favor one political group. Gerrymandering works in two ways: One method is to "crack," or spread a group of voters across multiple boundaries, thereby artificially reducing their influence. The other technique is to "pack" a group of voters into a single district, which provides a synthetic increase in influence. Either way, the result is nefarious because it creates a situation where elected officials choose their constituents, instead of the people selecting their representative.
Since the 2024 election, the state of Texas is working to gerrymander districts to increase Republican power. In response, California has threatened to gerrymander districts to increase Democratic representation, with the specifically, publicly stated goal of countering what Texas is doing.
This is stupid, evil and wrong. The end result is a further perpetuation of entrenched incumbent elected officials, and the disenfranchisement of the non-majority voters in a given district. Gerrymandering is a perversion of of democracy, and all branches of the government are complicit, including the judicial branches that allow it to continue.
Once upon a time, it was a matter of civic duty and personal pride to participate in the right to vote. People were politically aware, politically active, and most importantly, educated in how our republic works. Over the last century, things changed. People became more inwardly focused and selfish. They became less tolerant of difference and dissent. This had the two-pronged outcome of disenfranchising the majority of America, and the other half became entrenched in partisan bickering.
Our electoral system exacerbates the situation. By and large, only Republicans can select a Republican candidate, and only Democrats can select a Democratic candidate. The natural outcome of this is that in order to be elected to office, a candidate needs to play to the most rabidly loyal to the party platform in order to be selected as the party candidate, and then, they need to moderate their tone to appeal to the masses. But even that has changed over time, because moderates continue to become disillusioned with the process, eventually dropping out and leaving only the most partisan to vote for their candidate. This has resulted in an entrenched group of legislators who refuse to compromise, for fear of being voted out of office. Since most judges are selected and confirmed by partisan politicians, our courts are becoming partisan as well.
The silliest thing is that it's all our fault. There are more than two political parties, but collectively, we want to back a winner, and we believe that it's less offensive to select the lesser of two evils, rather than voting for the best candidate. We have collectively bought into the lie that following your conscience results in a "wasted vote." Bullshit! Politicians who lose an election when a third party candidate is involved invariably say that the third party candidate "stole" votes from them. This would indicate that the vote was theirs in the first place, and that's flat out wrong.
Think of your vote as a piece of candy. You may choose to give this piece of candy to anyone you choose. This, of course, means that you have the choice to not give the candy to anyone. The politicians conveniently dismiss this, however, instead choosing to blame their loss on those who gave the candy to someone other than them. What a selfish, egocentric perspective.
We are the ones who buy into the lie that only two choices exist. We are the ones who select the most partisan candidates. We are the ones who punish elected officials who cross party lines. We are the ones who throw up our hands in disgust and give up when we reap the consequences of our actions. In other words, it's our own damned fault.
It seems most Americans believe that we're in a unique time in our history. That's not completely correct. I recall history lessons from my younger days that were full of yellow journalism. Sensationalistic newspapers seem to have been the norm from the founding of our country until well into the 20th century. Though I don't have enough scientific evidence to back up my hunch, I suspect that journalism really took a turn toward neutral professionalism around the age of radio, and improved with the advent of television.
I distinctly remember what I would call the golden age of journalism, where Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and countless other reporters would investigate and report facts, counting on the public to discern the truth. The big three television networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) didn't make money from the news. The TV stations considered investigative journalism a civic duty, and the people were able to trust the information they consumed. Then came Fox and CNN.
The concept of a 24/7 news channel was unique, but it had (and still has) a critical flaw. These stations came into being for the purpose of making money. The only way to make money is to keep viewers engaged. The best way to attract and retain interest is through emotions. Fear, anger, outrage, and moral indignation grab our collective attention and keep it such a manner that it's difficult to disengage once you're pulled in. As a result, sensationalistic reporting returned to prominence.
I do believe there are a couple of noteworthy differences in today's society. We have a world of data at our fingertips, and it's easy to fall prey to the constant barrage of information, which can easily lead to a virtually constant state of fight or flight. This, in turn, can reduce the brain's analytical ability, and a vicious cycle results. It's also easy to fall into an echo chamber, where your existing biases are confirmed and alternate possibilities are ridiculed.
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way out of this. It seems that we collectively enjoy being outraged and tribal. It's the one thing that we have in common. Our partisan bickering is nothing new. The only thing that's really changed is how efficient we've become at doing it, and how effectively the media leverages that into increased profits.
Yes, it's been ages. I've been having fun with other activities and living. I kind of stopped writing because I felt like I had run out of new observations. Since then, the world seems to have gone sideways. I get that nobody reads this blog anymore, which is kind of perfect. I'm now in a place were I can write my stuff with a semblance of anonymity. Don't get me wrong... I'm not afraid of being found out, and I do not plan to hide behind anonymity. I hope to write with the same sort of honesty and respect for my fellow human that I did before. I will also, at the same time, be my same irreverent self that I've always been. I will not be politically correct. I will piss off everyone. This is who I've always been, and to do otherwise is to sell myself out.
