I Do Not Think That Means What You Think it Means

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.

 

All in on AI

 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!

Oh, But Wait... It Gets Better!

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.

Conflicts of Interest, Anyone?

 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. 

Surprised and Impressed

 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.

Our Best Interests at Heart

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.

What a Waste

 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!

For One Brief Minute...

 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 Felt Like a Pinball

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. 

Buh-Bye Nancy

 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.) 

Export Restrictions

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.

The Downside of Large Companies

 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.

Why Is the Government Shut Down?

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.