Did you know that I will be a write in candidate for President? Yup not kidding. Gone write my name in when I vote now that Alfred E Newman is no more.
That way I can say I ran for POTUS. I didn't even get an invite to the debate tonight.
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday. Gender:
Posted:
Sep 29, 2020 - 4:48pm
Did you know that I will be a write in candidate for President? Yup not kidding. Gone write my name in when I vote now that Alfred E Newman is no more.
That way I can say I ran for POTUS. I didn't even get an invite to the debate tonight.
So this is just the "new normal", non news worthy events and that we should just get used to it I suppose.
Alrighty then.
Remember how I said "parchment and town crier"? That means I didn't suggest it was a "new normal."
I think it'd be naive to believe that suddenly, like never before, that there were bad players who want to disrupt things. It's the nature of governments and politics and business.
Color me shocked - shocked - that instead of trying to use a real wooden Trojan horse to get enemies past our gate, someone creates an electronic one. Tale as old as time.
So - the government needs to develop and support a defense team that includes cyberspace. Trump did no one (except our enemies) any favors by suggesting that our intelligence community was anything less than robust and reliable. It created more fear, suggesting that our government is, as a whole, weak - despite giving it lip service as "great." It can't be both great and not-trustworthy; he screwed the pooch on that one, just to protect himself.
Something is going on, can we at least agree on that ?
Well, there's always something going on, in various magnitudes. Hence, the CIA etc. Probably happening since the parchment and town crier days.
The best protection against things like that is a robust, respected, properly funded group of folks who are ever vigilant and dextrous against threats.
(Insert the obligatory "and not having their integrity undercut by the President of the United States")
I figure it's like the body's immune system. Constant threats, being defended against and beaten down when they try to take hold. Yes, there are things out there, but there are also defense systems.
At least these were not made up events.
So this is just the "new normal", non news worthy events and that we should just get used to it I suppose.
Something is going on, can we at least agree on that ?
Well, there's always something going on, in various magnitudes. Hence, the CIA etc. Probably happening since the parchment and town crier days.
The best protection against things like that is a robust, respected, properly funded group of folks who are ever vigilant and dextrous against threats.
(Insert the obligatory "and not having their integrity undercut by the President of the United States")
I figure it's like the body's immune system. Constant threats, being defended against and beaten down when they try to take hold. Yes, there are things out there, but there are also defense systems.
I don't see cyberattack anywhere in there. Maybe a Microsoft issue (or that's what the Deep State wants you to think).
It would likely be the host of the 911 system. Microsoft did have issues with their Office 360 at the same time, but denied it had anything to do with a cyber attack. And Flight 24 has been under attack by something for a couple of days now.
How about the United Health Care ransomware thing ?
Something is going on, can we at least agree on that ? Or is this just the "new normal" not news worthy events and that we should just get used to it ?
Evidently there is a massive cyber attack underway. As reported by Clyde Lewis on the Ground Zero radio program just now. 911 services have been disrupted in 7 states including here in Ohio.
"New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell declared a state of emergency Friday after the city was hit by a cyberattack. Phishing attempts and suspicious activity were detected on the city’s network around 5:00 am. By 11:00 am, technician investigators detected “a cybersecurity incident” and the city’s information technology department began powering down servers and city computers as a precaution, the New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness said in a series of tweets.
While ransomware was detected, no ransom has been demanded in the cyberattack, Cantrell said. In July, several school systems in Louisiana were attacked by malware, prompting the governor to issue a state of emergency."
Evidently there is a massive cyber attack underway. As reported by Clyde Lewis on the Ground Zero radio program just now. 911 services have been disrupted in 7 states including here in Ohio.
"New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell declared a state of emergency Friday after the city was hit by a cyberattack. Phishing attempts and suspicious activity were detected on the cityâs network around 5:00 am. By 11:00 am, technician investigators detected âa cybersecurity incidentâ and the cityâs information technology department began powering down servers and city computers as a precaution, the New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness said in a series of tweets.
While ransomware was detected, no ransom has been demanded in the cyberattack, Cantrell said. In July, several school systems in Louisiana were attacked by malware, prompting the governor to issue a state of emergency."
Evidently there is a massive cyber attack underway. As reported by Clyde Lewis on the Ground Zero radio program just now.
"The King of Parapolitical Talk Radio"?
Morning !
Well I just checked out all of the items I mentioned and the only thing that was wrong was the bit about The Philippines. There is something going on there between the government and FB but as of now FB is up and running over there.
Yeah, Clyde Lewis. While I don't agree with everything and he has got a few things wrong over the years, just like everyone else, it is another perspective outside of the usual mainstream echo chambers. He is based in Portland, Or and I am surprised that his offices have not been overrun as of yet.
I see that you added a remark about Chemtrails after I clicked to reply to this. If you want to deligitmize everything he has to say (or anyone else who may consider them to be a real event) by using Chemtrails in order to do so, do it at your own risk. I haven't brought them up here in years, but it, Chemtrails, is forever held against me and is still used as in right now by you to deligitimize anything I might have to say about anything here as a case in point. I have moved on from even mentioning them here long ago as it has been made clear that no one wants to hear about them and anyone who dares to mention them will be run out of this place on a rail after having been tarred and feathered by the tribe.
It is also why I believe that no one takes anything I have to say here as meaningful or of value (or ever will) since I once tried to have a discussion on the subject. So I proceed accordingly and am actually still to this day surprised when someone might say that I have made some sense in a post here, which rarely happens, but what the hell. Someone has to be the village idiot here, right ? Might as well be me.
Evidently there is a massive cyber attack underway. As reported by Clyde Lewis on the Ground Zero radio program just now. 911 services have been disrupted in 7 states including here in Ohio. Flight 24 radar tracking service is down worldwide. Microsoft services are being disrupted and United Healthcare's system (the nation's largest hospital chain) has evidently been frozen by ransomware out of Russia.
Perhaps a disruption of services prior to the debates here in town later today ?
Have fun kids, I'm going back to bed and will be listening for more details.
Edit: And now @12.30 am ET I just heard a statement being read by a NATO official that a cyber attack on a member nation would trigger Article 5, where a cyber attack on one member is an attack on all members. The timing of this statement is most interesting.
And now it is being reported that the Philippines government has shut down FB nationwide.
I guess I'll have to wait til the morning to find out WTF is going on ...
Once again life interferes with arguing on the internet. I'll address as much of this as I can before I have to go do the things.
kcar wrote:
This is the heart of contention between us:
"My objection to the NYAG's action is this: it is a transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation."
Yes, I think that's finally sinking in. Progress at last!
As a legal matter:
The NY AG's investigation found a decades-long pattern of corruption, illegal personal enrichment, law-breaking and willful allowance of such behavior throughout the organization beyond the four executives named. The NY AG determined that this pattern was so pervasive and embedded that it called for the dissolution of the NRA. That decision is within the law and her legal powers.
1. The evidence found by the NY AG's investigation on its own could merit dissolution of the NRA. That would be true regardless of any hostile OR friendly statements made by James et al.
2. While James, Cuomo, etc. have made hostile statements about the NRA, you STILL haven't shown that personal animus or political leanings caused, directed or warped gathering of evidence and interpretation of existing law. You have not shown that the investigation was tainted or illegitimate or unfair.
3. YOU first contended that the NY AG's action is a transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation." You have the obligation to support your contention.
You have not.
Let's try an analogy here.
"Mr. Gupta, we've found out that two of the cashiers at your store have been stealing from you. Been going on for years. This is terrible, and because we care so very much about you and your interests we're seizing your store and bulldozing it to the ground. Oh, and we may do something to the cashiers later, too early to say."
If we read the NYAG's campaign statements about the NRA to a jury (what the heck, let's show them a video clip of Governor Cuomo calling them a terrorist organization too) what conclusion do you think they'll draw?
Can I prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what the motive for moving like this a few months before an election is? Of course not. I can't peek into anyone's soul but my own. I can, however, show precedents of other nonprofits in similar situations where the remedy was to prosecute the people stealing instead of destroying the organization. Before you demand that I produce such precedents see my earlier posts.
Before you start puffing up and repeating (again) the pretext for the lawsuit: yes, the NYAG has the legal power to do that. She could also haul you (that's right you, assuming you ever set foot in the state of New York) in front of a grand jury on any charge she liked and probably get an indictment. If you have the resources you could spend them defending yourself, and probably avoid prison time. You probably wouldn't avoid bankruptcy, and even if you could spend the years required to sue the state for vindictive prosecution you might not live to see any compensation for it.
The state can start the process, run out the clock, abandon the case when the outcome looks bad, and those responsible will face no consequences for their actions. The fact that this is legal does not justify it.
The NYAG's first remedy to NRA executives stealing from the organization is to punish the victim. It's pretty obvious that it's not about protecting anybody.
As a practical matter:
The NY AG's decision does not deprive NRA members of their First Amendment rights. Such members can express their opinions through other established pro-gun non-profits. Also the NRA, if dissolved in New York, can re-establish itself in other statesâeg Texas as Trump suggested in a tweet. The NRA has the means to fight the NY AG's decision in the courts and simultaneously lobby for Trump's re-election. The NY AG's case will likely not gain serious traction in the courts by November 3. The NY AG's decision will likely boost donations to and political support for the NRA, especially in the time before November 3.
So the NY AG's decision, if it were only "a transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation" , wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
I have to wonder if you kept a straight face when you typed that.
If the state of New York dissolved the ACLU its members could join or form some other, similar group. How would that not violate the members' rights to speak (collectively, as the ACLU) or to freely assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances? If one organization can be hounded out of existence then why can't the next?
If you shut down a newspaper because under the pretext that you caught an ad salesman stealing how would that not violate the first amendment rights of the publishers? After all, they can go start another newspaper, maybe somewhere else. If their subscribers pitch in to buy them a new printing press you've still violated their rights.
No one should have to flee a jurisdiction to preserve their rights to speak, assemble, and petition. Yes, it violates their rights to force them to do so. I hope they do move, New York is obviously not a safe place to practice dissent. That reality should frighten you, even if you share the allegiances of its political elites.
My guess is that you and I in general disagree on a lot of things. We certainly disagree on this matter. But let's proceed:
You wrote: Can I prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what the motive for moving like this a few months before an election is? Of course not.
AND THAT'S THE BALLGAME! YOU LOSE, BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED YOU KNEW THE MOTIVATION OF THE NY AG'S OFFICE. YOU CLAIMED THAT THE MOVE TO DISSOLVE THE NRA WAS " transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation."
NOW YOU ADMIT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT.
Your Mr. Gupta analogy fails to capture the acknowledged facts that corruption, malfeasance, breaking of federal and NY state laws, witness intimidation occurred throughout the NRA for many years. Also, the NRA's board failed to monitor internal accounting procedures and practices which allowed LaPierre and others to carry on their illegal activities. A better analogy would have Gupta involved in the corruption as well as deception and submission of false income tax statements to federal, state and local governments FOR MANY MANY YEARS. Also, Gupta's company would have a corrupt board failing in its duty to oversee the actions of Gupta and his lieutenants. It would also have an internal accounting group that repeatedly aided Gupta in his feather-nesting and/or willfully ignored his actions.
1. NY AG James determined that the corruption and illegal practices of the NRA were so pervasive, longstanding and embedded in the NRA's practices that the Association could not likely be reformed.
You ignore the suggestion of the LA Times op-ed writer, which I referenced in an earlier post, that James's call for dissolution could merely be the start of a bargaining ploy by James for NRA reform. AG's have the right to play this kind of hardball. You object to it IIRC. Tough sh*t. It's legal.
2. You wrote: If we read the NYAG's campaign statements about the NRA to a jury (what the heck, let's show them a video clip of Governor Cuomo calling them a terrorist organization too) what conclusion do you think they'll draw?
* You have NEVER provided evidence that NY AG James's campaign statements about the NRA were not based in fact or flowing from reasonable judgment about established facts.
It's quite possible, indeed likely, that prosecutors will have personal opinions about a defendant. That hardly means that a prosecutor will allow that opinion or bias to guide fact-finding or case-building. Furthermore, you haven't bothered to analyze or object to details of James's campaign statements about the NRA. Her statements are not as fringy as you think, it seems.
3. The facts about the NRA found during the investigation, on their own, justify a decision to dissolve it. That would be true even if the NY AG were a member of the NRA.
James's pre-investigation opinions about the NRA aren't relevant.
* You have NEVER provided evidence that NY AG James's statements about the NRA had any influence on the case-building or directions that the NY AG's investigation took.
* You have NEVER provided evidence that NY AG James's statements about the NRA biased her superiors, colleagues or subordinates. That investigation into the NRA took many, many people over 1.5 years to complete. Are you really suggesting that James's opinions hypnotized everyone else?
You wrote:
If we read the NYAG's campaign statements about the NRA to a jury (what the heck, let's show them a video clip of Governor Cuomo calling them a terrorist organization too) what conclusion do you think they'll draw?
Frankly, it's likely that the judge would not allow that reading of James's statements to go to the jury because there is no evidence that those statements were signs of an unreasonable, groundless bias or that the investigation was driven or directed by those statements.
THIS IS WHERE YOUR ARGUMENT COLLAPSES. YOU JUMP FROM JAMES'S CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS TO A SWEEPING AND BASELESS CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION INTO THE NRA WAS A POLITICAL HIT JOB. YOU WOULD BE LAUGHED OUT OF COURT IF YOU PUT THAT CLAIM BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
You wrote:
Before you start puffing up and repeating (again) the pretext for the lawsuit: yes, the NYAG has the legal power to do that. She could also haul you (that's right you, assuming you ever set foot in the state of New York) in front of a grand jury on any charge she liked and probably get an indictment.
You live in a pathetic dreamworld. IIRC you had trouble with government prosecutors in your past and the whole matter stressed you. Get over it if you want to discuss legal and political matters like an adult. Your quote above is not based in reality. A state Attorney General is not the head of Kim Jong Un's secret police or government prosecution.
You wrote:
If the state of New York dissolved the ACLU its members could join or form some other, similar group. How would that not violate the members' rights to speak (collectively, as the ACLU) or to freely assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances? If one organization can be hounded out of existence then why can't the next?
The rights of the ACLU members or NRA members do not shield either organization from prosecution or dissolution as responses to criminal practices within the organization. As I've referenced before in my posts, prosecutors and commentators note that motions to dissolve non-profits on grounds of criminal behavior rarely succeed due in part to concerns about free speech and the possibility of guiding the relevant non-profit towards legal behavior.
However, the existing laws allow the NY AG to make a judgement call about whether to prosecute the organization in hopes of guiding reform or to dissolve in expectation of stopping criminal behavior suspected of being inherent to the organization.
As for your prior mentions of cases against other non-profit leaders that did not lead to calls for dissolving the non-profits, I can only remember one that you mentionedâWilliam Aramony and United Way. Aramony's criminal behavior was largely restricted to himself and did not run throughout the organization. It also did not go on for decades as did the criminal behavior of NRA's LaPierre and colleagues.
My guess is that relevant case-law exists about whether a non-profits' members have First Amendment rights particular to their membership and standing above their First Amendment rights as individuals. I also suspect that courts rarely dissolve non-profits because of First Amendment concerns.
However, they likely also hold back on broadly allowing dissolution because few non-profits have corruption and criminal behavior running up and down the organization for years as was the case with the NRA. If your objections were allowed to prevent dissolution of any non-profit, the Mafia could create non-profits and use them to conduct all sorts of scams and criminal practices. Or Steve Bannon's We Build The Wall scam could keep preaching about The Wall and collecting money with impunity because it could claim it had First Amendment rights and was an inviolable spokesman of its members' First Amendment rights.
Once again life interferes with arguing on the internet. I'll address as much of this as I can before I have to go do the things.
kcar wrote:
This is the heart of contention between us:
"My objection to the NYAG's action is this: it is a transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation."
Yes, I think that's finally sinking in. Progress at last!
As a legal matter:
The NY AG's investigation found a decades-long pattern of corruption, illegal personal enrichment, law-breaking and willful allowance of such behavior throughout the organization beyond the four executives named. The NY AG determined that this pattern was so pervasive and embedded that it called for the dissolution of the NRA. That decision is within the law and her legal powers.
1. The evidence found by the NY AG's investigation on its own could merit dissolution of the NRA. That would be true regardless of any hostile OR friendly statements made by James et al.
2. While James, Cuomo, etc. have made hostile statements about the NRA, you STILL haven't shown that personal animus or political leanings caused, directed or warped gathering of evidence and interpretation of existing law. You have not shown that the investigation was tainted or illegitimate or unfair.
3. YOU first contended that the NY AG's action is a transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation." You have the obligation to support your contention.
You have not.
Let's try an analogy here.
"Mr. Gupta, we've found out that two of the cashiers at your store have been stealing from you. Been going on for years. This is terrible, and because we care so very much about you and your interests we're seizing your store and bulldozing it to the ground. Oh, and we may do something to the cashiers later, too early to say."
If we read the NYAG's campaign statements about the NRA to a jury (what the heck, let's show them a video clip of Governor Cuomo calling them a terrorist organization too) what conclusion do you think they'll draw?
Can I prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what the motive for moving like this a few months before an election is? Of course not. I can't peek into anyone's soul but my own. I can, however, show precedents of other nonprofits in similar situations where the remedy was to prosecute the people stealing instead of destroying the organization. Before you demand that I produce such precedents see my earlier posts.
Before you start puffing up and repeating (again) the pretext for the lawsuit: yes, the NYAG has the legal power to do that. She could also haul you (that's right you, assuming you ever set foot in the state of New York) in front of a grand jury on any charge she liked and probably get an indictment. If you have the resources you could spend them defending yourself, and probably avoid prison time. You probably wouldn't avoid bankruptcy, and even if you could spend the years required to sue the state for vindictive prosecution you might not live to see any compensation for it.
The state can start the process, run out the clock, abandon the case when the outcome looks bad, and those responsible will face no consequences for their actions. The fact that this is legal does not justify it.
The NYAG's first remedy to NRA executives stealing from the organization is to punish the victim. It's pretty obvious that it's not about protecting anybody.
As a practical matter:
The NY AG's decision does not deprive NRA members of their First Amendment rights. Such members can express their opinions through other established pro-gun non-profits. Also the NRA, if dissolved in New York, can re-establish itself in other statesâeg Texas as Trump suggested in a tweet. The NRA has the means to fight the NY AG's decision in the courts and simultaneously lobby for Trump's re-election. The NY AG's case will likely not gain serious traction in the courts by November 3. The NY AG's decision will likely boost donations to and political support for the NRA, especially in the time before November 3.
So the NY AG's decision, if it were only "a transparent attempt to take a political rival out of the public conversation" , wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
I have to wonder if you kept a straight face when you typed that.
If the state of New York dissolved the ACLU its members could join or form some other, similar group. How would that not violate the members' rights to speak (collectively, as the ACLU) or to freely assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances? If one organization can be hounded out of existence then why can't the next?
If you shut down a newspaper because under the pretext that you caught an ad salesman stealing how would that not violate the first amendment rights of the publishers? After all, they can go start another newspaper, maybe somewhere else. If their subscribers pitch in to buy them a new printing press you've still violated their rights.
No one should have to flee a jurisdiction to preserve their rights to speak, assemble, and petition. Yes, it violates their rights to force them to do so. I hope they do move, New York is obviously not a safe place to practice dissent. That reality should frighten you, even if you share the allegiances of its political elites.
Why the heck are graphic sex scenes in movies that are essentially non-erotic, or non-porn at all necessary? Beats me, and something I still struggle to understand, and which certainly makes me go 'ho hum', most of the time while watching any late productions from Hollyweird and the like.
It all seems like an old, overcome marketing-recipe to reach viewer quotas. After all, the film-making mainstream dresses itself way too over-woke. Why do we need gay or lesbian (super-) heroes? Is that really necessary? Seems, they do have an agenda reminding of communism. Is that the new democratic revolution, run by a band of pedophiles?
I would agree. Kinda how I see it. Typical Hollywood types.
Why the heck are graphic sex scenes in movies that are essentially non-erotic, or non-porn at all necessary? Beats me, and something I still struggle to understand, and which certainly makes me go 'ho hum', most of the time while watching any late productions from Hollyweird and the like. It all seems like an old, overcome marketing-recipe to reach viewer quotas. After all, the film-making mainstream dresses itself way too over-woke. Why do we need gay or lesbian (super-) heroes? Is that really necessary? Seems, they do have an agenda reminding of communism. Is that the new democratic revolution, run by a band of pedophiles?
If we switched to the dollar coin we'd save 400 million a year in printing costs. And since there's a generation's worth of dollar coins already minted, we could save even more. Yes, even though banks don't even have the dollar coins, the law saying to mint them is still in effect, so they're being produced and stored away. The law to stop dollar bill production never got passed. America!
I almost never have cash on me anymore.
That's where I'm at. I've never paid with a phone though....
The last three times I bought postage stamps from a vending machine in a post office, the damned thing spewed Susan B. Anthony dollars in change. I don't they or the Sacagawea dollar coins ever caught on with anyone, anywhere, anytime.
I miss the Jefferson two-dollar bill, though. Much like you'd miss a five-legged dog.
$2 bills are still "current" denominations - I believe you can get them from most banks if you want to. Last I heard, was that if you ever visit Jefferson's Monticello estate they use them as change there. I was told that a lot of businesses in Charlottesville, around the UVA campus, used to as well - but I don't know if they still do. One problem is most vendors don't like them because there is not a compartment in cash drawers for them. The plan was apparently to eliminate the $1 bill (as the UK had eliminated the £1 note) and replace it with a coin, but as Scott pointed out - that has yet to happen. Then the other problem was that the new $1 coins were too similar to quarters in size and couldn't be quickly differentiated - especially by people with visual impairments. I don't know why they just didn't make the $1 coins larger like old 50 cent pieces (maybe too much metal?) or make them something other than circular. A lot of other countries have had hexagonal and octagonal, or even dodecagonal (12-sided) coins, or ones with a hole in the center (Danish 1 krone).
