| Date/Time | Moderator | Story/Comment/User, Action, Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-08 15:02 -0500 | declan | Story: What Ails the U.S. Press? |
| Action: changed tags from "mediajackals" to "mediajackals paywall" | ||
| 2019-08-06 13:53 -0500 | declan | Story: What the "Green New Deal" is really about: It's not the climate |
| Action: changed title from "WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE" to "What the \"Green New Deal\" is really about: It's not the climate" | ||
| 2019-08-06 13:52 -0500 | declan | Story: Podcast: Jay Nordlinger interviews author Kevin D. Williamson on his book "The Smallest Minority" |
| Action: changed title from "Podcast: Q & A, Hosted by Jay Nordlinger: 245. Kevin vs. the Mob" to "Podcast: Jay Nordlinger interviews author Kevin D. Williamson on his book \"The Smallest Minority\"", changed tags from "conservativism culturewars libertarianism politics" to "conservativism culturewars libertarianism politics audio" | ||
| 2019-08-06 13:50 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: Kill Collectivism, Not Technology |
| Action: changed title from "Essay: Kill Collectivism, Not Technology - Don Kilmer" to "Don Kilmer: Kill Collectivism, Not Technology", changed description from "It is a true statement that “on-average” men are physically larger and stronger than women. But we all know individual women who are warriors and individual men who are weaklings. \r\n\r\nIf intelligence is defined as reason applied to the tasks of survival, prosperity, art, leisure, and acquiring more intelligence, then I must say, I’ve never discovered any evidence of a similar disparity (either average or anecdote) between the sexes when it comes to intelligence. \r\n\r\nIndividuals acting stupidly while part of a group are still individuals. Observation of individuals acting stupidly says nothing about any other individuals who might also be classified as part of that group, or as part of any larger classification such as race, sex, nationality. Furthermore, membership in such a class still tells us nothing about the intelligence of the individual. \r\n\r\nThis is the essence of the wrongheadedness of collectivism. \r\n\r\nBut collectivism is rampant in our modern discourse for at least three reasons. \r\n\r\n1.) Our technology has made identifying characteristics like race, gender, sex, religion, politics, nationality, relative wealth, education, location, literacy, and commercial needs, an easy task. Algorithms can be used to sort people just as efficiently as an inventory, a library, or a string of alphanumeric characters. \r\n\r\n2.) Some people living among us have discovered it was in their best interest to use this technology, not only to sort and identify these characteristics, but to leverage this sorting into a device for crowd manipulation and control. In other words, the same mechanism that inspires people to buy a particular tennis shoe, breakfast cereal, or automobile, can be used to persuade some people to volunteer for political classifications, like Democrat, or Republican, or Conservative, or Progressive, or ANTIFA, or white nationalist, or Brexit, or Remainder, or MAGA. \r\n\r\n3.) The complexity of our world tempts us to employ this new tool of collectivism. Why? Because it is a powerful temptation to believe you have mastered an ability to predict human behavior. Because with prediction, comes some semblance or false promise of control. \r\n\r\nWe must, and soon, get a handle on how this confluence of collectivism and this new technology has brought us to this time and place. We must find a way to peacefully back away from the precipice. If not, I fear we may suffer a cataclysm that will make the Civil War of the 19th Century seem small. \r\n\r\nI don’t propose political control of the technology. I propose political control of the corrosive and putrid consequences of the stale and dangerous ideology of collectivism. The U.S. Constitution and most of its Amendments were a good start. With some minor adjustments and fuller appreciation of its virtues, America can get back on the path to an intelligent existence." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted August 6, 2019*\r\n\r\nIt is a true statement that, on average, men are physically larger and [stronger](https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/deadlift/lb) than women. But we all know individual women who are warriors and individual men who are weaklings. \r\n\r\nIf intelligence is defined as reason applied to the tasks of survival, prosperity, art, leisure, and acquiring more intelligence, I’ve never discovered any evidence of a similar disparity in inteligence—average or anecdotal—between the sexes.\r\n\r\nIndividuals acting stupidly while part of a group remain individuals. The acts of individuals acting stupidly says nothing about any other individuals who might also be classified as part of that group, or as part of any larger classification such as race, sex, or nationality. Furthermore, membership in such a class tells us nothing about the intelligence of the individual. \r\n\r\nThis is the essence of the wrongheadedness of collectivism. \r\n\r\nBut collectivism is rampant in today's discourse for at least three reasons:\r\n\r\n1. Our technology has made it easy to identify characteristics like race, gender, sex, religion, politics, nationality, relative wealth, education, location, literacy, and commercial needs. Algorithms can sort demographic data about people as efficiently as they can sort an inventory, a library, or a string of alphanumeric characters. \r\n\r\n2. Some people have discovered it was in their best interests to use this technology, not only to sort and identify these characteristics, but also to leverage this sorting into a device for crowd manipulation and control. In other words, the same mechanism that persuades people to buy a particular tennis shoe, breakfast cereal, or automobile can be used to persuade some people to volunteer for political classifications, like Democrat, or Republican, or conservative, or progressive, or Antifa, or white nationalist, or Brexit, or MAGA. \r\n\r\n3. The complexity of our world tempts us to employ this new tool of collectivism. Why? Because believing you've mastered the ability to predict human behavior provides a powerful temptation. And if you think you can predict human behavior, you might falsely believe you can control it.\r\n\r\nWe must, and soon, get a handle on how this confluence of collectivism and technological advances has brought us to this dangerous moment. We must find a way to peacefully back away from [the precipice](https://talki.ng/t/civilwar2). If not, I fear we may suffer a cataclysm that will make the 19th century's Civil War seem small.\r\n\r\nI don’t propose political control of technology. I propose political control of the corrosive and putrid consequences of the stale and dangerous ideology of collectivism. The U.S. Constitution and most of its Amendments were a good start. With some minor adjustments and fuller appreciation of their virtues, America can return to the path of an intelligent existence.", changed markeddown_description from "<p>It is a true statement that “on-average” men are physically larger and stronger than women. But we all know individual women who are warriors and individual men who are weaklings. </p>\n<p>If intelligence is defined as reason applied to the tasks of survival, prosperity, art, leisure, and acquiring more intelligence, then I must say, I’ve never discovered any evidence of a similar disparity (either average or anecdote) between the sexes when it comes to intelligence. </p>\n<p>Individuals acting stupidly while part of a group are still individuals. Observation of individuals acting stupidly says nothing about any other individuals who might also be classified as part of that group, or as part of any larger classification such as race, sex, nationality. Furthermore, membership in such a class still tells us nothing about the intelligence of the individual.</p>\n<p>This is the essence of the wrongheadedness of collectivism. </p>\n<p>But collectivism is rampant in our modern discourse for at least three reasons.</p>\n<p>1.) Our technology has made identifying characteristics like race, gender, sex, religion, politics, nationality, relative wealth, education, location, literacy, and commercial needs, an easy task. Algorithms can be used to sort people just as efficiently as an inventory, a library, or a string of alphanumeric characters.</p>\n<p>2.) Some people living among us have discovered it was in their best interest to use this technology, not only to sort and identify these characteristics, but to leverage this sorting into a device for crowd manipulation and control. In other words, the same mechanism that inspires people to buy a particular tennis shoe, breakfast cereal, or automobile, can be used to persuade some people to volunteer for political classifications, like Democrat, or Republican, or Conservative, or Progressive, or ANTIFA, or white nationalist, or Brexit, or Remainder, or MAGA.</p>\n<p>3.) The complexity of our world tempts us to employ this new tool of collectivism. Why? Because it is a powerful temptation to believe you have mastered an ability to predict human behavior. Because with prediction, comes some semblance or false promise of control.</p>\n<p>We must, and soon, get a handle on how this confluence of collectivism and this new technology has brought us to this time and place. We must find a way to peacefully back away from the precipice. If not, I fear we may suffer a cataclysm that will make the Civil War of the 19th Century seem small.</p>\n<p>I don’t propose political control of the technology. I propose political control of the corrosive and putrid consequences of the stale and dangerous ideology of collectivism. The U.S. Constitution and most of its Amendments were a good start. With some minor adjustments and fuller appreciation of its virtues, America can get back on the path to an intelligent existence.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1564101160531-4838e8a5f4e7?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1934&q=80\" alt=\"Herd photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted August 6, 2019</em></p>\n<p>It is a true statement that, on average, men are physically larger and <a href=\"https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/deadlift/lb\" rel=\"nofollow\">stronger</a> than women. But we all know individual women who are warriors and individual men who are weaklings.</p>\n<p>If intelligence is defined as reason applied to the tasks of survival, prosperity, art, leisure, and acquiring more intelligence, I’ve never discovered any evidence of a similar disparity in inteligence—average or anecdotal—between the sexes.</p>\n<p>Individuals acting stupidly while part of a group remain individuals. The acts of individuals acting stupidly says nothing about any other individuals who might also be classified as part of that group, or as part of any larger classification such as race, sex, or nationality. Furthermore, membership in such a class tells us nothing about the intelligence of the individual.</p>\n<p>This is the essence of the wrongheadedness of collectivism.</p>\n<p>But collectivism is rampant in today’s discourse for at least three reasons:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p>Our technology has made it easy to identify characteristics like race, gender, sex, religion, politics, nationality, relative wealth, education, location, literacy, and commercial needs. Algorithms can sort demographic data about people as efficiently as they can sort an inventory, a library, or a string of alphanumeric characters.</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>Some people have discovered it was in their best interests to use this technology, not only to sort and identify these characteristics, but also to leverage this sorting into a device for crowd manipulation and control. In other words, the same mechanism that persuades people to buy a particular tennis shoe, breakfast cereal, or automobile can be used to persuade some people to volunteer for political classifications, like Democrat, or Republican, or conservative, or progressive, or Antifa, or white nationalist, or Brexit, or MAGA.</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>The complexity of our world tempts us to employ this new tool of collectivism. Why? Because believing you’ve mastered the ability to predict human behavior provides a powerful temptation. And if you think you can predict human behavior, you might falsely believe you can control it.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>We must, and soon, get a handle on how this confluence of collectivism and technological advances has brought us to this dangerous moment. We must find a way to peacefully back away from <a href=\"https://talki.ng/t/civilwar2\" rel=\"nofollow\">the precipice</a>. If not, I fear we may suffer a cataclysm that will make the 19th century’s Civil War seem small.</p>\n<p>I don’t propose political control of technology. I propose political control of the corrosive and putrid consequences of the stale and dangerous ideology of collectivism. The U.S. Constitution and most of its Amendments were a good start. With some minor adjustments and fuller appreciation of their virtues, America can return to the path of an intelligent existence.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-08-02 14:00 -0500 | declan | Story: Project Veritas video: Political Censorship in Big Tech |
| Action: changed title from "Project Veritas - EXPOSED: Political Censorship in Big Tech (Aug 2, 2019)" to "Project Veritas video: Political Censorship in Big Tech" | ||
| 2019-08-02 13:59 -0500 | declan | Story: California Wants to Teach Your Kids That Capitalism Is Racist |
| Action: changed tags from "california" to "california paywall" | ||
| 2019-08-02 09:41 -0500 | declan | Story: Harris’ Presidential Bid Killed By Bad Prosecutor Status |
| Action: changed title from "Seaton (SimpleJustice): Harris’ Presidential Bid Killed By Bad Prosecutor Status" to "Harris’ Presidential Bid Killed By Bad Prosecutor Status" | ||
| 2019-07-28 22:44 -0500 | declan | Story: Maureen Dowd: "Spare Me the Purity Racket" |
| Action: changed title from "Spare Me the Purity Racket" to "Maureen Dowd: \"Spare Me the Purity Racket\"" | ||
| 2019-07-26 17:40 -0500 | declan | Story: On the Tragedy of Robert Mueller as John Gill |
| Action: changed title from "On the Tragedy of Robert Mueller as John Gill | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously" to "On the Tragedy of Robert Mueller as John Gill" | ||
| 2019-07-24 13:13 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: Reason or Force. Pick One |
| Action: changed title from "Don Kilmer: Reason or Force" to "Don Kilmer: Reason or Force. Pick One" | ||
| 2019-07-24 13:13 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: Reason or Force. Pick One |
| Action: changed description from "This article from Quillette (https://quillette.com/author/james-lindsay/) got me to thinking: \r\n\r\nThere is a downside to living a modern life in urban centers. And it is manifested by a kind of collective amnesia about what is necessary for human beings to live on earth. We are creatures that manipulate the stuff around us into more comfortable and more useful things than the raw material we originally find. But that requires thinking about and using force against that raw material. \r\n\r\nFood is imported from the places where things (plants and animals) grow. This material is harvested and shipped to us in refrigerated trucks and beatifically displayed for our selection at the local supermarket. Building material is mined, or harvested, or chopped down and then efficiently put together in useful shapes, in more convenient locations to create our safe and comfortable cubicles for living and earning. Even protection from the elements is imported (exported?) or rerouted by damning rivers and building levees. Inconvenient geologic landforms are overcome with bridges and tunnels. \r\n\r\nYes we use force against nature to obtain our daily bread, keep the rain off our heads, and terraform our environment. \r\n\r\nBut are we losing touch with the difference between force applied against nature to insure our livelihood, and the use of force against sentient fellow beings to compel their behavior? \r\n\r\nReason (and potential for reason) ought be be the distinguishing filter for when we can and cannot use force against other sentient creatures. \r\n\r\nThis article reminds us that there are sociopaths out there how see their fellow human beings, not as creatures capable of reason, but as the raw material necessary to create the utopias they envision. They view cutting down human beings to build a better world in the same way that an architect sees a tree as a structural beam for a house. (Or in some circumstances at the excess wood and bark that must be removed from the tree before it is shaped into a beam.) These political/social/economic manipulators of “human capital” ignore or are incapable of seeing the difference between a herd of cattle and a group of people. \r\n\r\nAmerica as a nation fought that battle twice already on this continent. The second event explicitly purged the idea of “people as things” from our founding documents. And there have been skirmishes ever since, instigated by the sociopaths seeking to reinstate the old order. \r\n\r\nOur enemies don’t understand the distinction between force and reason. To paraphrase Ragnar (look it up), we are fast approaching the day when they must be taught the lesson again, with reason backed by force. There is still time and resources to avert a violent third correction. But we are running short of both." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 24, 2019*\r\n\r\nThis [article](/s/rodxlf/on_andy_ngo_s_assault_how_left_turned_words) from Quillette by James Lindsay\r\n got me to thinking.\r\n\r\nThere's a downside to living a modern life in urban centers. It's manifested by a kind of collective amnesia about what's necessary for human beings to live on earth. We are creatures that manipulate the stuff around us into more comfortable and more useful things than the raw material we originally find. But that requires thinking about and using force against that raw material.\r\n\r\nFood is imported from the places where things—plants and animals—grow. This material is harvested and shipped to us in refrigerated trucks and beautifully displayed for our selection at our local supermarket. Building material is mined, harvested, or chopped down and then efficiently put together in useful shapes, in more convenient locations to create our safe and comfortable cubicles for living and earning. Even protection from the elements is imported or rerouted by damning rivers and building levees. Inconvenient geologic landforms are overcome with bridges and tunnels.\r\n\r\nIn other words, we use force against nature to obtain our daily bread, keep the rain off our heads, and terraform our environment.\r\n\r\nBut are we losing touch with a key difference: Between using against nature to ensure our livelihood, and using force against our sentient fellow beings to compel their behavior?\r\n\r\nReason (including the potential for reason) ought to be the distinguishing filter for when we can and cannot use force against other sentient creatures.\r\n\r\nThe Quillette article reminds us that there are sociopaths out there. These sociopaths see their fellow human beings not as creatures capable of reason, but as the raw material necessary to create the utopias they envision. They view cutting down human beings to build a better world in the same way that an architect views a tree as a structural beam for a house. These political, social, and economic manipulators of \"human capital\" ignore—or are incapable of seeing—the difference between a herd of cattle and a group of people.\r\n\r\nAmerica as a nation fought that battle twice already on this continent. The second event explicitly purged the idea of \"people as things\" from our founding documents. And there have been skirmishes ever since, instigated by the sociopaths seeking to reinstate the old order.\r\n\r\nOur enemies don't understand the distinction between force and reason. To paraphrase Ragnar ([look it up](https://www.conservapedia.com/Ragnar_Danneskj%C3%B6ld)), we're fast approaching the day when they must be taught the lesson again, with reason backed by force. There's still time and resources to avert a violent third correction. But we are running short of both.", changed markeddown_description from "<p>This article from Quillette (<a href=\"https://quillette.com/author/james-lindsay/\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://quillette.com/author/james-lindsay/</a>) got me to thinking:</p>\n<p>There is a downside to living a modern life in urban centers. And it is manifested by a kind of collective amnesia about what is necessary for human beings to live on earth. We are creatures that manipulate the stuff around us into more comfortable and more useful things than the raw material we originally find. But that requires thinking about and using force against that raw material.</p>\n<p>Food is imported from the places where things (plants and animals) grow. This material is harvested and shipped to us in refrigerated trucks and beatifically displayed for our selection at the local supermarket. Building material is mined, or harvested, or chopped down and then efficiently put together in useful shapes, in more convenient locations to create our safe and comfortable cubicles for living and earning. Even protection from the elements is imported (exported?) or rerouted by damning rivers and building levees. Inconvenient geologic landforms are overcome with bridges and tunnels.</p>\n<p>Yes we use force against nature to obtain our daily bread, keep the rain off our heads, and terraform our environment.</p>\n<p>But are we losing touch with the difference between force applied against nature to insure our livelihood, and the use of force against sentient fellow beings to compel their behavior?</p>\n<p>Reason (and potential for reason) ought be be the distinguishing filter for when we can and cannot use force against other sentient creatures.</p>\n<p>This article reminds us that there are sociopaths out there how see their fellow human beings, not as creatures capable of reason, but as the raw material necessary to create the utopias they envision. They view cutting down human beings to build a better world in the same way that an architect sees a tree as a structural beam for a house. (Or in some circumstances at the excess wood and bark that must be removed from the tree before it is shaped into a beam.) These political/social/economic manipulators of “human capital” ignore or are incapable of seeing the difference between a herd of cattle and a group of people.</p>\n<p>America as a nation fought that battle twice already on this continent. The second event explicitly purged the idea of “people as things” from our founding documents. And there have been skirmishes ever since, instigated by the sociopaths seeking to reinstate the old order.</p>\n<p>Our enemies don’t understand the distinction between force and reason. To paraphrase Ragnar (look it up), we are fast approaching the day when they must be taught the lesson again, with reason backed by force. There is still time and resources to avert a violent third correction. But we are running short of both.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1495107334309-fcf20504a5ab?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2250&q=80\" alt=\"Rural landscape photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 24, 2019</em></p>\n<p>This <a href=\"/s/rodxlf/on_andy_ngo_s_assault_how_left_turned_words\">article</a> from Quillette by James Lindsay\ngot me to thinking.</p>\n<p>There’s a downside to living a modern life in urban centers. It’s manifested by a kind of collective amnesia about what’s necessary for human beings to live on earth. We are creatures that manipulate the stuff around us into more comfortable and more useful things than the raw material we originally find. But that requires thinking about and using force against that raw material.</p>\n<p>Food is imported from the places where things—plants and animals—grow. This material is harvested and shipped to us in refrigerated trucks and beautifully displayed for our selection at our local supermarket. Building material is mined, harvested, or chopped down and then efficiently put together in useful shapes, in more convenient locations to create our safe and comfortable cubicles for living and earning. Even protection from the elements is imported or rerouted by damning rivers and building levees. Inconvenient geologic landforms are overcome with bridges and tunnels.</p>\n<p>In other words, we use force against nature to obtain our daily bread, keep the rain off our heads, and terraform our environment.</p>\n<p>But are we losing touch with a key difference: Between using against nature to ensure our livelihood, and using force against our sentient fellow beings to compel their behavior?</p>\n<p>Reason (including the potential for reason) ought to be the distinguishing filter for when we can and cannot use force against other sentient creatures.</p>\n<p>The Quillette article reminds us that there are sociopaths out there. These sociopaths see their fellow human beings not as creatures capable of reason, but as the raw material necessary to create the utopias they envision. They view cutting down human beings to build a better world in the same way that an architect views a tree as a structural beam for a house. These political, social, and economic manipulators of “human capital” ignore—or are incapable of seeing—the difference between a herd of cattle and a group of people.</p>\n<p>America as a nation fought that battle twice already on this continent. The second event explicitly purged the idea of “people as things” from our founding documents. And there have been skirmishes ever since, instigated by the sociopaths seeking to reinstate the old order.</p>\n<p>Our enemies don’t understand the distinction between force and reason. To paraphrase Ragnar (<a href=\"https://www.conservapedia.com/Ragnar_Danneskj%C3%B6ld\" rel=\"nofollow\">look it up</a>), we’re fast approaching the day when they must be taught the lesson again, with reason backed by force. There’s still time and resources to avert a violent third correction. But we are running short of both.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-23 09:51 -0500 | don | Story: Philosophy of leftist Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club: "If others have rifles, we'll have rifles" |
| Action: changed tags from "civilwar2" to "civilwar2 mediajackals" | ||
| Reason: Added comment to explain why this news story is an example of bad journalism, that still conveys useful information. | ||
| 2019-07-22 14:33 -0500 | declan | Story: Nationalism Doesn’t Fit the American Nation |
| Action: changed title from "Opinion | Nationalism Doesn’t Fit the American Nation" to "Nationalism Doesn’t Fit the American Nation", changed tags from "politics" to "politics paywall" | ||
| 2019-07-22 10:02 -0500 | declan | Story: Democrats are skipping out on the most important gun fight of all: In our cities |
| Action: changed title from "Democrats are skipping out on the most important gun fight of all - The Boston Globe" to "Democrats are skipping out on the most important gun fight of all: In our cities" | ||
| 2019-07-20 12:43 -0500 | (Users) | User presidentGS2AC |
| Action: changed own username from "mark" to "presidentGS2AC" | ||
| 2019-07-20 12:34 -0500 | declan | Story: Andrew McCarthy on President Trump and the "Send Her Back" chant: Reaction is overblown |
| Action: changed title from "Donald Trump & ‘Send Her Back’ Chant: Reaction is Overblown | National Review | Andrew McCarthy" to "Andrew McCarthy on President Trump and the \"Send Her Back\" chant: Reaction is overblown" | ||
| 2019-07-18 19:45 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: The Truth Ain’t In Kamala Harris |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 18, 2019*\r\n\r\nThe Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version [translates](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV) it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 18, 2019*\r\n\r\nThe Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version [translates](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV) it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a district attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 18, 2019</em></p>\n<p>The Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version <a href=\"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV\" rel=\"nofollow\">translates</a> it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 18, 2019</em></p>\n<p>The Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version <a href=\"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV\" rel=\"nofollow\">translates</a> it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a district attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-18 19:45 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: The Truth Ain’t In Kamala Harris |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\nThe Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version [translates](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV) it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 18, 2019*\r\n\r\nThe Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version [translates](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV) it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p>The Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version <a href=\"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV\" rel=\"nofollow\">translates</a> it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 18, 2019</em></p>\n<p>The Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version <a href=\"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV\" rel=\"nofollow\">translates</a> it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-18 19:44 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: The Truth Ain’t In Kamala Harris |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Gospel Of John (8:44), as the King James Version translates it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her." to "\r\n\r\nThe Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version [translates](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV) it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1505751172876-fa1923c5c528?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2250&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p>The Gospel Of John (8:44), as the King James Version translates it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p>The Gospel of John (8:44), as the King James Version <a href=\"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=KJV\" rel=\"nofollow\">translates</a> it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-18 19:44 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: An open question on open borders and the current crisis |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-18 19:43 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: An open question on open borders and the current crisis |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1536704382439-da99b6ccc0cf?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2167&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-18 19:42 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: The Truth Ain’t In Kamala Harris |
| Action: changed title from "The Truth Ain’t In Kamal Harris" to "Don Kilmer: The Truth Ain’t In Kamala Harris", changed description from "John 8:44 “There is no truth in him.” My mother-in-law (born in Springfield, MO) had a Midwestern take on this biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Kamala Harris is incapable of telling the truth about anything. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and implied he was a racist. She lied about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is lying about her healthcare proposals, and being called out for it. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle writ on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, mostly because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is after all a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens. She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political powers is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her." to "\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Gospel Of John (8:44), as the King James Version translates it, includes this warning: \"There is no truth in him.”\r\n\r\nMy mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. \"Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.\" You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.\r\n\r\nIt should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate [Kamala Harris](/search?utf8=✓&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest) is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and [implied](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/) he was a racist. She [lied](https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/) about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is [lying](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html) about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it. \r\n\r\nOne can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don't want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.\r\n\r\nKamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let's hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn't proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?\r\n\r\nI've made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain't in her.", changed markeddown_description from "<p>John 8:44 “There is no truth in him.” My mother-in-law (born in Springfield, MO) had a Midwestern take on this biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Kamala Harris is incapable of telling the truth about anything. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and implied he was a racist. She lied about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is lying about her healthcare proposals, and being called out for it. <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html</a></p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle writ on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, mostly because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is after all a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens. She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political powers is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1505751172876-fa1923c5c528?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2250&q=80\" alt=\"Healthcare photo\"></p>\n<p>The Gospel Of John (8:44), as the King James Version translates it, includes this warning: “There is no truth in him.”</p>\n<p>My mother-in-law, born in Springfield, Mo., had her own midwestern take on this Biblical phrase. “Whyyyyyy, the truth ain’t in him.” You need to draw out the “why” and add an Ozark twang to get it to sound just right.</p>\n<p>It should be apparent by now that Democratic presidential candidate <a href=\"/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Kamala+Harris&what=stories&order=newest\">Kamala Harris</a> is incapable of telling the truth. She lied about Joe Biden’s record on civil rights and <a href=\"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/uncle-joe-gets-snared-by-the-democratic-partys-jim-crow-past/\" rel=\"nofollow\">implied</a> he was a racist. She <a href=\"https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/\" rel=\"nofollow\">lied</a> about her record as a District Attorney in San Francisco. Now she is <a href=\"http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/kamala-harriss-medicare-for-all-plan-makes-no-sense.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">lying</a> about her healthcare proposals—and is being called out for it.</p>\n<p>One can only assume that Kamala Harris will say and do anything to acquire more political power. Her career is a template for the Peter Principle written on political parchment. Except that in the world of politics, people tend to advance way beyond their level of incompetence, perhaps because competent people don’t want the job of telling their neighbors how to live their lives.</p>\n<p>Kamala Harris most resembles a seductress who just wants to land the mark. She wants to get the target of her efforts to some secluded place where the real agenda is revealed. Let’s hope that agenda is only higher taxes and more regulations. She is, after all, a Democrat. Or should we be more wary of this particular operator? Is she more than a mere grifter? Does she have a urge to control, by any means necessary, her fellow citizens? She certainly isn’t proposing any controls for non-citizens. Is she really some kind of predatory political sociopath?</p>\n<p>I’ve made up my mind. Whether she acquires more political power is an exercise left to my fellow citizens who will vote next year. But I know this: The truth ain’t in her.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-18 16:37 -0500 | declan | Story: One-third of young British people think feminism Is "demonising and marginalising" men, poll finds |
| Action: changed title from "A New Poll Has Found A Third Of Young British People Think Feminism Is \"Demonising And Marginalising\" Men" to "One-third of young British people think feminism Is \"demonising and marginalising\" men, poll finds", changed tags from "feminism" to "feminism poll" | ||
| 2019-07-17 23:26 -0500 | declan | Story: Florida homeowner injured, kills two intruders with AR-15 |
| Action: changed title from "Summerfield homeowner injured, kills 2 intruders with AR-15" to "Florida homeowner injured, kills two intruders with AR-15", changed tags from "gunrights" to "gunrights crime" | ||
| 2019-07-17 23:24 -0500 | declan | Story: Matt Drudge's 'Future' Is Now Realized, And That Has Legacy Media Enraged |
| Action: changed tags from "mediajackals" to "mediajackals history technology" | ||
| 2019-07-15 21:59 -0500 | declan | Story: YouTube removes video of Tommy Robinson from U.S. journalist’s channel, claims “hate speech” problem |
| Action: changed title from "YouTube Removes Video of Tommy Robinson From TGP Reporter's Channel, Says it Violates 'Hate Speech Policy'" to "YouTube removes video of Tommy Robinson from U.S. journalist’s channel, claims “hate speech” problem", changed tags from "deplatforming" to "deplatforming bigtech" | ||
| 2019-07-15 21:51 -0500 | declan | Story: What Do You Do When Mental Health Professionals Treating Trump Derangement Syndrome Have TDS Themselves? |
| Action: changed tags from "donaldtrump" to "donaldtrump health" | ||
| 2019-07-15 12:43 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: An open question on open borders and the current crisis |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](https://talki.ng/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"https://talki.ng/u/don\" rel=\"nofollow\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-15 12:42 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: An open question on open borders and the current crisis |
| Action: changed description from "\r\n\r\n<h1>\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](https://talki.ng/u/don)**\r\n</h1>\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement." to "\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](https://talki.ng/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<!-- raw HTML omitted -->\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"https://talki.ng/u/don\" rel=\"nofollow\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-15 12:41 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer: An open question on open borders and the current crisis |
| Action: changed title from "Open Question. Re: Border Crisis Debate" to "Don Kilmer: An open question on open borders and the current crisis", changed description from "I’m persuadable that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the U.S., but only after the abolition of the welfare state. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem, who does not include a reference to this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that 33% of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming Central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does point out that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans, or how do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I am sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of Constitutional text, i.e., COTUS only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely I interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems (human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism) get solved without some kind of border enforcement." to "\r\n\r\n<h1>\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](https://talki.ng/u/don)**\r\n</h1>\r\n\r\n*Posted July 15, 2019*\r\n\r\nI can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud. \r\n\r\nWe now know that some [33 percent](https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent) of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking? \r\n\r\nThe U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security? \r\n\r\nA significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans? \r\n\r\nAgain, I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration. \r\n\r\nBut I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems--human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism--get solved without *some* kind of border enforcement.", changed markeddown_description from "<p>I’m persuadable that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the U.S., but only after the abolition of the welfare state. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem, who does not include a reference to this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that 33% of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming Central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does point out that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans, or how do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I am sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of Constitutional text, i.e., COTUS only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely I interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems (human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism) get solved without some kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1521295121783-8a321d551ad2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1950&q=80\" alt=\"Globe photo\"></p>\n<!-- raw HTML omitted -->\n<p><em>Posted July 15, 2019</em></p>\n<p>I can be persuaded that our borders should be open to all who want to live and work in the United States—but only after the welfare state is abolished. Milton Friedman was right about this. Everyone talking about the border problem who fails to mention this issue is a fraud.</p>\n<p>We now know that some <a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/kb0g3u/dna_tests_reveal_30_suspected_fraudulent\" rel=\"nofollow\">33 percent</a> of the children crossing the border outside of authorized channels are unrelated to the adults they are traveling with. Isn’t this the definition of human trafficking?</p>\n<p>The U.S. has virtually wiped out childhood communicable disease with vaccines and public hygiene. What are the health conditions of the countries these children are coming from? Isn’t quarantine and vaccination of these children before they are exposed to American children the least we can expect from U.S. border security?</p>\n<p>A significant portion of the refugees claiming a central American country of origin are actually coming from Asia and the Middle East. That doesn’t make them dangerous, but it does suggest that accurate screening is not a high priority. How should our government screen for foreign agents whose governments want to harm Americans? How do we identify lone wolf operators from non-government organizations who want to murder Americans?</p>\n<p>Again, I’m sympathetic to the libertarian ideal of the free flow of capital and labor across international borders. And I am more than sympathetic to an original public meaning interpretation of the constitutional text: that is, the federal government only has the power to regulate naturalization, not immigration.</p>\n<p>But I’m sincerely interested in anyone’s thoughts on how these real world problems–human trafficking of children, communicable diseases, terrorism–get solved without <em>some</em> kind of border enforcement.</p>\n" | ||
| 2019-07-14 22:47 -0500 | declan | Story: Culture war dispatch: "Wahooing Betsy Ross" |
| Action: changed title from "Opinion | Wahooing Betsy Ross" to "Culture war dispatch: \"Wahooing Betsy Ross\"", changed tags from "culturewars" to "culturewars paywall" | ||
| 2019-07-14 12:31 -0500 | declan | Story: William McGurn: Yankee Doodle Donald |
| Action: changed title from "Opinion | Yankee Doodle Donald" to "William McGurn: Yankee Doodle Donald", changed tags from "donaldtrump" to "donaldtrump paywall" | ||
| 2019-07-10 10:21 -0500 | declan | Story: Law professor denounces student’s MAGA hat: "Undeniable symbol of white supremacy" |
| Action: changed title from "Professor denounces student’s MAGA hat: ‘Undeniable symbol of white supremacy’" to "Law professor denounces student’s MAGA hat: \"Undeniable symbol of white supremacy\"", changed tags from "culturewars" to "culturewars campusspeech education" | ||
| 2019-07-10 10:19 -0500 | declan | Story: Hillsdale College sues over $5 million donated to Michigan Univ. earmarked for Austrian economics |
| Action: changed title from "Hillsdale College sues over $5 million donated to Michigan University" to "Hillsdale College sues over $5 million donated to Michigan Univ. earmarked for Austrian economics" | ||
| 2019-07-09 22:24 -0500 | declan | Story: The Fight of Our Lives: Defeating the Ideological War Against the West (2018 documentary) |
| Action: changed title from "The Fight of Our Lives - Defeating the Ideological War Against the West | Prime Video" to "The Fight of Our Lives: Defeating the Ideological War Against the West (2018 documentary)", changed tags from "campusspeech culturewars firstamendment terrorism war" to "campusspeech culturewars firstamendment terrorism war video" | ||
| 2019-07-09 16:28 -0500 | declan | Story: Bobby Jindal: Conservatives, put culture first |
| Action: changed title from "Bobby Jindal: Conservatives, put culture first (Paywall)" to "Bobby Jindal: Conservatives, put culture first", changed tags from "culturewars" to "culturewars paywall" | ||
| 2019-07-09 16:28 -0500 | declan | Story: WSJ Column: Hate Crime Hoaxes Are More Common Than You Think |
| Action: changed title from "WSJ Column: Hate Crime Hoaxes Are More Common Than You Think (paywall)" to "WSJ Column: Hate Crime Hoaxes Are More Common Than You Think", changed tags from "crime" to "crime paywall" | ||
| 2019-07-09 16:28 -0500 | declan | Story: WSJ op-ed: What Socialism Meant for My Great-Grandfather |
| Action: changed title from "Opinion | What Socialism Meant for My Great-Grandfather" to "WSJ op-ed: What Socialism Meant for My Great-Grandfather", changed tags from "socialism" to "socialism paywall" | ||
| 2019-07-09 16:27 -0500 | declan | Tag: paywall |
| Action: Created new tag with id '66', with tag 'paywall', with description 'Paywalled stories', with privileged 'false', with is_media 'false', with inactive 'false', with hotness_mod '-0.01' | ||
| 2019-07-09 11:17 -0500 | declan | Tag: donaldtrump |
| Action: Updating tag donaldtrump, changed description from 'Donald Trump' to 'President Donald Trump' | ||
| 2019-07-06 22:34 -0500 | declan | Story: Starbucks shop boots police officers because customer ‘did not feel safe’ around them: reports |
| Action: merged into zavql0 (Culture wars in Arizona: Police drinking coffee reportedly asked to leave Starbucks) | ||
| 2019-07-06 18:53 -0500 | declan | Story: Thought experiment on BigTech bias: Can manipulation of data be morally wrong? |
| Action: changed title from "Thought Experiment - Can manipulation of data be morally wrong?" to "Thought experiment on BigTech bias: Can manipulation of data be morally wrong?", changed description from "I originally posted this as a comment to this article by Mike Wacker about Google manipulating search engines. https://link.medium.com/oMv9hGmC6X \r\n\r\nBut I now think it should be posted as a stand-alone essay. I have edited the original post for style and clarity. \r\n\r\nThis article by Mr. Wacker provoked these thoughts and got me to thinking. \r\n\r\nWe traditionally think of force in human interactions as taking place when someone is holding a gun to someone’s head to compel (or prohibit) certain conduct, and/or killing to prevent conduct. Note the difference. Killing can only prohibit further action by the target of the force. And other than its demonstrative effect to frighten others, can produce no other response. While the threat of a gun held to someone’s head can BOTH prohibit and compel action.\r\n\r\nTherefore we can surmise that threats have a more utilitarian/practical value to the person holding the gun. We tolerate force employed by government when that force (killing and threatening) is used to stop crimes: murder, rape, robbery, arson. This happens when a crime is actually stopped by the police while the crime is happening live, a rare occurrence. And it happens (mostly) when the criminal is apprehended after the crime, tried in a court of law, found guilty, and then compelled to live separately in a prison for punishment and/or the protection of others.\r\n\r\nWhen the government starts using force outside of traditional crime stoppage and segregation of criminals from society, that society will start sliding toward tyranny. Small steps at first, to be sure. But the pace usually accelerates as more and more human conduct is “directed” by the threat of force.\r\n\r\nGoogle is not a government. (Yet.) And while it does not employ force to manipulate conduct, it does make one question whether or not it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the definition, or at least the context, of when we label goal-directed manipulation of some people, by any entity, as force.\r\n\r\nExample: A blind person asks me for directions to an address. The address is one door to my left. If the blind man had sight, he would see the address. He is depending on my eyesight (my search engine) to verbally tell him the truth about his destination. Instead of giving him that information (your search result is one door to my left), I tell him that his destination (his requested search result) is 600 steps to my right. Except, 600 steps to my right is an unmarked plunge off of a 1000 foot cliff, certain death. The blind man will die if he accepts my instructions. I’ve used no force against this man. No weapon was employed. I’m not obligated by kinship or contract to guide this blind man to his destination. He approached me after all, I did not approach him. It’s even possible that he might have walked off the cliff by himself if I had not been there. If the blind man walks off the cliff and dies, have I committed a crime?\r\n\r\nDistinguish the blind man’s search for the correct address he is trying to obtain, and the average Google user’s query via Google’s various search engines and any manipulations by those search engines. The consequence might not be life or death today, nor happen in one sudden plunge off a cliff. But is a slow motion decent into tyranny any better, one small manipulated bit of information at a time? Times millions (billions) of queries per day?\r\n\r\nWhat are the natural law/natural rights arguments for and against Google’s (or any information provider) manipulating data to skew public opinion? Especially in a country where parties are winning power by a mere handful of votes? \r\n\r\nWe had better find a solution soon or risk a reevaluation about whether 2 + 2 = 5." to "I originally posted this as a comment to [this article](https://link.medium.com/oMv9hGmC6X) by Mike Wacker about Google manipulating search rankings.\r\n\r\nBut I now think it should be posted as a stand-alone essay. I have edited the original post for style and clarity. \r\n\r\nThis article by Mr. Wacker provoked these thoughts and got me to thinking. \r\n\r\nWe traditionally think of force in human interactions as taking place when someone is holding a gun to someone’s head to compel (or prohibit) certain conduct, and/or killing to prevent conduct. Note the difference. Killing can only prohibit further action by the target of the force. And other than its demonstrative effect to frighten others, can produce no other response. While the threat of a gun held to someone’s head can **both** prohibit and compel action.\r\n\r\nTherefore we can surmise that threats have a more utilitarian/practical value to the person holding the gun. We tolerate force employed by government when that force (killing and threatening) is used to stop crimes: murder, rape, robbery, arson. This happens when a crime is actually stopped by the police while the crime is happening live, a rare occurrence. And it happens (mostly) when the criminal is apprehended after the crime, tried in a court of law, found guilty, and then compelled to live separately in a prison for punishment and/or the protection of others.\r\n\r\nWhen the government starts using force outside of traditional crime stoppage and segregation of criminals from society, that society will start sliding toward tyranny. Small steps at first, to be sure. But the pace usually accelerates as more and more human conduct is “directed” by the threat of force.\r\n\r\nGoogle is not a government. (Yet.) And while it does not employ force to manipulate conduct, it does make one question whether or not it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the definition, or at least the context, of when we label goal-directed manipulation of some people, by any entity, as force.\r\n\r\nExample: A blind person asks me for directions to an address. The address is one door to my left. If the blind man had sight, he would see the address. He is depending on my eyesight (my search engine) to verbally tell him the truth about his destination. Instead of giving him that information (your search result is one door to my left), I tell him that his destination (his requested search result) is 600 steps to my right. Except, 600 steps to my right is an unmarked plunge off of a 1000 foot cliff, certain death. The blind man will die if he accepts my instructions. I’ve used no force against this man. No weapon was employed. I’m not obligated by kinship or contract to guide this blind man to his destination. He approached me after all, I did not approach him. It’s even possible that he might have walked off the cliff by himself if I had not been there. If the blind man walks off the cliff and dies, have I committed a crime?\r\n\r\nDistinguish the blind man’s search for the correct address he is trying to obtain, and the average Google user’s query via Google’s various search engines and any manipulations by those search engines. The consequence might not be life or death today, nor happen in one sudden plunge off a cliff. But is a slow motion decent into tyranny any better, one small manipulated bit of information at a time? Times millions (billions) of queries per day?\r\n\r\nWhat are the natural law/natural rights arguments for and against Google’s (or any information provider) manipulating data to skew public opinion? Especially in a country where parties are winning power by a mere handful of votes? \r\n\r\nWe had better find a solution soon or risk a reevaluation about whether 2 + 2 = 5.", changed markeddown_description from "<p>I originally posted this as a comment to this article by Mike Wacker about Google manipulating search engines. <a href=\"https://link.medium.com/oMv9hGmC6X\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://link.medium.com/oMv9hGmC6X</a></p>\n<p>But I now think it should be posted as a stand-alone essay. I have edited the original post for style and clarity.</p>\n<p>This article by Mr. Wacker provoked these thoughts and got me to thinking.</p>\n<p>We traditionally think of force in human interactions as taking place when someone is holding a gun to someone’s head to compel (or prohibit) certain conduct, and/or killing to prevent conduct. Note the difference. Killing can only prohibit further action by the target of the force. And other than its demonstrative effect to frighten others, can produce no other response. While the threat of a gun held to someone’s head can BOTH prohibit and compel action.</p>\n<p>Therefore we can surmise that threats have a more utilitarian/practical value to the person holding the gun. We tolerate force employed by government when that force (killing and threatening) is used to stop crimes: murder, rape, robbery, arson. This happens when a crime is actually stopped by the police while the crime is happening live, a rare occurrence. And it happens (mostly) when the criminal is apprehended after the crime, tried in a court of law, found guilty, and then compelled to live separately in a prison for punishment and/or the protection of others.</p>\n<p>When the government starts using force outside of traditional crime stoppage and segregation of criminals from society, that society will start sliding toward tyranny. Small steps at first, to be sure. But the pace usually accelerates as more and more human conduct is “directed” by the threat of force.</p>\n<p>Google is not a government. (Yet.) And while it does not employ force to manipulate conduct, it does make one question whether or not it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the definition, or at least the context, of when we label goal-directed manipulation of some people, by any entity, as force.</p>\n<p>Example: A blind person asks me for directions to an address. The address is one door to my left. If the blind man had sight, he would see the address. He is depending on my eyesight (my search engine) to verbally tell him the truth about his destination. Instead of giving him that information (your search result is one door to my left), I tell him that his destination (his requested search result) is 600 steps to my right. Except, 600 steps to my right is an unmarked plunge off of a 1000 foot cliff, certain death. The blind man will die if he accepts my instructions. I’ve used no force against this man. No weapon was employed. I’m not obligated by kinship or contract to guide this blind man to his destination. He approached me after all, I did not approach him. It’s even possible that he might have walked off the cliff by himself if I had not been there. If the blind man walks off the cliff and dies, have I committed a crime?</p>\n<p>Distinguish the blind man’s search for the correct address he is trying to obtain, and the average Google user’s query via Google’s various search engines and any manipulations by those search engines. The consequence might not be life or death today, nor happen in one sudden plunge off a cliff. But is a slow motion decent into tyranny any better, one small manipulated bit of information at a time? Times millions (billions) of queries per day?</p>\n<p>What are the natural law/natural rights arguments for and against Google’s (or any information provider) manipulating data to skew public opinion? Especially in a country where parties are winning power by a mere handful of votes?</p>\n<p>We had better find a solution soon or risk a reevaluation about whether 2 + 2 = 5.</p>\n" to "<p>I originally posted this as a comment to <a href=\"https://link.medium.com/oMv9hGmC6X\" rel=\"nofollow\">this article</a> by Mike Wacker about Google manipulating search rankings.</p>\n<p>But I now think it should be posted as a stand-alone essay. I have edited the original post for style and clarity.</p>\n<p>This article by Mr. Wacker provoked these thoughts and got me to thinking.</p>\n<p>We traditionally think of force in human interactions as taking place when someone is holding a gun to someone’s head to compel (or prohibit) certain conduct, and/or killing to prevent conduct. Note the difference. Killing can only prohibit further action by the target of the force. And other than its demonstrative effect to frighten others, can produce no other response. While the threat of a gun held to someone’s head can <strong>both</strong> prohibit and compel action.</p>\n<p>Therefore we can surmise that threats have a more utilitarian/practical value to the person holding the gun. We tolerate force employed by government when that force (killing and threatening) is used to stop crimes: murder, rape, robbery, arson. This happens when a crime is actually stopped by the police while the crime is happening live, a rare occurrence. And it happens (mostly) when the criminal is apprehended after the crime, tried in a court of law, found guilty, and then compelled to live separately in a prison for punishment and/or the protection of others.</p>\n<p>When the government starts using force outside of traditional crime stoppage and segregation of criminals from society, that society will start sliding toward tyranny. Small steps at first, to be sure. But the pace usually accelerates as more and more human conduct is “directed” by the threat of force.</p>\n<p>Google is not a government. (Yet.) And while it does not employ force to manipulate conduct, it does make one question whether or not it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the definition, or at least the context, of when we label goal-directed manipulation of some people, by any entity, as force.</p>\n<p>Example: A blind person asks me for directions to an address. The address is one door to my left. If the blind man had sight, he would see the address. He is depending on my eyesight (my search engine) to verbally tell him the truth about his destination. Instead of giving him that information (your search result is one door to my left), I tell him that his destination (his requested search result) is 600 steps to my right. Except, 600 steps to my right is an unmarked plunge off of a 1000 foot cliff, certain death. The blind man will die if he accepts my instructions. I’ve used no force against this man. No weapon was employed. I’m not obligated by kinship or contract to guide this blind man to his destination. He approached me after all, I did not approach him. It’s even possible that he might have walked off the cliff by himself if I had not been there. If the blind man walks off the cliff and dies, have I committed a crime?</p>\n<p>Distinguish the blind man’s search for the correct address he is trying to obtain, and the average Google user’s query via Google’s various search engines and any manipulations by those search engines. The consequence might not be life or death today, nor happen in one sudden plunge off a cliff. But is a slow motion decent into tyranny any better, one small manipulated bit of information at a time? Times millions (billions) of queries per day?</p>\n<p>What are the natural law/natural rights arguments for and against Google’s (or any information provider) manipulating data to skew public opinion? Especially in a country where parties are winning power by a mere handful of votes?</p>\n<p>We had better find a solution soon or risk a reevaluation about whether 2 + 2 = 5.</p>\n", changed tags from "culturewars essays fixbigtech" to "culturewars essays fixbigtech bigtech" | ||
| 2019-07-05 11:09 -0500 | declan | Story: Bobby Jindal: Conservatives, put culture first |
| Action: changed title from "Opinion | Conservatives, Put Culture First" to "Bobby Jindal: Conservatives, put culture first (Paywall)" | ||
| 2019-07-05 09:45 -0500 | don | Story: Ex-Google engineer Mike Wacker: How Google manually biases searches for terms like “abortion” |
| Action: changed tags from "abortion bigtech deplatforming" to "abortion bigtech deplatforming culturewars fixbigtech politics" | ||
| Reason: Added tags. This is an important article. Scary important. | ||
| 2019-07-03 00:37 -0500 | declan | Story: Don Kilmer on the progressive left: They now openly call for wealth redistribution, socialism |
| Action: changed description from "It would seem that the progressive left has abandon all pretense of preserving the liberties enshrined in our Constitution, and they now advocate openly for wealth redistribution and other forms of socialism. The Democrat party has also eschewed any attempt to give cover to this lurch to the left by claiming they are merely standing up for the working class and blue-collar America. \r\n\r\nThe proof? 20, 30, 40 years ago Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been pulled into the Democrat Speaker’s office (who after all must govern the whole party) and told to “cool her jets” or risk getting unelected, with the additional threat that she’d be lucky to get a job bussing tables, forget waiting tables and tending bar in her district. \r\n\r\nBut Nancy Pelosi is signaling (forget trial ballon, think Hindenburg) that she approves of AOC’s antics. She probably approved of them all along and behind closed doors. But the party structure is so weak now, that Pelosi can’t even put on the facade of trying to discipline her own party by trying to appear moderate. \r\n\r\nLet’s hope the DEM’s political theater plays out to their detriment in November 2020, otherwise the state of our union is much worse than we can imagine." to "It would seem that the progressive left has abandoned all pretense of preserving the liberties enshrined in our Constitution, and they now advocate openly for wealth redistribution and other forms of socialism. The Democrat party has also eschewed any attempt to give cover to this lurch to the left by claiming they are merely standing up for the working class and blue-collar America. \r\n\r\nThe proof? 20, 30, 40 years ago Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been pulled into the Democrat Speaker’s office (who after all must govern the whole party) and told to “cool her jets” or risk getting unelected, with the additional threat that she’d be lucky to get a job bussing tables, forget waiting tables and tending bar in her district. \r\n\r\nBut Nancy Pelosi is signaling (forget trial ballon, think Hindenburg) that she approves of AOC’s antics. She probably approved of them all along and behind closed doors. But the party structure is so weak now, that Pelosi can’t even put on the facade of trying to discipline her own party by trying to appear moderate. \r\n\r\nLet’s hope the Dems’ political theater plays out to their detriment in November 2020. Otherwise the state of our union is much worse than we can imagine.", changed markeddown_description from "<p>It would seem that the progressive left has abandon all pretense of preserving the liberties enshrined in our Constitution, and they now advocate openly for wealth redistribution and other forms of socialism. The Democrat party has also eschewed any attempt to give cover to this lurch to the left by claiming they are merely standing up for the working class and blue-collar America.</p>\n<p>The proof? 20, 30, 40 years ago Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been pulled into the Democrat Speaker’s office (who after all must govern the whole party) and told to “cool her jets” or risk getting unelected, with the additional threat that she’d be lucky to get a job bussing tables, forget waiting tables and tending bar in her district.</p>\n<p>But Nancy Pelosi is signaling (forget trial ballon, think Hindenburg) that she approves of AOC’s antics. She probably approved of them all along and behind closed doors. But the party structure is so weak now, that Pelosi can’t even put on the facade of trying to discipline her own party by trying to appear moderate.</p>\n<p>Let’s hope the DEM’s political theater plays out to their detriment in November 2020, otherwise the state of our union is much worse than we can imagine.</p>\n" to "<p>It would seem that the progressive left has abandoned all pretense of preserving the liberties enshrined in our Constitution, and they now advocate openly for wealth redistribution and other forms of socialism. The Democrat party has also eschewed any attempt to give cover to this lurch to the left by claiming they are merely standing up for the working class and blue-collar America.</p>\n<p>The proof? 20, 30, 40 years ago Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been pulled into the Democrat Speaker’s office (who after all must govern the whole party) and told to “cool her jets” or risk getting unelected, with the additional threat that she’d be lucky to get a job bussing tables, forget waiting tables and tending bar in her district.</p>\n<p>But Nancy Pelosi is signaling (forget trial ballon, think Hindenburg) that she approves of AOC’s antics. She probably approved of them all along and behind closed doors. But the party structure is so weak now, that Pelosi can’t even put on the facade of trying to discipline her own party by trying to appear moderate.</p>\n<p>Let’s hope the Dems’ political theater plays out to their detriment in November 2020. Otherwise the state of our union is much worse than we can imagine.</p>\n" | ||
| Reason: for style | ||
| 2019-07-02 23:22 -0500 | declan | Tag: fixbigtech |
| Action: Updating tag fixbigtech, changed description from 'How to fix Big Tech' to 'How to fix Big Tech: Remedies' | ||
| 2019-07-02 23:17 -0500 | declan | Story: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasts “Woke Democrats”: You'll “lose another election to Trump” |
| Action: changed title from "MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasts 'Woke Democrats' in fiery tweetstorm: You'll 'lose another election to Trump'" to "MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasts “Woke Democrats”: You'll “lose another election to Trump”", changed tags from "democrats" to "democrats mediajackals" | ||
| 2019-07-02 12:15 -0500 | patrick | Story: Antifa Enjoys Widespread Support in Silicon Valley |
| Action: changed tags from "politics" to "politics bigtech california crime culturewars deplatforming terrorism" | ||
| 2019-07-02 11:39 -0500 | declan | Story: Mark Steyn on "anti-racism" as new Communism: Portlantifa |
| Action: changed title from "Mark Steyn on \"anti-racism\" as new Communism: Portlantifa -" to "Mark Steyn on \"anti-racism\" as new Communism: Portlantifa" | ||
| 2019-07-02 11:38 -0500 | declan | Story: Mark Steyn on "anti-racism" as new Communism: Portlantifa |
| Action: changed title from "Portlantifa - Mark Steyn" to "Mark Steyn on \"anti-racism\" as new Communism: Portlantifa -" | ||