Muda69

What happens when demand for racism far outstrips supply? https://spectator.org/nascar-noose-garage-door-bubba-wallace/

https://reason.com/2020/06/24/breonna-taylor-and-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-drug-prohibition/ Bingo. This government insistence of continuing a failed "War on People... err Drugs" has left nothing but death and carnage in it's wake. Black and White alike.

Thomas Jefferson Must Stand https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/thomas-jefferson-great-but-imperfect-man/

Still just means a uni-party candidate will probably win the election. So that means nothing will really change. Vote third party.

"Protestors" Deface Bust of Miguel Cervantes, a Former Slave https://mises.org/wire/protestors-deface-bust-miguel-cervantes-former-slave The great irony here, however, is that Cervantes, unlike every person "protesting" Cervantes's image, knew what it was like to be a slave. As described by Fiona MacDonald for the BBC: Cervantes was just one of countless Europeans enslaved by slave traders (especially the Muslim Barbary Pirates) over the centuries, kidnapped in coastal raids by pirates along the coasts of Italy, Britain, Ireland, and the eastern Mediterranean. Saint Patrick, of course, had been enslaved in such a way, by Irish pirates. Such nuances of history, of course, matter nothing to the protestors or indeed to Americans in general. The average American (whether white, black, Left, or Right) knows about as much about the sixteenth century (or any century before the twenthieth) as he knows about the intricacies of astrophysics. So we should not be surprised that the protestors are also vandalizing statues of abolitionists, such as happened to a memorial for Philadelphia abolitionist Mathias Baldwin.

https://www.diversityinc.com/atwg-on-is-it-racism-or-bigotry/

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/07/06/the-white-guilt-cult/#slide-1 Agreed. A number of our GID brethren are followers of this Cult.

Yes they are. The complete homogenization of America culture continues.

https://mises.org/library/review-unprofitable-schooling-examining-causes-and-fixes-americas-broken-ivory-tower Sounds like an interesting book. I plan on reading it.

Fathers used to be fonts of wisdom. Now they're the punch line.: https://reason.com/2020/06/21/why-are-bad-jokes-dad-jokes-fathers-day/

https://reason.com/2020/06/12/protesters-activists-shor-floyd-1793-project/ Fang was plainly terrified, and not unreasonably fearful of losing his job and being branded a racist forever. The Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein called Fang's forced apology "Maoist-style." It's a hyperbolic analogy, referencing the infamous "struggle sessions" of Mao Zedong's totalitarian communism regime. Thankfully, the dissenters from woke orthodoxy are not being tortured or executed for wrongthink. But they do face tremendous pressure to avoid saying anything that might provoke an online mob, or an illiberal colleague, or an activist with different priorities—even if that thing they want to say is plainly true. This new reality has important social consequences: for the individuals caught in the crosshairs, but also the institutions attempting to navigate these very treacherous waters. Given that so many cancellations hinge on the accusation that safety is being undermined, I would suggest a different metaphor than Mao. Mine is no less hyperbolic, but it puts the focus where my reporting—and Haidt and Lukianoff's research—suggest it should be. In 1793, the Committee of Public Safety took charge of the French Revolution on a promise to "make terror the order of the day." Evidence-free show trials and ideological purges followed, consistent with the radical leaders' belief that public safety requires public terror. Needless to say, critics of today's radicals do not live in terror of being sentenced to the guillotine. But losing employment and social standing is no small matter. Having a job is usually connected to having health care and economic security: the ability to afford food, housing, and medicine. While some people weather and overcome their cancellation—even profiting from it—others aren't so lucky. We hear a lot about the cases where things worked out eventually (this Olivia Nuzzi piece is a must-read), but many cases never produce a sympathetic backlash that aids the cancelled. And being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn't permanently impact your employment. This is not to say that every person being cancelled at the moment is a martyr for the cause of free speech. Los Angeles magazine has a list of the recently cancelled. Several were accused of fostering unpleasant work environments. Were they guilty? Maybe so. Recentlty ousted Bon Apetit editor-in-chief Adam Rappaport, for instance, seems like an unpleasant person to work for. Food writer Alison Roman, on the other hand, was dragged on social media for 1) daring to criticize Chrissy Teigen, and 2) wearing an offensive Halloween costume more than a dozen years ago. The photo of Roman was circulated on Twitter by the journalist Yashar Ali, a friend of Teigen with a history of fiercely defending her. Ali claimed the costume was intended as a "chola" stereotype of Mexican-Americans; Roman countered that she was dressed up as Amy Winehouse. Ali deleted his tweet but said he thought it was fair game because Roman had a history of "being called out for appropriation." (Twitter users immediately dug up a photo of Teigen in a culturally appropriative Halloween costume.) Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety—the woke left—seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm. This makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors' true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort. Did any of them consider Uhlig's mental health after the man was baselessly accused? Does anyone care about Roman, who probably did not expect her enemies to ransack her Myspace page for evidence of racism and then pillory her for a photo taken when she was 23? What about Shor, thrown to the wolves for making a reasonable objection to what one wing of the protesters was doing? That sounds like terror, not safety. Call it the 1793 Project. All these "woke" progressives are hypocrites, every single one of them. And for those of us who truly value the free and open exchange of ideas and public discourse should challenge and refute this politically correct, "cancel culture", bullshit at every opportunity. We cannot let them win. They are the one's who are choosing to be offended, choosing to be afraid. But not I.

Seattle's CHAZ: Homesteaders or Illegal Squatters? https://mises.org/power-market/seattles-chaz-homesteaders-or-illegal-squatters Seattle's mayor Jenny Durkan may not go quite as far as Dr. Block, but she does appear to acknowledge the new, uh, "community" essentially colonizing major thoroughfares in the Emerald City. She may not be ready to grant the CHAZ outright ownership of the streets in question, but neither is she setting any deadlines for eviction: Clearly the mayor is in the midst of a dangerous situation, both literally for the people in the CHAZ and in terms of her own political career. It's a public relations nightmare. And from a purely legal perspective, what grants her authority over who occupies Capitol Hill? One answer is taxes, says Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In his view, the streets of Seattle are not virgin territory available to homesteaders, but rather akin to land held in trust by (admittedly unworthy) state agents on behalf of taxpayers. If those trustees won't sell the land or other property outright and return the funds to taxpayers, Hoppe's view is that they at least ought to operate and maintain such property on their behalf. So, for the purpose of countering Dr. Block's contention that government property should be viewed as open to homesteading—and only for that purpose, Hoppe says—"public" property should be viewed as being owned by taxpayers. As such, it should be managed on behalf of the long-suffering (net) taxpaying citizens as a matter of simple justice. Principles aside, the essence of ownership is control. Bureaucrats, police, and politicians who control access to and use of "public" property are its de facto owners, because only they can sell, encumber, or control its use. The average American's ownership claim to the local playground or a city library is virtually nil. Simply try sleeping in them overnight, and you'll quickly find out who really owns them. So, for the moment, the Seattle protestors have the greatest control over Capitol Hill and hence an ownership claim of sorts under the brute force of "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Whether their claim is valid comes down to whether they are illegal squatters or righteous Lockean homesteaders. In a densely settled area like Seattle, with a long history of property titles flowing from valid sales, the question becomes absurd. Their protests and encampments directly affect the undisputed private property all around them. The Seattle government has thoroughly controlled the roads and police using funds forcibly taxed from Seattle residents. Capitol Hill residents, businesses, and visitors rely and depend on existing understandings and contractual arrangements. Seattle cannot be homesteaded, not even city property, in any conceivable manner that does justice to its current inhabitants. And to the extent that they've paid for it all through taxes, their right to evict the CHAZ protestors clearly supercedes any "right" to conflate occupation with protest. It's tempting to dismiss the Seattle protestors en masse because of their terrible and violent political beliefs, and their terrible designs for remaking America without property or markets. But that doesn't change the thorny question of how to deal with them here and now. If they are illegal squatters—not to mention disruptors of many who live or work in the area—then their forcible removal is justified. But New York City lacked the political will to remove Occupy Wall Street campers from Zuccotti Park for many months. Will ultrawoke Seattle in 2020, with its obliging mayor, evict the CHAZ protestors anytime soon? I would start with a blockade. Starve them out and turn of their electricity and water supply.

A Presidency Is a Terrible Thing to Waste https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/president-trump-behavior-destroying-chances-reelection/

Probably. Trailers may be banned in well-to-do Hamilton county, too downscale and harmful to property values.

You did. Again like always out of the side of your mouth. Perhaps you live in a trailer surrounded by your compound walls?? Or does it looks more like this?:

With 1 Republican Cosponsor, Rep. Justin Amash Gains Tripartisan Support To End Qualified Immunity https://reason.com/2020/06/11/justin-amash-tom-mcclintock-republican-cosponsor-tripartisan-support-to-end-qualified-immunity/ The cops in those cases received protection under the legal doctrine because the judiciary had not yet established in near-identical terms that those actions were unconstitutional. In other words, officers need clearer notice to know, for example, that stealing is wrong. Even so, qualified immunity still has its supporters. "'Clearly established' means that the law is so clear at the time of the incident that every reasonable officer would understand the unlawfulness of his conduct," Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit wrote in the majority opinion for Howse. "To avoid 'paralysis by analysis,' qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent officers or those who knowingly violate the law." When considering how the doctrine works in practice, the contradiction in Thapar's reasoning is a bit hard to ignore. Only "plainly incompetent officers" and "those who knowingly violate the law" are exempt from qualified immunity, he says. And yet it still shielded two cops who could not deduce without the help of the courts that taking hundreds of thousands of dollars is a violation of someone's constitutional rights. Brynne Kennedy, the Democrat facing McClintock in the November election, called his stance "a welcome surprise," according to McClatchy. It shouldn't be, however, when considering that McClintock has historically erred on the side of support for police reform, even before he clinched his seat in the House. "No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason," he said yesterday. "The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses." For her part, Kennedy isn't impressed. McClintock must show he will "protect Social Security and Medicare, combat corruption, and lower the cost of prescription drugs," she said. Otherwise, his bipartisanship—rather, tripartisanship—is moot. But that logic represents a backward understanding of crosspartisan lawmaking. Ironically, by Kennedy's definition, bipartisanship can only exist when everyone already agrees with the core tenets of her platform. That attitude is also counterproductive to striking down awful legal doctrines like qualified immunity and perhaps explains, in part, why so few lawmakers are willing to cross those political trenches. Just last week, I wrote about the Republicans' hesitance to support Amash's bill—an odd trend when considering the GOP claims to be the party of small government. Qualified immunity puts more power in the hands of the already-powerful at the expense of the little guy. One hopes that more might follow McClintock's lead, understanding that principled leadership need not be hamstrung by tribalism. I hope this legislation actually gets somewhere. But then there is the bigger task ahead of breaking the public sector police union.

I don't own a trailer, just a modest one family home. As for what protects it I have motion sensing lights at various locations around the exterior, along with a subscription-based security package. Why the apparent derision for individuals who live in trailers? Why no patrol? Are the walls of your compound that high and that strong?

Lady Antebellum changes name to Lady A https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2020/06/11/lady-antebellum-definition-now-officially-lady-a/5342373002/ *sigh*. Where does the PC end? Yet another bending over by individuals because someone might be offended. No, make that looking for something to offend them. The Homogenization of America: https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/homogenization-america/

So does your Hamilton county compound.,

And far more than you ever paid in.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1812&context=lcp https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/13/is-social-security-constitutional/

Yes, legalized theft along with wealth distribution.