God, I hate being right all the time. Well, to be perfectly honest, as a married man, I'm just happy to be right once in a while. And in this instance, I can say I nailed it!
What am I talking about? The Democrats and Republicans got their way: The first Presidential debate will not include anyone else outside of the Democrat and Republican candidates. If you read my last blog, “Repeat After Me", you'd know I predicted this.
(If you haven't read my last blog, please take a moment and do just that. This one is kind of a continuation of that one.)
The Presidential Debate Commission (run by the RNC and DNC) concluded that since no other candidates running for President reached 15% in an average of five polls, only Trump and Clinton would be on the debate stage.
Those five polls were “ABC-Washington Post", “CBS-New York Times", “CNN-Opinion Research Corporation", “Fox News", and “NBC-Wall Street Journal".
Instead of repeating myself concerning “polligana", I thought I'd give you a brief education on how polls are conducted. By the way, isn't it funny that the five polls were conducted by the very news organizations that have been trumpeting "bacon" over and over?
Have you ever heard, in reference to a poll, things like “likely female voters aged 22 – 34”? When you do, pay attention. What that means is that the poll information is skewed towards a certain outcome.
When doing a poll, you first come up with a list of numbers to call. You then take that list and “scrub" it to show only those individuals most likely to respond in a certain way. For instance, “people in voting blocks that previously were heavily Democrat or Republican; voter registrations that are either Democrat or Republican – NOT Independent; within a certain age group – like college students or senior citizens; and subscribe to either cable or satellite television".
And yes, that type of information on you is tracked!
The questions asked during a poll are designed to draw a certain response. “Are you a registered voter?” “How likely are you to vote in this election?” “Do you watch CNN, Fox, or MSNBC news?” “Are you more likely to vote for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or a third-party (unnamed) candidate?”
(I'm almost sure that the five polls listed above by the Presidential Debate Commission mentioned Johnson and Stein by name, but again, when the choice is bacon or some other breakfast meat . . . I say "almost sure" because I never seem to be one of those called!)
After the polls, the results are also scrubbed to present the results desired.
By the way, this happens all the time. Do you know why there are scientists that either agree or disagree with man-made climate change? Because they look either at the same data differently, or they look at data that is ignored by the other scientists.
So, because no other candidate was “bacon", and didn't get to 15% averaged in five specific polls, only the Republican and Democrat candidates' views on issues will be heard at the debate. Does that make sense?
Here's a better criteria: A candidate needs to be on the ballot in ALL 50 states. That means a candidate must meet the specific criteria each state determines in order to be on that state's ballot. That means dedicated staff and VOLUNTEERS that can get that done. But that wouldn't work, because the RNC and DNC can't control the outcome. And it's all about control.
I'm a registered Independent voter. I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, or any other designation. And I'm not alone. Over 50% of registered voters are Independent. Think about that. If Independents were ONLY 50% of registered voters, that would mean that LESS THAN 50% are either Republicans or Democrats – COMBINED! Does it make sense to you that the MINORITY parties should be in control of the conversation (the debates)?
To quote Gary Johnson: “We're on the ballot in all 50 states. We're polling higher than Perot did in '92. We're breaking 3rd party fundraising records.”
I say that candidates like Johnson DESERVE to have their opinions heard.
To you Republicans and Democrats I ask, concerning the Presidential debates, "What are you afraid of?"
©Emittravel 2016
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Repeat After Me
Have you ever heard the story about bacon? Not Kevin Bacon, though, as a person only separated from him by six degrees, I kinda have a man crush on him. (And to be honest, who doesn't?) I'm talking about the salty, delicious, only-good-when-crisp, making a cheap piece of meat expensive by being wrapped in it, and (literal) heart breaker, bacon.
When the folks who make their living selling bacon wanted to increase sales, they took a poll by contacting doctors and asking them “Is it better to eat a hearty breakfast in the morning, or eat nothing?” As would be expected, most doctors said that eating a hearty breakfast was better. The bacon folks reported the results as “Most doctors polled said that a hearty breakfast was good for you, and a hearty breakfast includes bacon.” This got repeated over and over. Then later, when taking a second poll asking people whether or not it was good to eat bacon, most said “yes", because they heard that it was, over and over and over. And this was reported as news. And now you know, as the late Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story. Bacon is the number one selling breakfast meat.
That is what is sometimes referred to as “polligana". Where polls are used to create “news" and sway public opinion by the very act of repetition.
In a recent interview, former Governor and Presidential candidate Gary Johnson was asked what he would do about Aleppo. His response? “What is Aleppo?”
First off, I want to say that I appreciate the honesty of Johnson. I seriously doubt Clinton or Trump would say they didn't know something. They would spew some political speak that answers the question by not answering it.
(Clinton said "You can look on the map and find Aleppo." Which was a clever thing to say once someone explained to HER what "Aleppo" was!)
This little piece of the interview (stopped JUST before he gave his actual answer - once being told Aleppo was the hotbed of what is happening in Syria) was played over and over in the media and social media networks.
Let me tell you, I'm not uninformed. But by that I don't mean I'm glued to the talking heads on cable news 24/7. Nor does that mean I spend every waking moment reading the same stories copied ad infinitum in every internet news media source. But what it does mean is that I know what is going on in Syria.
But until this interview, I had NEVER heard the word “Aleppo".
Now, if the question to Johnson was what he would do about Syria, he would not have skipped a beat and answered the question. (And you should check out that response – it is a GOOD one!)
Why the obscure question? To trip him up. And that is the only reason to ask the question in that manner.
Well, one other reason: to sway public opinion.
And there is a very good reason to want to sway public opinion against Gary Johnson. You see, according to a poll (yeah, yeah, I know), 62% of Americans want Gary Johnson in the debates. According to the Presidential Debate Commission, he needs to be at 15% in national polls. So, he's in, right? Wrong.
Most of the polls since the primaries started only included two parties: the Republicans and the Democrats (and, now that the primaries are over, only two candidates: Clinton and Trump). There has been very few that mentioned any so-called “third-party" candidates. So, based on repetition, the most bacon-like names are Clinton and Trump. So, when a third or fourth name is tossed in the mix, the number of people selecting someone that is not “bacon" is very few.
Until recently, the Presidential Debate Commission had never needed to explain what that precious 15% meant. Now they say it is an average of 15% based on five polls.
Why is this significant? Because the Presidential Debate Commission is made up of members of the RNC and the DNC. This 15% came about as a protection against any third-party candidate (like Ross Perot) who can “muck up the waters".
The only thing Republicans and Democrats care for is protecting their own. And that is it. Like I've said before, they don't give a rat's ass about what is best for the country, only for what is best for maintaining power. Ever hear of bipartisanship? That is where both Republicans and Democrats get together to cause the least amount of damage to themselves. And where the government is concerned, there is no such thing as nonpartisanship.
So, keeping any voices out that might shake up the bacon bits needs to be quashed. And that happens by repetition. And that happens by having those in the media repeat the desired opinions over and over and over. And those are the desired opinions of the Republicans and Democrats.
I say to hell with the "rules" of the Presidential Debate Commission, and let OTHER voices be heard!
Because we know EXACTLY what they are afraid of.
©Emittravel 2016
When the folks who make their living selling bacon wanted to increase sales, they took a poll by contacting doctors and asking them “Is it better to eat a hearty breakfast in the morning, or eat nothing?” As would be expected, most doctors said that eating a hearty breakfast was better. The bacon folks reported the results as “Most doctors polled said that a hearty breakfast was good for you, and a hearty breakfast includes bacon.” This got repeated over and over. Then later, when taking a second poll asking people whether or not it was good to eat bacon, most said “yes", because they heard that it was, over and over and over. And this was reported as news. And now you know, as the late Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story. Bacon is the number one selling breakfast meat.
That is what is sometimes referred to as “polligana". Where polls are used to create “news" and sway public opinion by the very act of repetition.
In a recent interview, former Governor and Presidential candidate Gary Johnson was asked what he would do about Aleppo. His response? “What is Aleppo?”
First off, I want to say that I appreciate the honesty of Johnson. I seriously doubt Clinton or Trump would say they didn't know something. They would spew some political speak that answers the question by not answering it.
(Clinton said "You can look on the map and find Aleppo." Which was a clever thing to say once someone explained to HER what "Aleppo" was!)
This little piece of the interview (stopped JUST before he gave his actual answer - once being told Aleppo was the hotbed of what is happening in Syria) was played over and over in the media and social media networks.
Let me tell you, I'm not uninformed. But by that I don't mean I'm glued to the talking heads on cable news 24/7. Nor does that mean I spend every waking moment reading the same stories copied ad infinitum in every internet news media source. But what it does mean is that I know what is going on in Syria.
But until this interview, I had NEVER heard the word “Aleppo".
Now, if the question to Johnson was what he would do about Syria, he would not have skipped a beat and answered the question. (And you should check out that response – it is a GOOD one!)
Why the obscure question? To trip him up. And that is the only reason to ask the question in that manner.
Well, one other reason: to sway public opinion.
And there is a very good reason to want to sway public opinion against Gary Johnson. You see, according to a poll (yeah, yeah, I know), 62% of Americans want Gary Johnson in the debates. According to the Presidential Debate Commission, he needs to be at 15% in national polls. So, he's in, right? Wrong.
Most of the polls since the primaries started only included two parties: the Republicans and the Democrats (and, now that the primaries are over, only two candidates: Clinton and Trump). There has been very few that mentioned any so-called “third-party" candidates. So, based on repetition, the most bacon-like names are Clinton and Trump. So, when a third or fourth name is tossed in the mix, the number of people selecting someone that is not “bacon" is very few.
Until recently, the Presidential Debate Commission had never needed to explain what that precious 15% meant. Now they say it is an average of 15% based on five polls.
Why is this significant? Because the Presidential Debate Commission is made up of members of the RNC and the DNC. This 15% came about as a protection against any third-party candidate (like Ross Perot) who can “muck up the waters".
The only thing Republicans and Democrats care for is protecting their own. And that is it. Like I've said before, they don't give a rat's ass about what is best for the country, only for what is best for maintaining power. Ever hear of bipartisanship? That is where both Republicans and Democrats get together to cause the least amount of damage to themselves. And where the government is concerned, there is no such thing as nonpartisanship.
So, keeping any voices out that might shake up the bacon bits needs to be quashed. And that happens by repetition. And that happens by having those in the media repeat the desired opinions over and over and over. And those are the desired opinions of the Republicans and Democrats.
I say to hell with the "rules" of the Presidential Debate Commission, and let OTHER voices be heard!
Because we know EXACTLY what they are afraid of.
©Emittravel 2016
Monday, September 5, 2016
C.I.D.
"C.I.D." That's what I have written in the space I'm supposed to put my signature on the back of all of my credit cards. Not only do I have "C.I.D." on the back of my credit cards, but I also have that on the back of my new Chip 'n Pin 'n Swipe cards.
What are Chip 'n Pin 'n Swipe cards? Those are the cards with that new chip installed where you are supposed to insert it into the card reader at the store, but then have to swipe it because the clerk informs you that the chip part isn't working yet.
 |
| At least this place had the courtesy to let you know! |
Not only do a lot of the chip readers not work, but the whole Chip 'n Pin system is a bust. It was designed to be a more secure form of exchange, but in actuality, it is no more secure than the simple "swipe" style of before.
And here's why:
"C.I.D." is the clever way of saying "See I.D." (or identification). More accurately, "C.I.D." means to "Check I.D." Since very few minimum-wage cashiers are also handwriting experts, it's more secure to have them check the name stamped on the card against the name on the I.D.
You know what? I can take my little Check 'n Pin card and stick it in a (working) chip reader, make my transaction, put the card back in my wallet, and walk out the door, and NO ONE will check to verify if that card was stolen or not.
As long as the other half of the transaction (you know, the person working the register) never bothers to compare the name on the card to the name on some form of identification of the person in possession of the card, the "secure" portion of the transaction has never taken place.
Anyone can walk into a store with a stolen credit card and chip it or swipe it and walk away without issue.
I've heard from quite a few that rave about the Chip 'n Pin system being SO secure, and that it is so good for the United States to FINALLY start to catch up to the rest of the world. But you know what? That is hogwash. It is a false sense of security. And for businesses to have to spend all kinds of money to comply is without value.
There is, of course, another option:
For those who have made the jump to "smart phones", and aren't using Windows, and have a bank that supports it, and you go to stores that support it, you can always pay with your phone. Using NFC (Near-Field Communication) technology, you can use a secure PIN, or (if available) your fingerprint, and simply hold your phone over the card reader. Because you have possession of your phone, and you know the PIN or have the correct fingerprint, it is more likely that the person making the transaction is indeed the possessor of the (previously entered into the phone) credit card.
Unfortunately, I use a battery extension case on my phone (because the battery life on my phone isn't the best), and the NFC won't transmit through the case. The case is too much of a pain to take on and off to make using it for payments useful.
But if you REALLY want to confuse the cashier, you can always use cash!
Which reminds me of an old joke:
I once went to Denny's and after breakfast found out that my eggs were Egg Beaters, my sausage was Sizzlean, and my orange juice was Tang.
©Emittravel 2016
Sunday, August 28, 2016
One Desire Above All
Going through some old posts to Renderosity.com and found one of my poems that seems to only exist on that site. I took a moment to save it in my library and decided to share it with you here. I'm not exactly sure when it was written, so I'm using the date it was posted.
The notes at the bottom are exactly as written on the site. Please realize that I'd later come to the realization that you have to be content with who you are, and the fact that you may never find someone to share your life with, before you are honestly ever ready for that special someone. In other words, the desperation must be gone - because like fear, it can be sensed. And no one desires to be the object of THAT.
Enjoy. -j.p.
©Emittravel 2016
The notes at the bottom are exactly as written on the site. Please realize that I'd later come to the realization that you have to be content with who you are, and the fact that you may never find someone to share your life with, before you are honestly ever ready for that special someone. In other words, the desperation must be gone - because like fear, it can be sensed. And no one desires to be the object of THAT.
Enjoy. -j.p.
©Emittravel 2016
One Desire Above All
The one thing I desire
in all of life
Is to hold an angel
and call her my wife
To share in romance
to walk in her light
One being together
entwined through the night
in all of life
Is to hold an angel
and call her my wife
To share in romance
to walk in her light
One being together
entwined through the night
The sound of her voice
the touch of her hand
One look from her eyes
and I’m hers to command
To focus my efforts
to please her - to show
Satisfy her longing
of true love to know
the touch of her hand
One look from her eyes
and I’m hers to command
To focus my efforts
to please her - to show
Satisfy her longing
of true love to know
My angel is out there
I can sense she is close
Each day my eyes searching
my heart writing prose
One day I shall meet her
the searching shall end
A soul-mate, companion
an intimate friend
I can sense she is close
Each day my eyes searching
my heart writing prose
One day I shall meet her
the searching shall end
A soul-mate, companion
an intimate friend
Is this hunger I have
that consumes my existence
Passion never failing
worthy of persistence
So, my dear Angel
I’ve one question for thee
As you go through your day
are you searching for me
that consumes my existence
Passion never failing
worthy of persistence
So, my dear Angel
I’ve one question for thee
As you go through your day
are you searching for me
J.P. Wiegand
5/26/05
Hope. Full of hope. Unsure of the future, but still full of hope. Some of you have already found your angel--with you I rejoice. For others the search continues--with you I hope.
The image is of a young lady I once knew. I don't think she will mind my using her image--she IS now an angel in the truest sense of the word. (I miss you!)
This one is dedicated to my dad; who believes it's not a poem if it doesn't rhyme. Here's one for ya Papasan! -j.p.
©Emittravel 2005
Sunday, August 21, 2016
If You Can't Say Something Nice . . .
Hello, my name is J.P. and I'm a podcast junkie. The podcast can be all talk, or all music, and I'm hooked. If you ever see me and I have a Bluetooth earpiece firmly attached to the side of my head, there's a good chance that a podcast is softly running in the background. My player of choice is Pocket Casts. I use it on my Android phone with the earpiece or over the speakers in the Jeep, or on my Windows phone over a Bluetooth speaker I installed in my motorcycle helmet.
Many of the podcasts I listen to are just for background noise. They have this neat feature of drowning out the voices in my head. Many of those I'll play at 1.5x (or 1.7x) the normal speed. But those are talk only. When it comes to music podcasts, it's all normal speed.
Music podcasts are great in the Jeep and on the motorcycle. There is usually too much wind noise for talk.
And that brings me to a music podcast I was listening to on my way home from work the other day. It's called "KEXP - Music That Matters Podcast". From what I've experienced, it seems that different DJs from the radio station host the podcast - trading off for each. This provides a wide variety of music styles depending on the tastes of the DJ.
Now, to be honest, I listen to any kind of music except for rap and reggae. If it shows up in a mix, I'll listen - and even enjoy it - but not necessarily will I listen to an album's worth in a row. The particular episode I was listening to focused on hip-hop/rap music. In the first song the "n" word was dropped. Okay, it's "gangsta rap" and I can forgive that - once. In the second song the "n" word was dropped again. After the "n" word was dropped in the third song I skipped the rest of the podcast.
As I've joked before, I come from a predominantly Caucasian family. And as far as I know, we have NO history of slave ownership in my family tree. I say that because I want to make sure you understand what I'm about to say. Ready? "I HATE the 'n' word!"
Do you understand what I said? I HATE the "n" word. I do NOT use it. My dad summed it up for me once a long time ago. He said, "The definition of the "n" word: the lowest form of human life. Did you notice there wasn't a color in that definition? I've known white people who would stab you in the back quicker than a black man." My dad is a wise man.
Let me ask you: is the "n" word offensive? If so, why does ANYONE use it? I'm not just talking white people. (As a side, I remember a comedian mention once that there was no such thing as white people. He then held up a sheet of paper to his head and said, "If they are this color they're DEAD! We are all the same color - just different shades of brown.")
If it is offensive for a white person to say it, it is JUST as offensive for black person to say it. And don't give me that "A brother can call another brother a n****r" crap. I've NEVER heard a white man call another white man "cracker".
Should the "n" word die? Absolutely. Is it offensive if someone calls someone the "n" word? Absolutely. But the "n" word will NEVER die as long as a black person can use it. And as a word to the black people who feel they can use it: STOP IT!! Quit pushing a mixed message.
As part of my "research" for this blog (don't laugh, I research . . . sometimes . . . ) I came across the ONLY time a black person used the "n" word appropriately. The comedian Chris Rock used it as part of his "Bring the Pain" (1996) stand up show. And the gist of what he was saying was that he, as a black man, didn't like n****rs either. It's a very funny, but not-safe-for-work routine (and I'm not linking to it - research it yourself).
I was looking for a certain quote from Chris Rock (who was AMAZING as the 13th Apostle in the movie "Dogma", by the way), but found the above instead. Since I couldn't find the quote, I'll refer to an old "Bloom County" comic strip by Berkeley Breathed.
In the strip, Steve Dallas (recently having been abducted by aliens and having his brain scrambled - turning him from an ultra-conservative to an ultra-liberal - including a perm) has his parents over visiting. His mother is looking out the window:
Steve's mom: "That's the most adorable little colored girl playing outside."
Steve: "'Colored'? You're saying 'colored people' in 1983? You know better, Ma."
Mom: "Then why the 'National Association for the Advancement of Colored People'? I don't think negroes mind at all."
Steve: "DON'T say 'negroes', Ma! You can't say 'negroes'!"
Mom: "Can I say 'United Negro College Fund'?"
Steve: "You are baiting me, Ma!"
Steve's dad: "That's it. We're leaving."
Mom: "Stay put, Reginald. 'Mister socially sensitive' isn't through shaming his parents into enlightenment."
Steve: "Everybody just calm down. Let's agree to use the New-Age term 'People of Color'."
Mom: "People of Color".
Steve: "People of Color".
Mom: "Colored people."
Steve: "NO!!"
Dad: "We're leaving."
(Respects to Mr. Breathed. I pulled that from my copy of "Bloom County Presents The Night of the Mary Kay Commandos". I even had it bookmarked!)
To conclude: There will be no end to racism as long as we continue to label everyone. Get over it people. We belong to one race: the human race. That includes all people of all colors, religions, and sexual preferences.
And before you go calling me a "right-wing fanatic", remember: that's a label!
©Emittravel 2016
Many of the podcasts I listen to are just for background noise. They have this neat feature of drowning out the voices in my head. Many of those I'll play at 1.5x (or 1.7x) the normal speed. But those are talk only. When it comes to music podcasts, it's all normal speed.
Music podcasts are great in the Jeep and on the motorcycle. There is usually too much wind noise for talk.
And that brings me to a music podcast I was listening to on my way home from work the other day. It's called "KEXP - Music That Matters Podcast". From what I've experienced, it seems that different DJs from the radio station host the podcast - trading off for each. This provides a wide variety of music styles depending on the tastes of the DJ.
Now, to be honest, I listen to any kind of music except for rap and reggae. If it shows up in a mix, I'll listen - and even enjoy it - but not necessarily will I listen to an album's worth in a row. The particular episode I was listening to focused on hip-hop/rap music. In the first song the "n" word was dropped. Okay, it's "gangsta rap" and I can forgive that - once. In the second song the "n" word was dropped again. After the "n" word was dropped in the third song I skipped the rest of the podcast.
As I've joked before, I come from a predominantly Caucasian family. And as far as I know, we have NO history of slave ownership in my family tree. I say that because I want to make sure you understand what I'm about to say. Ready? "I HATE the 'n' word!"
Do you understand what I said? I HATE the "n" word. I do NOT use it. My dad summed it up for me once a long time ago. He said, "The definition of the "n" word: the lowest form of human life. Did you notice there wasn't a color in that definition? I've known white people who would stab you in the back quicker than a black man." My dad is a wise man.
Let me ask you: is the "n" word offensive? If so, why does ANYONE use it? I'm not just talking white people. (As a side, I remember a comedian mention once that there was no such thing as white people. He then held up a sheet of paper to his head and said, "If they are this color they're DEAD! We are all the same color - just different shades of brown.")
If it is offensive for a white person to say it, it is JUST as offensive for black person to say it. And don't give me that "A brother can call another brother a n****r" crap. I've NEVER heard a white man call another white man "cracker".
Should the "n" word die? Absolutely. Is it offensive if someone calls someone the "n" word? Absolutely. But the "n" word will NEVER die as long as a black person can use it. And as a word to the black people who feel they can use it: STOP IT!! Quit pushing a mixed message.
As part of my "research" for this blog (don't laugh, I research . . . sometimes . . . ) I came across the ONLY time a black person used the "n" word appropriately. The comedian Chris Rock used it as part of his "Bring the Pain" (1996) stand up show. And the gist of what he was saying was that he, as a black man, didn't like n****rs either. It's a very funny, but not-safe-for-work routine (and I'm not linking to it - research it yourself).
I was looking for a certain quote from Chris Rock (who was AMAZING as the 13th Apostle in the movie "Dogma", by the way), but found the above instead. Since I couldn't find the quote, I'll refer to an old "Bloom County" comic strip by Berkeley Breathed.
In the strip, Steve Dallas (recently having been abducted by aliens and having his brain scrambled - turning him from an ultra-conservative to an ultra-liberal - including a perm) has his parents over visiting. His mother is looking out the window:
Steve's mom: "That's the most adorable little colored girl playing outside."
Steve: "'Colored'? You're saying 'colored people' in 1983? You know better, Ma."
Mom: "Then why the 'National Association for the Advancement of Colored People'? I don't think negroes mind at all."
Steve: "DON'T say 'negroes', Ma! You can't say 'negroes'!"
Mom: "Can I say 'United Negro College Fund'?"
Steve: "You are baiting me, Ma!"
Steve's dad: "That's it. We're leaving."
Mom: "Stay put, Reginald. 'Mister socially sensitive' isn't through shaming his parents into enlightenment."
Steve: "Everybody just calm down. Let's agree to use the New-Age term 'People of Color'."
Mom: "People of Color".
Steve: "People of Color".
Mom: "Colored people."
Steve: "NO!!"
Dad: "We're leaving."
(Respects to Mr. Breathed. I pulled that from my copy of "Bloom County Presents The Night of the Mary Kay Commandos". I even had it bookmarked!)
To conclude: There will be no end to racism as long as we continue to label everyone. Get over it people. We belong to one race: the human race. That includes all people of all colors, religions, and sexual preferences.
And before you go calling me a "right-wing fanatic", remember: that's a label!
©Emittravel 2016
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Subterfuge Rejecters
"Conspiracy Theorists". Whenever that term is bantered about, images of people wearing aluminum foil on their noggins spouting off in full paranoia mode come to mind.
Whenever the desire to discredit someone, or at least someone's argument, was called for, the term "conspiracy theorist" was used. That would give the impression that (either) the person and/or their argument had no basis in reality, and that everything they said could be ignored.
Often this is the tool of those with something to hide.
Now, I'm not saying that everything uttered in the name of conspiracy is valid. Trying to get the thousands of people involved in the moon landing to go along with a hoax is far more difficult to swallow than whether or not we actually took one small step for a man . . .
But what I'm not saying is that everything uttered in the name of conspiracy is invalid either.
I find it rather funny that statements like "the majority of scientists agree" are used to give credibility to things like "man-made climate change", in order to silence those other scientists who don't agree. Especially with the track record of scientists' "facts". (Check out this video on birth control methods.)
Have you ever heard of Edward Snowden? Interesting fellow. There is a movie coming out about him. Oh, and by the way, whenever you see "based on a true story", or something similar, in regards to a movie, remember that all falsehoods require at least the tiniest element of truth to make them believable. In other words, don't let Hollywood be your source for historical accuracy.
Anywho. Edward Snowden has been called a traitor for leaking government secrets. Actually, I think I figured out why Mr. Snowden is living in an undisclosed location in the land of vodka right now: he proved that those conspiracy theorist nut-jobs were right! Their government WAS spying on them.
And the Emperor was not pleased that he was naked before his subjects.
Does this give credibility to the conspiracy theorists? I don't know. As the saying goes: "Is it paranoia if they really ARE watching you?"
I think it is time for the shoe to go on the other foot. The tables need to turn. The bread needs buttered on the other side (WHAT?!?)
Maybe we need to change the focus from those who don't trust, to those who OVER trust. You know, the lemmings that blindly accept what is told them by "experts" with agendas. Just because President Obama said that (man-made) climate change was real, doesn't mean it is true.
Maybe it is time that we call those individuals by what they really are: conspiracy deniers.
©Emittravel 2016
Whenever the desire to discredit someone, or at least someone's argument, was called for, the term "conspiracy theorist" was used. That would give the impression that (either) the person and/or their argument had no basis in reality, and that everything they said could be ignored.
Often this is the tool of those with something to hide.
Now, I'm not saying that everything uttered in the name of conspiracy is valid. Trying to get the thousands of people involved in the moon landing to go along with a hoax is far more difficult to swallow than whether or not we actually took one small step for a man . . .
But what I'm not saying is that everything uttered in the name of conspiracy is invalid either.
I find it rather funny that statements like "the majority of scientists agree" are used to give credibility to things like "man-made climate change", in order to silence those other scientists who don't agree. Especially with the track record of scientists' "facts". (Check out this video on birth control methods.)
Have you ever heard of Edward Snowden? Interesting fellow. There is a movie coming out about him. Oh, and by the way, whenever you see "based on a true story", or something similar, in regards to a movie, remember that all falsehoods require at least the tiniest element of truth to make them believable. In other words, don't let Hollywood be your source for historical accuracy.
Anywho. Edward Snowden has been called a traitor for leaking government secrets. Actually, I think I figured out why Mr. Snowden is living in an undisclosed location in the land of vodka right now: he proved that those conspiracy theorist nut-jobs were right! Their government WAS spying on them.
And the Emperor was not pleased that he was naked before his subjects.
Does this give credibility to the conspiracy theorists? I don't know. As the saying goes: "Is it paranoia if they really ARE watching you?"
I think it is time for the shoe to go on the other foot. The tables need to turn. The bread needs buttered on the other side (WHAT?!?)
Maybe we need to change the focus from those who don't trust, to those who OVER trust. You know, the lemmings that blindly accept what is told them by "experts" with agendas. Just because President Obama said that (man-made) climate change was real, doesn't mean it is true.
Maybe it is time that we call those individuals by what they really are: conspiracy deniers.
©Emittravel 2016
Monday, August 8, 2016
Stuff My Brain Says #78
Have you heard of these 2016 Presidential candidates:
Hillary Clinton (Democrat Party)
Donald Trump (Republican Party)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
Jill Stein (Green Party)
Well, I'm sure you've heard of the first two. The second two? Maybe. What I want to point out is that all four have something in common:
Clinton / Kaine
Trump / Pence
Johnson / Weld
Stein / Baraka
Did you guess it? Okay, one more hint:
This decision is considered the most important, first decision a candidate will make.
Give up?
They have all violated the Constitution of the United States.
By that I mean that they have each picked their "running mate". And that is unconstitutional.
According to the 12th Amendment, both the President AND the Vice President are elected separately. In the late 1960s that changed. Correction: the methodology changed; the Constitution was not. Which means that whenever a Presidential candidate announces their running mate, they have violated the Constitution.
Which is really confusing considering the following:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nothing like starting off with a lie…
(For a more in-depth explanation, check out: "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9".)
©Emittravel 2016
Hillary Clinton (Democrat Party)
Donald Trump (Republican Party)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
Jill Stein (Green Party)
Well, I'm sure you've heard of the first two. The second two? Maybe. What I want to point out is that all four have something in common:
Clinton / Kaine
Trump / Pence
Johnson / Weld
Stein / Baraka
Did you guess it? Okay, one more hint:
This decision is considered the most important, first decision a candidate will make.
Give up?
They have all violated the Constitution of the United States.
By that I mean that they have each picked their "running mate". And that is unconstitutional.
According to the 12th Amendment, both the President AND the Vice President are elected separately. In the late 1960s that changed. Correction: the methodology changed; the Constitution was not. Which means that whenever a Presidential candidate announces their running mate, they have violated the Constitution.
Which is really confusing considering the following:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nothing like starting off with a lie…
(For a more in-depth explanation, check out: "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9".)
©Emittravel 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)