We Live in Interesting Times

Quote of the Day

Despite the Government’s conspicuous failure to establish a threat of irreparable harm, the majority stays the injunction and thus allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified.

At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news.

Samuel Alito
SCOTU Justice
October 21, 2023
Supreme Court Delivers Bad News To Conservatives

The government now has a green light to conspire with social media and silence any opposition view.

This will make for some very “interesting” times. I hope they enjoy their trials.


12 thoughts on “We Live in Interesting Times

    • We’d be better off with a general understanding in the populace that when a government agent tries to involve you in their civil rights denying conspiracy, you arrest them in the spot (oh, and stop resisting, please) and deliver them to the local sheriff’s office for legal proceeding before a jury.

      And you do that because once that government agent tells you to do such a thing, even if you were inclined to interpret your terms and conditions in a similar way, being a willing co-conspirator in a governmental scheme to deny rights means you get share the prison cell.

      • Sounds like a great way to get arrested if not shot. And no one will ever know what happened to you because of the lack of the means of communication.

  1. And now we are waking to the nightmare of Clown World. Everything is fake, gay, idiotocratic, in-your-face. And little you can do about it. Just like the judicial lockdown after the election.
    Thus, the reason for the Scalia pillow party? If we don’t have anything on you, we will just kill you. It appears to have worked.
    A safe assumption is that they give us what they want us to have. And points out the dangers we were warned of in having a secret police.
    Amazing they’re that desperate to control the narrative.
    But one only has to examine the converging calamities of debt, invasion, drugs, pharma, greed, terrorism, and world war to know they don’t need to control it much longer. And China will have us off the world stage. With the kill whitey plan well under way.
    Hard times ahead neighbors, plan accordingly.

    • Amazing they’re that desperate to control the narrative.

      They’ve always been desperate to control the narrative. It’s just that in the past there were limited avenues for the People to get news, so the government only had to work with and/or pressure a few media gatekeepers. (And because the legacy media ARE information gatekeepers, the message synchronization was invisible to the public; it happened behind closed doors.)

      On social media, though, you have millions of content creators. The government can’t possibly pressure them all (not to mention, there are enough libertarian, constitutionalist, or anti-government people that any attempt to do so would be widely publicized and have the opposite effect), so instead the government pressures the platform providers to limit the reach of the voices it doesn’t want widely spread. Same effect, and still happens behind closed doors, but the subtle traces of the manipulation can’t be fully hidden — e.g. a popular creator notices he/she got very few views on this video/post but not that one, or followers report that they weren’t notified of new posts related to certain topics but get all other notifications — so astute people notice.

      In the modern, extremely-litigious society — which ironically the legacy media helped create — they lawyer up and sue. If you’re trying to hide something, the discovery phase can be a karmic b!tch.

      (Interestingly, social media also revealed the message synchronization among the larger, legacy media groups. That wouldn’t have happened before, when the vast majority of news was published or broadcasted locally and almost never circulated or seen outside its region, with only a handful of “national” papers and channels.)

      The desperation to control the narrative (or “The Narrative™”, if you prefer) has always been there. It’s just that technology has given the People a glimpse behind the curtain, and we can now see that the Big Voices and Scary Flames are just some very small men pulling levers. And we don’t like it.

      • Yup, they are being exposed like never before. And exactly why they have to start WWIII to maintain some measure of control.
        Sad to watch.

    • No, they won’t.

      For there to be a fine, there has to be a government agency willing to prosecute a government agency, up to and including the White House, in order to get a judgment entered and a fine levied.

      That’s never going to happen. And even if it does, they’ll appeal and use their unlimited tax funds to file delays, continuances, and motions to drag out the case until the issue is moot.

  2. I learned of something the other day: The Value of a Statistical Life. While the normal answer to “how much is a life worth?” is usually “priceless”, when you’re trying to calculate how much to spend on a bridge, you need to balance the cost of a life-saving feature against the (probability of a fatal failure condition) X (how many people it would affect if that condition happens) X $(some estimate of the value of a single life).

    The 2022 Value of A Statistical Life is $12.5M, according to the US Department of Transportation. I’m not saying one way or another if that is a good number, but what we do know is that is a number the government is holding contractors to. So, with that in mind, let’s do some math.

    The right to keep and bear arms outside of the home is protected by the Constitution, particularly arms suitable for general carry to respond to unexpected violence likely to cause death or significant injury. The choice to bear arms is a choice to be ready to stop life threatening crime. So, I think we can use the VLS to calculate a day-by-day, per person, cost of denying the right to bear arms which needs to be borne by the individuals doing the denying. We don’t have to do any calculations on the success rates of the citizens defending themselves. We know that the likelihood of someone being able to use those rights, when wrongfully denied, is 0%, so the deniers bear 100% of the burden because of their action.

    Also, in 2021, the US had a child dependency ratio of 28.1%, and these children cannot bear their own arms, so the other 71.9% of the population needs to bear arms to defend the kids. So let’s put the statistical people saved by a single statically person resisting violence at 1.391.

    In 2021, there were 1,253,716 violent crimes in the US in a population of 331,894,000. You’ve got no idea how a violent crime is going to go when it starts: you could get a black eye or you could get dead. For statistical purposes, let’s assume that an armed citizen can recognize when they are presently the victim of a violent crime that legally justifies the use of force, even if they can’t predict what the final form of the violent crime would take if they don’t stop the crime. So let’s make the daily probability of a violent crime be (crimes) / (population) / 365.25 days, or 0.00001034. If anyone wants to get picky and adjust this value by the violent crime rate in a state, or a county, or a city, feel free to do your own math, but the point is: as the rate of victimizations goes up, the societal cost of denying this civil right goes up.

    Put that all together with (probability of crime) X (statistical people protected) X (VSL), and that equals $179.82 per day, per deprived person. Round it up to $180 per non-prohibited person deprived of their rights by a federal government action.

    That is the per-day cost that the courts should assessed to those responsible, in their individual capacity. They can split that how they like, and it should be provided to every deprived person without any carve-out for lawyer fees or anything like that. The deprivers can split their legal costs, and the costs of prosecution separately.

    tl;dr: Statistically, the value of you being denied your right to bear arms for self defense outside of the home is $180 per day, when done by a federal government action.

  3. I don’t want to live in interesting times anymore.

    Is it too late for a warranty replacement on the last year or so?

  4. There will be no trials…at least not for anyone on the left.
    There WILL be trials for anyone who opposes them like the lawfare farce that is being used on Trump nonstop.

  5. It’s amazing how people can easily point out the plot holes and logical inconsistencies in all the movie they watch, but can’t see the gaping and obvious holes in the narrative the various propagandists push at them all the time. Once you see them, it’s hard to unsee them.

    As for alternate comms, Gab isn’t bad, and having your own blog helps.

    In teh mean time, speak up at school board meetings, city council meetings, etc. Make sure they know they are seen.

Comments are closed.