Bankshotting off Zionism for .... I"m not sure what

Russ and Pam Martens' "Wall Street on Parade" is generally very good — when it sticks to writing about the banksters.

When it ventures beyond that, it generally falls into generic Blue Anon territory. In the past, for example, they've seen fit to attack Russia for various things in the Russia-Ukraine war without batting an eye at similar issues done by Ukraine. Things like war crimes.

So, Tuesday, when the pair wrote about "Deadly, Exploding Pagers ...," but only tacked Israel's pager bobby-trapping to the end of a piece about the newest revelations on Chinese hacking?

It came off as clickbait at a minimum.

By ignoring that the US has — albeit without explosives — done what Israel has done in supply-chain hacking, and nearly a decade ago, it came off as American exceptionist, Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ division post, not just the bankshotting off Zionism, but the attack on China.

In both of that, it came off as trivializing what's happening in Lebanon, and Gaza before that.

They wrote one piece about Gaza since last October.

(They've actually written in the long past a few pieces about Snowden, per Bruce Schneier's piece about NSA hacking. I didn't search too hard as their search window doesn't actually go in strict chronological order on newest to oldest.) 

Back to the matter at hand? The Schneier link was posted within a piece from Tuesday, which went up about the same time as the Martens', which said that none of this is new. And, also not new here in Merikka. Bruce notes that the FBI created a shell company back in 2019. There's Stuxnet, of course.

This is the bottom line:

But now that the line has been crossed, other countries will almost certainly start to consider this sort of tactic as within bounds.

So, are the Martens going to bitch when Russia bobby-traps Ukrainian cellphones? Or, looking retrospectively, what if Dear Leader's CIA had used that, rather than a drone, to off Anwar al-Awliki?

Per their original post, the idea that we can stop this? Doubtful. We get a lot of tech goods from China. And, not just oil, but a lot of other raw materials, like heavy metals, come from Russia and are fungible.

They also raised the issue of gas price gouging in 2022. Problem? Gas prices were actually higher when the emergence from the Great Recession started in 2012. Was there price gouging then? Yes, there was a brief spike in 2022, but for the whole year? Nope. More pricey in 2012.

Again, they're often very good when talking about the banksters. Hit and miss elsewhere. And, yeah, some of their takes on the Russia-Ukraine war left me predisposed to be a bit skeptical about their other non-bankster writing. Speaking of, they decided they had to haul in the Wagner Group along with Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein about shady people banking at JP Morgan Chase.

Looks like I won't be on Twitter any more (Update: I'm back)

Elon Musk is apparently suspending the accounts of people who Tweet ABOUT Ken Klippenstein's Substack post of yesterday, with the actual dossier of the alleged Iranian hack of Trump's Veep vetting process of J.D. Vance.

UPDATE, Oct. 11: I am back on, after Ken got back on and wrote about it on Substack. That said, Ken on the weekend, it appears, got a faceload of Eff Bee Eye intimidation attempts.

OK, the original PDF, at Ken's post, has Vance's addresses, and a partial Social Security address, but not full.

Klippenstein said, in a follow-up piece, that the addresses are available anywhere, and other things. I'm going to do some quoting from that, starting with his basic rationale.

Self-styled free speech warrior Elon Musk’s X (Twitter) banned me after I published a copy of the Donald Trump campaign’s JD Vance research dossier. X says that I’ve been suspended for “violating our rules against posting private information,” citing a tweet linking to my story about the JD Vance dossier. First, I never published any private information on X. I linked to an article I wrote here, linking to a document of controversial provenance, one that I didn’t want to alter for that very reason.

There you go.

Now, some more meat.

The principle involved here is complex. I do not believe it is the job of the news media to alter documents, as if it’s a defacto government deciding what the public should and shouldn't know. Yes, I know that it is general practice to delete “private” information from leaks and classified documents, but in this case, not only is Vance an elected official and Vice Presidential candidate, but the information is readily available for anyone to buy.

The document itself describes its method of acquiring the so-called “private” information about Vance: "We undertook an examination of all readily available and relevant electronic and online records, several hundred Nexis and news articles, dozens of active and archived web pages, and several dozen public records from Nexis and the resources of various federal, state, and municipal government offices." In other words, everything was out there, either readily or for purchase.

We should be honest about so-called private information contained in the dossier and "private" information in general. It is readily available to anyone who can buy it. The campaign purchased this information from commercial information brokers. Those dealers make huge profits from selling this data. And the media knows it, because they buy the data for reporting purposes, just like the campaign. They don’t like to mention that though.

Could he have redacted even the partial Social? Yes. But, Musk would have banned him anyway. We know how selectively, and vindictively, he — yes, he; Twitter Security and Safety are his henchman in the current regime — enforces rules.

That said, here's the bottom line from Ken.

On the one hand, this is a very funny end to my Twitter journey. On the other hand, I no longer have access to the primary channel by which I disseminate primarily news (and shitposts of course) to the general public. This chilling effect on speech is exactly why we published the Vance Dossier in its entirety. ...

Did I make a mistake in not redacting the “private” information on J.D. Vance? If I wanted a Twitter account, apparently so. But on principle? I stand by it absolutely.

There you go.

Me?

I deleted my post with Ken's original info. So, I'm not such a warrior. And, account unlocked.

Then, when #BlueAnon shit-tards like Justin Baragona, formerly of the Daily Beast and it's lying "golden showers," started calling Ken a doxxer? I quote-tweeted (as well as direct replying, shown below).

But, for good measure? The quote-tweet, screengrabbed from Twitter's email to me:

And, got relocked.

And, I'm not deleting.

And, I'm also sure that Justin Baragona was NOT suspended. How could I have quote-tweeted him, or reply-tweeted if he were, given how quickly Musk's Nazi goons acted? 

We know they're goons working for the head goon, because, per Ken's sarcasm at top, one of the Tweets they want deleted is a callout of Musk:

There you go.

I appealed yesterday, but, if I lose, I move on. Baragona's original had nothing "doxxing" in it, and therefore, by simple logic, neither did I. But, Nazi goons will goon.

But, it's more than that. The goons apparently don't want ANY link to Klippenstein's Substack showing up. Two Tweets from earlier this week they want me to retract apparently had links to earlier Substack posts by Ken, but the goons at Twitter removed those links.

Here's one:

And another:

And, nope, not being removed.

Update? Per another new piece by Ken, it doesn't matter. He redacted the PDF. Musk still won't let him on. 

Update, Sept. 29: Ken now says Fuckbook or some other subset of "Meta" is also blocking this, as is Google. Hmm. Is this blog post being "decirculated"? Maybe I'm too small of fry for Google and Hucksterman, just like some commenters on Ken's piece. That, in turn, shows the goonishness of Musk's Nazi goons.

That said, I got this very post hauled down by Hucksterman's own goons. I have appealed ... and have not heard back.

Update, Sept. 30: Ken talked with Hamish McKenzie, co-head cheese of Substack. He said that, when he was talking to Twitter support people, they were just sending him poop emojis, just like the boss man. That said, at about the 20-minute mark, I disagree with Ken that Musk hauled him down primarily due to Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ pressure. Might that have been A factor? Yes. The primarily, let alone sole? No. Ken, they were sending you poop emojis. He is right about Twitter being a dying platform and I see that he's going to use Substack Notes as part of his post-Twitter strategery.

I have two more minor accounts of my original five, which I ran through TweetDeck back when it was free in the pre-Musk days. They'll wither and die on the vine.

I mentioned an original five, now down to three.

One was a parody of Trump without "parody" on it. I made his handle, "@realDonaldTrump," my name. Well, when I called out the Covington Catholic Chuds a few years ago, they bitched and it got suspended, because that wasn't my first strike.

So, I switched to No. 2, a parody of sorts of Actual Flatticus aka Chris Chopin. I called Bill Simmons a "whore" or "bitch ass white boy" or something, but no worse than that. Not my first strike, so, permanently suspended there, too. That has me down to three.

Both were in the Jack Dorsey days.

I appealed twice, after Elmo bought Twitter and was settled in, twice on each of the accounts, for reinstatement. Nope.

As for the future of social media? Mastodon has a fair chunk of racism problems and a bit of Nazi problems. And, its creator Eugen Rochko hides behind the fediverse skirts and does nothing.

Blue Sky? That's Dorsey, who let Twitter become enough of a shithole before selling. And, actually, per a Baffler story about who owns a piece of Twitter today, Ice Balls Jack ain't totally gone.

Threads? Fuck no, that's Hucksterman.

Facebook? I use that primarily for personal non-political comment. I do have a semi-burner account. It may get used more. Or, I can create a page for the blog off my primary account, which doesn't use my fully real name anyway.

Another option, for the shorter term, is using Substack Notes as my new Twitter.

Update: I have, for now, started both the Facebook page and Substack Notes options.

Should US National Parks have free entrance?

Redwood National Park, Redwood Creek Trail. Author photo.

I had had this in the can for a little while, and I pushed it back to today because tomorrow is National Public Lands Day, one of NPS' free entry days. With that said, let's dig in.

(Spoiler alert: The header question is rhetorical.)

==

Short and sweet?

I think not.

This discussion came up as a subthread on Reddit's r/nationalpark about a month ago.

The person pushing it claimed that all developed nations outside the US have free admission.

In reality?

Not so much.

Per this link, 52 countries charge entrance fees for at least some national parks. (Table 1 is mislabeled at the link; it's actually, per body text, the charge for citizens in each country.) Besides the US, Australia as well as Canada are among "fully developed" nations that do so. "Relatively highly developed" countries would include Croatia, Costa Rica and maybe Russia, or it would be in the next tier with Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And, since people on average in developed nations have more money, to me, rather than fully subsidize national parks, on an income percentage basis, the US is actually, arguably, cheap. 

No, I don't like buying an Access Pass each year. (I will be able to nail one lifetime one, for what's left of that, in 18 months.)

But?

First, this is Merikkka with dysfunctional, debt-ridden national government that has already starved the NPS.

Get rid of access fees, and if they're replaced at all by general budget appropriations, that won't last.

Now, that said, some national parks, and some non-park NPS units, and some non-NPS national monument units, are free already, for a variety of reasons.

On actual national parks? It's Redwoods, because of its length and you can't put kiosks on the 101, most the national parks and preserves of Alaska, North Cascades, Great Basin, Voyageuers, Channel Islands, and a few back east. Here's the list. The Alaskan parks are generally roadless and undeveloped. Voyageuers, Channel Islands and Biscayne are water-only, or water-transportation only. That said, Isle Royale charges; dunno why Channel Islands doesn't. And, yes, in both cases, you've got to pay your ferry fee. I'd change that at Channel Islands.

Hot Springs, like Redwoods, I get for obvious reasons; and you do pay to visit bath houses. North Cascades is broadly similar. So is Great Smoky.

That said, in the case of the last? Yeah, it invites freeloading abuse. And, yes, it would cause a shit-ton of further backups, I know, based on a 35-years-ago visit that left me with no desire to repeat it. But, that's the whole point. All those visitors are causing a shit-ton of of infrastructure damage. That said, the parking tags partially offset that, but a weekly should be $25, not $15, and a daily should be $10 not $5. Fix that, and I'm somewhat better, though still not perfect. Flip side to that is that if I have a parks pass, I shouldn't have to buy parking tags. Until and unless that is fixed, that's further incentive to not go back.

The other eastern national parks I don't get. Even if there's no through road, you can charge fees at trailheads. I mean, King's Canyon, not counting the General Grant Grove "thumb," has no through road, and thus no entry gate, and it's still got fees.

As for the congestion in general?

Get the NPS into the 21st century — but not like it does with adding a shit-ton of new cell towers.

Instead, make the America the Beautiful Pass scannable just like toll tags are in states that have toll roads. If you don't buy a pass in advance, you'll want one in advance. And, you could also scan it into a parking tag kiosk at a place like Great Smoky. 

The congestion at entrance gates would be eased. You want maps and literature? Download them in advance off a park's website, or else stop at a visitor center.

As for people needing a new pass? 

It's no problem to create a pass-purchase kiosk outside the gate arms at an entrance kiosk. This would also benefit international visitors, as another way to get their pass after getting here. In addition, besides credit cards, you could have a QR code scan, Apple Pay, etc. on a smartphone. You could also, as part of that, just like an airline boarding pass, have an electronic version of your parks pass on your phone.

Easing without elimination might still be problematic for some.

But, you know what?

First, this might lead some people to less visited parks, or to entirely non-NPS sites. And, that's good. In Colorado, for example, I spent half of my vacation two years ago in two lovely places entirely outside the NPS — Grand Mesa and the Arkansas Headwaters area.

Second, the physical stopping before the arm barrier pops back up would also encourage mental slowing down. Plus, with more modern signage at those gates, people would get told right off the bat what maximum speed limits are, the prohibition on drones and other things like pet rules. (And, doorknob yes, the "no drones" needs to be posted in huge letters at every park entrance.)

All of this is better than total subsidies on entry fees, or foundations spun off of Fortune 500 companies making big gifts to the capitalist front group of the National Park Foundation.

Update: I posted this back at r/NationalPark and some of the comments are uninformed or not well thought out, if I'm charitable, or strawmanning from people who are cheap-privileged, if I'm not.

Here's some reality, per a comment I made there, on waiving fees for poor people.

Family of four, two parents, two kids. Driving, own car, not rental and not flying.

Taking off 5 days / 4 nights because they can't do longer.

Driving a total of 1,800 miles in vehicle that averages 25 mpg. That's 72 gals of gas. At $3, that's $225.

Let's say they don't camp, but will do a KOA type place instead of full motel, in a KOA cabin. I'm guessing $50/night? That's $200.

Extra food spending beyond the normal at home? $100.

Souvenirs? $100 if they're fairly frugal.

All that's more than the $80 pass cost and it totals $625 for a crammed budget trip. 

(I loved the Californian who claimed I was delusional in my pricing estimates. I said I didn't know on KOA, but laughed at his claim to be paying $6 a gallon for gas. All around the Bay Area, it's around $4.75. Under $4 all around the Southland, which I figured would be cheaper.)

Frankly, I suspect a lot of people who want free admission, beyond that person and some commenters here, simply want free admission for themselves. (Whether the root ground of this hasn't been thought through, or whether in some cases, the objections above are simply strawmanning? I don't know.) That said? If that's you, at least be honest. Also be honest about how likely you think the US Congress is to replace all that lost money. 

It's like taxes. Even that Patriotic Millionaires group doesn't truly "like" paying taxes. (And we'll ignore what business loopholes they use.) But, they "willingly accept" rather than "grudgingly accept." And, NPS entrance fees are like taxes.

This is also why non-millionaire true L/l libertarians can posture all they want, IMO. If they ever got in political office, and THEIR ox was going to be gored by a budget cut?

AOC vs Jill Stein: Fear and self loathing in NYC

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, in a recent campaign email, wonders why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the eponymous AOC (and the worst left-of-center eponymous political figure since the "Notorious RBG") keeps hating on her when many other Democratic Party national politicos have lightened up.

Here's Jill's receipts:

While some Democrats like Keith Ellison have jumped on the “Smear Jill Bandwagon,” others have taken a different route. Check out what these other Democratic lawmakers have said after AOC’s recent attacks on Jill Stein:

"If you have people who are upset at the system, attacking their candidate is probably just reinforcing their concerns about the system, I think we have to earn people's votes. I don't think you go negative on third-party candidates." - Rep. Ro Khanna

"The Democratic Party has to do a lot more to become more progressive, and if we don't have Green candidates or independent candidates, or the Squad, does the party do that? I would say no," - Rep. Jamaal Bowman

"We have to be persuasive to those that might be leaning toward voting for them, I think the margins are too small for us to be smug about it." - Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota

Why is AOC not using honey rather than vinegar?

It's simple. And just like the headline says.

Fear? Fear that she's capped out on making much more quick advancement in House Democratic circles without kissing Pelosi's ring or anular ring even more. Fear of being trapped on the House side because a Democratic Senate run isn't likely for years.

Self-loathing? To the bit she's anything more than Just.Another.Politician.™, or was half a dozen years ago, it's self-loathing for being a sellout. It's self-loathing, if there's inner honesty, for being a sellout on the discount rate — 15 pieces of silver instead of 30, to go biblical.

And, yes, the reality is that she's a sellout and that it didn't get anything.

Look at her and other Dems' fake and stolen Green New Deal. (And the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club's kiddie wing, as part of that.)

Not long after that, there was AOC throwing Ilhan Omar under the bus over "the Benjamins," surely to curry favor with Pelosi. (Sadly, Omar eventually caved.)

Of course, on the issue of being pergressuve or not, there's the question of how "invented" her background really is. There's the question of what kind of "JAP" she is.

And, before Oct. 7, 2023, there's the question of just how much she really opposed Israel. And, there's the issue, not question, of her unsupporting BDS and sucking up to the corpse of John McCain. Or her being one of the Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ on Ukraine.

Donut Twitter and semi-Donut types like Ryan Grim will keep fluffing her. I'll keep mocking and scorning.

Texas Progressives talk polls and races, plus abortion and death penalty

Off the Kuff published an interview with a co-founder of the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance, to discuss their fight against an abortion travel ban in that city. 

SocraticGadlfy had fun trolling Mark Robinson (and selected bycatch) on Twitter.

Colin Allred is ahead of Cancun Ted Cruz in one poll; and a debate is set for Oct. 15. I won't be voting for either, but getcha popcorn. Related? Allred, in an interview with the Monthly, doubles down on being a ConservaDem.

Multiple Texas House Rethuglicans have already thrown their hat in the ring. But, they've now "suspended" those hats after 48 members of the House GOP said they unanimously — after multiple rounds of voting — back David Cook to replace Dade "Dade" Phelan as speaker. Per LBJ, 48 ain't 76. And, if Phelan gets all Democrap members (assuming they're still a minority) will the Texas state GOP really expel half a dozen House members from the party for violating a House GOP caucus rule?

That said, a bipartisan group of House members officially urged clemency for Robert Roberson.  The Observer has a lot more background than the Trib. The Barbed Wire also jumps in.

There's a shit-ton of hydrogen sulfide leaking from older wells at the north end of the Eagle Ford area and further north.

As of late latest week, the State Fair's gun ban was still in place.

The Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance folks had a guest post on Jessica Valente's Substack about their fight. 

Tony Blinken, genocide blank-check cutter. 

Remember, the "most lethal military" that a Black woman wants the US to have as president already badly affects indigenous people around the world.

The Texas Observer has a deep dive into Ken and Angela Paxton's "ties to a jet-setting lobbyist-turned-CEO caught in a tangled web of alleged fraud involving a powerful business clan and a commercial shipping giant". 

 The Dallas Observer talks to some of the men in Texas who are speaking out about the need for reproductive freedom. 

The Current ponders the future of a San Antonio architectural icon.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project said it’s important for active rank & file Democrats doing the work to sustain the party, to consider that the elected officials they are backing often have different objectives than they do.

The Gadfly slate for president: Vote the Commie

First of all, I've long said that people like me take voting and elections MORE seriously than Democrats or Republicans. (And, I'll get to this more in a minute.) Above all, people like me decry "Democrats support democracy" claims when in reality, they do everything they can to keep third-party and independent candidates off the ballot. Republicans don't articulate such cries, and they don't fear Libertarians as much as Democrats fear Greens, but they sometimes engage in candidate suppression, too.

Beyond that, of course, Democrats, just like Republicans, still support genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Middle East, even supporting its further spread.

That said, this year, I'll say that people like me take voting and elections more seriously than many Greens, for sure, and probably many Libertarians, too.

So, first of all, the official write-in candidates for president and vice president here in Tex-ass are:

Claudia de la Cruz, to top my list. Then Shiva Ayurveda. (So sue me on his name; he's not eligible anyway.) Cherunda Fox? Nutbar in spades. Peter Sonski? American Solidarity Party, a somewhat more conservative version of Catholic-based "Christian Democrat" parties in Western Europe. (The one US Senate write-in is also this.) Cornel West.

NOT here? Besides the pulling out Brainworm Bobby? SPUSA's Bill Stodden, who has been as much wasted space as Kennedy. And, one more, noted below.

Teases eliminated, and cutting to the chase, with the explainers below?

It's Claudia de la Cruz.

Now, why I'm not voting for either of the third-party candidates, focusing on Green nominee Jill Stein.

First, setting aside her investments hypocrisy, I haven't even talked much this year about things like her antivaxxer footsies, her 5G nuttery (most recently CRUSHED just last month, as detailed by the Skeptical Raptor) and more. That said, I know shit like 5G conspiracy theories and antivaxxerism (even if it was footsies, not full-blown with her) appeals to a fair chunk of Greens, as I said after in the last run-up to the 2020 race at that link. Whether it's a majority or not, I don't know. OTOH, COVID scared enough Greens that Stein doubled down on pandering there, saying she supported the vaccine but opposed vaccine mandates. Or, to put them in the scare quotes they need? "Vaccine mandates." Gee, a Rethuglican could say that. Like Gov. Strangeabbott. On the third hand, I called Stein Just.Another.Politician.™ years ago, and said Greens were Just.Another.Political.Party™. I stand by that. Sadly, the National Black Caucus of the party has gone even more down this road. 

Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports are among the most vile, unconstitutional, immoral, unscientific, discriminatory and outright criminal policies ever enforced upon the population

Just wow. Shit, that could have been written by Libertarians. 

Related, and for White Greens? If you're a party of the left, but you flirt with conspirituality ideas on public health, and not just on vaccines, I raise my eyebrows. You, certain sections of the GP.  This includes some of the breakaways like William Pounds.

Finally, Stein herself and too many other Greens are AccommoGreens, Greens who are really DSA Rosey Democrats, just not officially members of that party. Among presidential candidates from 2004 and on, Cynthia McKinney might be the one exception, but she was as much a political butterfly as Cornel West and a bigger overall nutter, including being actually antisemitic.

Sadly, and one thing that has me not locked in on Claudia de la Cruz is her possibly Stein-lite stance on vaccines. I added "possibly" to what was originally written. She's been attacked by ex?-Berners discovering the world of third parties, on the one hand, and on the other ...

Joseph Kishore, the candidate of the Trots of the Socialist Equality Party? Not available as a write-in, and while the SEP might be better than the PSL on COVID, per the link immediately above,  it's worse, to far worse, on other issues, as I wrote about a week ago.

Libertarians? Chase Oliver, despite his attacks by the Mises Mice, opposes "vaccine mandates," too, like Stein and apparently like de la Cruz. (Oliver is also a typical "the invisible hand of the market can solve climate change," to the degree he admits it's real. And, we don't have time for his "eventually." So, he's doubly ruled out.) 

Tis true, per Green (not ex-Green, just ex-activist) Mark Lause, and the late 2016 Socialist Party USA candidate Mimi Soltysik, that the Left is politically fragmented. But, within the Communist-based Left, that's mainly self-inflicted wounds that can only be healed from the inside and probably never will be.

And, HOLY SHIT on a post of mine, a third party update from two weeks ago, I picked up someone in comments who walks, talks and quacks like an SEP Trot-tankie. And, yes, that mashup is deliberate, and I told them on the comment that I was cutting them off on, I knew what Kishore said on Chinese issues. And, even if they're not an SEP Trot-tankie, they're in the neighborhood. And, it WAS some big PR. Also? To cover further bases? Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative is a fraud and a hypocrite, or vice versa, or both are both.

Second, Bill Stodden of SPUSA doesn't get mentioned. That said, I've never seen a minor party candidate in recent years be so bad at getting traction — or at trying to start traction. And, he's not on the write-in list here in Tex-ass, anyway.

So, on to others.

First, the one independent candidate by name. Cornel West? Besides the above, when he left the Green Party because his Jesse the Body Ventura-type 2020 ask wasn't agreed to any more than Jesse's halfway/backdoor request by surrogates — that is, West's request to be nominated without primaries — he lost me right there. Since then, I've noted his weathervane past. And, has he ever paid up that back child support?

Besides, Kishore's skewering of West is not only hilarious — it's true.

Brainworm Bobby is now Wasted Space in general and off the ballot here in Tex-ass anyway. He is both an antivaxxer, full on, of long standing, and a genocidalist. Beyond that, he's gotten more nutters than he was in years past.

So, with all the above, it's as I planned six months ago — Claudia de la Cruz. She's said nothing to indicate she's antivaxxer. She may be a pandemic minimizer, but, that's relatively small, definitely compared to the SEP.

Looking ahead to 2028? This is in part a protest vote within a protest vote. Greens still don't own my vote, and we'll see who they get to run for president then.

First, we get rid of all the sheriffs?

The Texas Observer reviews what seems to be a great an interesting new book, "The Highest Law in the Land," an in-depth look at 3 Percenter and Oath Keeper type sheriffs across the country. Author Jessica Pishko says we should abolish the position.

That's an interesting one! I've personally said we should abolish constables and fold them into sheriff's offices. And, I've also long said we should get rid of electing sheriffs and instead, have county governments appoint them just like local police chiefs.

And, I've said that based on knowing most of what Pishko says, about how in the past, the sheriff was often the tax collector — and sometimes the assessor as well. That's part of what was behind the OK Corral. It's also behind the political history of the only person I know of to be a sheriff before being president. That would be "Jumbo," aka Grover Cleveland, sheriff of Erie County (Buffalo) before becoming governor of New York State.

That said, even with the illogic of county lines and boundaries in most states, and other issues, "abolish" is, on first thought, a step too far for me. Especially in larger counties in Western states, I think sheriff's level policing is still a good thing to have. And, at the same time, if you get rid of electing them, you'll get rid of a fair amount of the problems.

Update, Oct. 7: Pishko is obviously making the rounds, and has now been interviewed by Capital and Main. There's good info from her (most of it already known to me) and something bad as well. She wants to abolish jails. I assume she's talking just county jails, not state or federal prisons, but I disagree even with that. And, she uses the word "abolish." Per Wiki's page on "prison abolition," which I'm not going to bother to link, don't use the word if you don't mean —abolition. I assume if you use the word or phrase, you do mean that. After all, you want to abolish sheriffs. That said, too many people don't mean "abolish" when they use the word "abolish." They're often using it to shout for political attention, which undercuts their cause.

Back to the likes of Pishko, though.

First, where do you put people charged with a felony before trial? You letting every one walk on a cash bond plus a souped-up OR? Not me.

Second, as far as penalties below the felony level? Some misdemeanor A cases here in Tex-ass, or the equivalent elsewhere, deserve jail time, not just fines.

And, if she's against prisons, not just jails? Ye gads.

And, contra the blurb on the front by Alex Vitale, what does he propose to replace policing WITH? Once again, I'm reminded of Thomas More's response to Roper in "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's!

Oh, Vitale's wrong on his thesis, too. Plato's archons in "The Republic" are cops, for doorknob's sake. 

I agree with addressing the War on Drugs and rolling back the last 40 years of police expansion. But, getting rid of it? No.

Getting to the issue of "do you really mean that" or not?

Possibly time for another Reddit break

A number of reasons there.

First, the ongoing shakeout from Reddit's look to monetize itself better and gussy itself up as part of its IPO offer? Scads of "promoted posts." Weirdly, I don't see them on my office computer, just at home. That said, at home, I block every one of the promoted post creators.

Second, various subs. 

R/mlb, a relatively but not incredibly small subset of commenters are stereotypical Gen Y or younger male Reddit downvoting chuds. (You know it's one of them when they have the "18+" symbol on their account.)

OTOH? I just became one of less than 1 million (so far) to get 1K likes on a Reddit post.

R/geography remains known for its karma farming and mods not caring.

R/politics remains known for #BlueAnon tribal chuddery.

R/NationalPark, as far as US national parks, has a fair chunk of people who smoked too much Ken Burns. Others here, and this Venn diagram has a fair amount of overlap, are stereotypical Gen Y or younger COVID and post-COVID national park "discoverers." In part, I blame the COVID and post-COVID Gen Y and Millennials types out in national parks thinking a cellphone is an automatic rescue tool. It's cheaper for the Park Service to close a trail than to rescue someone, bill them below cost, and have only 50-50 odds of recovering even that. 

And, in other cases there? A guy who wants all national parks to be free, overgeneralizes that all other developed nations have free entrances (Parks Canada was the obvious refutation, but it's not alone) and then elsewhere, on another sub, claims that 10-20 percent of Washington State residents drive without license plates. Uhh, sure!

I have since blogged about that, posted over there about that, and based on the downvote rate, I think a lot of people there simply want free admission for themselves, and don't really care about the issue of crowding at entrances, which timed admissions help address anyway.

Add in that mods there hauled down this post, based on this blog post of mine, trying to promote serious philosophical discussion of the issue of beauty inside and outside of national parks? It's not like it was commercial promotion of myself, and the blog post had a summary of text, photo and video that pasting a huge block of text alone as an idea wouldn't have gotten across. Beyond that, any posting of a video or photo via link rather than direct upload could arguably be promotion of one's self.

AND add in that a lot of pictures aren't that good?

Update: And, that I'm getting downvoted Oct. 5 for comments to my post about TS Milton and stay away from the Smokies? Fuck off.

A split-the-difference is to be Farmville-like and post to my own subreddit until I hit 100 consecutive days, since Reddit "medals" (something else post-IPO) are at 100 after 75, but then in 50-day increments, an obvious attempt to induce addiction.

And, before I leave, or at least cut back? There will be more blocking, beyond the promoted posts.

And, it started before I posted this, with any chud who also has an "18+" logo getting blocked without telling them.

Update: I'm actually past the 110-day mark now, concentrating on r/MLB and also drops on other animal and nature subs that aren't r/nationalpark, following my own advice.

Greens, like Democrats, don't own my vote

I've said this before occasionally on Twitter, but, I'm not sure I've devoted a blog post entirely to it. (I did hint at it in a blog post a couple of weeks before the 2020 election, but didn't get this explicit.)

It's time, especially because a lot of them don't get it.

Green fans and stanners, and party thought leaders, reacting adversely to my post about Jill Stein's Veep selection clusterfuck, or months ago, to my post about her ethical hypocrisy on finances, have made it time. 

This sets aside Greens not wanting to discuss vaccines and public health, science vs pseudoscience on 5G [it was 4G before that] and other things.

Democrats, of course, assume that they "own" all votes left of Republicans, and it's one of the biggest, most irksome, #BlueAnon things they do. As many others, as well as I, have called them out, they don't own any non-duopoly leftist votes at all. Hell, they don't even "own" librul votes. But they sure don't own leftist ones.

Greens of the type I mentioned above, stanners and party thought leaders, act as if the Green Party is the only party of the left, and that therefore they own my vote.

Just as untrue as it is with Democrats.

And also?

Just as off-putting.