Targeted Thoughts

The word 'targeted' is an interesting word as it works in both directions, sort of like tracer rounds during a military engagement, the tracer rounds reveal both the source and the destination. In the last few days the United States of America (USA) introduced a new department into the Department Homeland Security (DHS) to manage both misinformation and disinformation. Speech is an expression of thought, and so the reader is asked to imagine which way are the tracer rounds flying.

While the USA is most noticeable due to the foot print the USA has in what is known as the Western World; and yet Canada is not free from similar scrutiny in the consideration of Bill-C11 the Online Streaming Act, which will allow the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to 'control' content on the Internet. 

For this author, the UK too should be of concern seeing as it has hate speech laws and yet no-one seems to define or even know what hate speech is. In the UK a man was arrested for a joke with a pug, where no-one complained, and there was a decade of child molestation across their counties  because everyone doing the investigating was overly worried they might be called 'hateful'. Just look up ‘Rotherham scandal’ on Google. 

Once again, the reader is asked to imagine which way are the tracer rounds flying at this point?

Coming in from the other side of the barrel, as it were, in considering the commentary from the plebeians in opposition to the ideas provided by the governments previously mentioned is now being squashed. There seems to a very strong effort to ensure that any public commentary against the governments' orthodoxy is being isolated, caged or memory-holed with the help of the Main Stream Media (MSM). 

One of the recent brain pretzels has been articles and commentary that COVID-19 vaccination recipients are at an increased danger of catching COVID-19 from un-vaccinated people. How is it if the vaccines worked, that anyone who has gone through the medical regime that 'followed the science' can be at risk? A reasonable reasoning person might question the validity and veracity of the label 'vaccine' when the post injection people are still at risk of getting the virus. Yet again, this situation is not being questioned by the MSM, the majority of reports on this noted topic were focused on spreading the fear of infection yet again. 

Carrying on, what happened to the public support for feminism? Caitlyn Marie Jenner shortly after the sex change was named woman of the year. Recently a person who identifies as a female, though they were not born as one, has been dominating the swimming pools in girls sport. Previously, a person who identifies as a female, though they were NOT born as one, had cracked the skull of a female fighter, who WAS born that way, in a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight. There is at the time of this writing an on going social debate/battle on the allowing those who 'transition to a woman' participating in women only sports. The spearhead of the argument is transgender rights without questioning were is the concern over the women's rights to a pseudo fair competition? The ability to transgender seems to be like overnight delivery, no needed until it was available. Perhaps now people will understand that the term 'rights' has been over extended.

The 'pillory of social justice' has reached witch-hunt levels. For those who do not know, a pillory was used as a form of punishment for minor crimes such as: cursing in public, taking the Lord's name in vain, public drunkenness and other minor irritations to the community. With that in mind, the offender was still tried before a judge before being put on public display with their hands and head put in the holes provided. Social justice on the other hand bypasses the implied impartiality of the courts by going after revenue sources, friends, family and by DOXing their target. DOXing is the searching for and publishing of private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent. When a word is prefixed with a descriptor it modifies the original word's meaning; social justice is not just justice, racial justice is not just justice and gender justice, these things are not just simple Justice. In most of the countries that claim to be based on freedom everyone has the understanding that justice is equally applied to all hence why Lady Justice wears a blindfold; that is unless you are one of the rich in which case there is a little peeking around the blindfold.

A recent email, received by this author, raised some additional talking points which had many talking points or statements that caused some extra moments of pondering thus resulting in a few additional paragraphs before the conclusion of this article is presented. Dr. Enrico Fermi postulated 'that considering the number of stars and therefore the number of planets along with the age of the Universe as best guessed at in his time, why has mankind not seen extraterrestrial life so far?' Fermi answered his own question by stating that when technical acceleration outpaces emotional and social advancements the society becomes self -immolating. This conversation just discussed was at a party where those who initially designed, did the maths and ending up building the atomic bomb gathered for a pleasant dinner. 

In the totality of the email received, where the big picture points to the Fermi's paradox, there are a number of comments which point to significant problems for any society and these are: A) social division, B) financial insecurity, C) national entanglement and D) ruling by FUD.  For those not in the know, FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. While all four of the items listed above carry different weight under different situations. Item C is the most significant because as international trade may breakdown due to item A causing item B that will result in item D being put forward through ignorance or malice. 

In conclusion, right now the world seems to present itself much like a frog placed in a pot slowly being brought to a boil. This situation crept up upon most of us and we didn't see it coming. WWI was kicked off by a claim of assassination and WWII was kicked of by a middle European man getting depressed because he couldn't paint faces, this author fears that WWIII will be kicked off because of the ideal of  'I need that'. Here are some paths to resolution; reduce the expectations of people, increase national independence and cause the social media giants to limit the ability of just anyone to comment as this breeds a society rife with divisiveness and discontent. 

At the time of this writing Twitter is being described as the de-facto public square which is absurd when considers that the monthly active user count is about 330 million people. Trafalgar square in London England the original public square holds a fixed number of people and it is safe to assume that number is not 330 million as the UK has a population of about 67.2 million. Perhaps censoring is not the ideal solution as much as considering building Internet villages resembling those in the days of the old when good ideas would have to travel from village to village by humans and not by wires; by capping the ability of those to comment on any one account to 600 thus reducing the total amount of social vitriol. 

Good night and good luck...

Love Is?

Since the inception of the word, Love, has caused chaos, confusion, consternation, and contentment. How is it possible that so few letters aligned into a single word can result in so much alliteration? This article is being presented, under the yoke of high hope, to provide an answer to that question just asked. Seeing  as English is historically a multilingual word salad, the root of the word must be taken note of. It seems that the word 'lufu', from the Germanic, is the best source for the word love. The Italian word 'amore', which typically is translated to mean love, is the root of the English word 'amorous'; trust the British to conflate  ideas of sex and love. Hence the need to sort this out; the dictionary definition seems to include a hyperbolic option to save many people the effort of saying 'really really like'. 

For example, during the winter months there are many people who wander about the City of Toronto wearing the jersey of the Maple Leafs because they love the Maple Leaf hockey team; yet there is a caveat. Once the Maple Leafs stop winning these people move loving onto another team and after that team is forced out those same people pick the next lovable jersey to be pulled from the closet. How can a listener to the phrase, 'I love the Leafs', assume any honesty in such a situation of preferential shifting? The most honest statement in all of the discussions above, is 'I really really like hockey and I will cheer for those whom I feel will win.' People will wear the jersey and cheer on the team of the day so they can be part of the winning team in a game they can't play. 

Now that the over simplification has been dealt with; the next position to be addressed is caring. It is said that caring is an expression of Love. Yet there are many who contribute to charity for people they have never met; where is the chance for Love in such a situation? This portion of this article does not attempt to deny that caring need be exempted from Love in general; it points out that just because someone presents care or an act of caring it, can be done without Love as the driver. Moving on with this point, most of the people who claim love will also exhibit caring. 

Tolerance, forgiveness and redemption are other hallmarks of Love. There must be an emotional investment for some to be on the receiving end of an oops and allow for that oops to be stepped over, accepted, recognized and discussed. This author, through personal experience, learned that finishing other people's sentences creates two side effects. Those sides effects being: a) one cuts off the other person which hurts their feelings and b) a predisposition to the conclusion that sinks in as the other person's idea. Learning to listen provides a form of respect for the other and that too is a portion of Love. 

The Greek god Eros, known to the Romans as Cupid, was the assignment of the sensual/sexual attraction that confused so many people who came before us. This is the one aspect of Love that many people seem to fucking enjoy a lot. Cupid is recognized once a year, on Valentines' day, and the asteroid named Eros comes close the Earth once every 44 years. That being said, the sensual/sexual is not a significant aspect of love and in certain circumstances it is seriously discouraged; elsewhere though it is essential. 

Relevant to a non-genetic relationship, the discouragement of sex has become understood as an lowering indicator of Love or in the least of emotional entanglement. As the years pass and bodily hormones change the longevity of participation takes precedent as 'the presentation' wanes and is superseded by the substance of the invested time. It is noted and understood by this author that there is an opportunity cost experienced by those who wait, and that those eventual costs will always be realized. 

This philosophical exploration/diatribe on Love is now being changed from seeking a destination to understanding a journey. 

Shifting tact now, the original destination of this article was intended to be a search for a finite definition for the emotion known as Love. Love, or being in Love, or having Love for someone can not defined as a steady state of being. Love is an amorphous term with a broad range of understandings, most of which are more flexible than the length of a cubit; Love is more like a river that ebbs and flows depending on the terrain that surrounds it. Sticking with the water ideal; Bruce Lee once said about martial arts - 'You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup.' 

In closing, make Love shapeless and formless and yourself the cup such that you may never thirst for it. Additionally remember, water can always be poured into another cup for the purpose of sharing. 

The Good Prince of the Internet?

The news of the week that has caught everyone's ear is the offer for the full buy up of Twitter by Elon Musk. In short Machiavelli must now be smiling in the afterlife. This article will explore the situation around how Mr. Musk played his hand and is forcing those at Twitter to play their hand and that due to technology these moves are being played out for all the world to see. 

Regardless of the outcome, it is the opinion of this author that Mr. Musk must be applauded for his efforts. A best effort has been made to chronicle this situation and provide and explain the relative tactics, reasons and reactions involved. While Twitter started around 2006/2007 other significant dates will be used to show relevant timeline markers. It is to be noted that these are the opinions of this author who hopes that the reader will consider the talking points in their own analysis of this situation. 

The Game is Afoot

Before getting started, at the time of this writing the tag-line of  the Twitter HR department is - 'We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.' There is a button below this line that leads to the careers section of Twitter. Why is this the hiring line and not the elevator pitch used to attract users or advertisers?

• September 2018 - Alex Jones is banned from Twitter.
• April 2019 - Carl Benjamin, UKIP candidate from the UK, is banned from Twitter.
• September 2020 - Twitter bans or shadow-bans people discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story, just before the US election. (Shadow-banning is the practice of down ranking a commentator and uplifting the orthodox view)
• January 2021 - President Donald Trump is banned from Twitter.
• January 2022 - Elon Musk purchases 9.2% of Twitter for ~3 billion USD. 

The final point in the list above has kicked off a furious reaction from the Left side of the social/political spectrum with the biggest complaint being that no single person should be have overt control of the digital public square and therefore public discourse. Oddly enough, the fact that Jeff Bezos, of Amazon.com, bought the Washington Post in 2013 seems to have failed to garnish any serious opposition.  

Due to the sheer size of the investment made by Mr. Musk the Twitter Board of Directors (BoD) offered Mr. Musk a seat on the board; an offer that was turned down by Mr. Musk. Regardless if this act of denial was the result of Mr. Musk's own line of thinking or that of his advisory panel it was still a good move as the seat on the BoD came with some caveats. The two main considerations are: a) no BoD member can own more than 14.5% of the shares and b) The BoD member must work towards the best interest of the company, of course the reader should sort out who gets to decide what is best for Twitter. 

The NYSX and the Law

It must be noted that on April 16th 2021, the value of a Twitter share was 70.12 USD. 

By not being a member of the Twitter BoD, Mr. Musk held open the door of opportunity for himself; not only did Mr. Musk keep his options available, he hampered the options of the BoD as the BoD has a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders. This means that the BoD is there to make the shareholders money and by not taking the offer, the Board is not meeting their obligation thus opening themselves up to a class action lawsuit. 

On April 14th 2022, Twitter stock dropped from a 48.36 at opening to 45.06 USD before the market closed. The longer this trend continues, the more pressure the shareholders will most likely put on to the BoD to accept the deal because the shareholders could have made out like bandits and they were denied that opportunity. Mr Musk started his share grab at a time when a single share was around 40.00 USD; so even if he sold his stake in the company and so - he wins. Additionally, if the price drops below 40.00 USD he can simply hold on to his current shares and buy more shares at the new lower price thus gaining more power meaning that once again - he wins 

Mr. Musk, also did not make a threat to the Twitter BoD, in that if the Board did not take the offer he gave them he would sell his 9.2% and a sale of that magnitude would drop the price of the stock to a new low, thus once again causing financial concern and emotional consternation on the part of the shareholders. Mr. Musk of course with his vast wealth can once just buy up his old shares and more at the lower price and so once again - he wins

Exposing the Cathedral

Mr. Musk wittingly or unwittingly opened up another can of worms as it were; the reaction from the social/political Left, as they like to be called, has been both shocking and yet sadly predictable. It is almost as if a man is looking to buy a building that has gone slum and upon inspection turns the lights on and sees the roaches all over the kitchen counter and when he claims he will bring in pest control; the cockroaches complain. The previously expressed metaphor is of course over the top, though that was the intent. 

Lines from those in the mainstream media included items such as; a) 'to protect our democracy we need more moderation not less', b) 'Elon Musk wants to control what people see and think and that is our job', and c) "Musk is clearly serious about promoting free speech for the benefit of democracy, but the line between free speech and hate speech or misinformation is becoming increasingly muddied, and attempts to change Twitter could easily lead to these issues spiraling out of control." said GlobalData analyst Rachel Foster-Jones.

The Culture War

There has always been political battles within societies; regardless of the society. The important part to consider is the authoritarian versus the libertarian stance; both sides of the political system have been guilty of being authoritarian and the typical sway factor is how much of those in the centre pick a side. 

It is unfortunate that when given a taste of power some people want to engage in a form of gluttony and  feast at such a level when they feel they have sufficient numbers in support of their cause's focus. Currently the political Left has social control and the political Right is demanding social freedom. Back in the 1960s when the political Right had social control, the political Left demanded freedom; hence the emergence of the Summer of Love and the Flower Power movements. 

It is the opinion of this author that many within the general population didn't notice at the time the lack of love for others and that the flower in question was the poppy or at least the resulting chemical derived from the poppy. This is where the authoritarians seems to fail, in that the rules they impose on others can never be applied to themselves and that is just wrong. This author believes that people need to apply the rules to themselves before they apply those same rules to others; and the rules aught be equitable for all. There was a rise in self love at the time, which of course flies in the face of the phrase - 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' Where as the authoritarian stance seems to prefer the phrase - 'there are rules for thee and fewer rules for me' as was made evident by so many politicians over the course of the last two years. 

Machiavelli wrote that a Good Prince should be both loved and feared and that if there is only one choice then being feared is preferred. For this author this should be the basis of good parenting and yet eventually that parenting needs to stop, leaving the youth to conduct themselves accordingly.

Hanlon's Razor v. Hanlan's Point

 The term 'future shock' explains or attempts to explain the mental state that a person can slip into when the changes in their world happen so rapidly that the person can't map out their own future. This concept was first introduced in 1970, by social scientist and author Alvin Toffler. 

The last two years has impacted the entire world in the most dire of ways. While many people will point to the spread of a virus; a small portion of mankind lay the blame for the chaos and the resulting situation on the reactions to the virus. Both the official and public reactions to the virus were panic based and lacked a level of critical examination and also lacked much in the way of risk reward analysis. It has been posited by some that the entire situation may have been concocted or manufactured as a means to an end, though many people see those sorts of thinkers as conspiracy theorists; though that doesn't make those people wrong, just heterodoxical.

One strength in the argument of those outside of the orthodoxy is the sheer effort made to which they were silenced. There was, and still is a massive effort to censure those to dissent against the ever changing narrative being presented to the masses. The presented narrative was built on one single message - 'Survival through Unity. Unity through Faith.' and most people just ate it up and still do at the time of this writing. In the story of V for Vendetta, the faith was religion while in the last two years, the faith was in the science.

When the fear machine was cranked to eleven people didn't know what to do and so they all too easily forget how they got into the situation they now find themselves in - when all they have to do is look in the mirror and see that they traded in responsibility for the cheap, the comfortable and the easy. It is cheap to have Chinese people work to build their iPhone while earning a fraction of the pay an American would demand. It is comfortable not to be called a racist and so international flights helped spread the virus globally when this whole thing started. Finally, it is easy to ignore acts that go on every day around world, most of which are not tolerated in most Western countries, and yet there are benefits constantly reaped by those acts. 

Do people ever wonder why so many of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) tend to be feeding children in countries and areas were child slavery and child sexual exploitation run rampant? 

Returning to the main thesis of this article, what will be the fallout of the last two years? The two most significant outcomes have already come to fruition in the form of inflation and an increase in poverty. These two when coupled together will spell hard times for many people withing their respective countries; the hard times will be determined by to what extent monies were printed and businesses were closed down; never to be opened again. The cascading effects of printing money and closing businesses creates a circular situation that more resembles the post flushing water in a toilet bowl, rather than the eloquence of a Möbius loop. 

Through careful planning and prudent policies, an economic recession can be lifted over in short time, and an economic depression can be avoided; tangible debts can be paid down. It also must be acknowledged that the outcomes from social and governmental actions have incurred some costs that must now be considered overreaching in a short time span if not outright irredeemable within a single persons life time or even across many generations. 

Previous generations have striven to leave a better world to their youth over what was going on prenatal and this attitude seems to have been eroded in the Western World as of late. In fact, upon closer examination there is little wonder as to why so many people of child rearing age are not enticed into having children. 

The problem in hand is both the number and variety of the non redeemable debts that were incurred and  are now owed to so many people as a result of the governmental and social choices made over the last two years. The last two years also saw a plethora of non-economic depression related issues resulting in higher rates of suicide, heavy drinking, the use of recreational pharmaceuticals, and death by overdose. Additionally, another non redeemable debt was the forcing of both the young and the old to not to be able see each other in times of need and parting; all the while governments were saying 'we are doing this to save grandma.' Not once was it heard that grandma wanted to be saved; in fact some grandmothers shortened their lives out of simple loneliness. Can anyone say with 100% certitude that grandma would not have been willing to risk death over seeing her grandchildren; was grandma even asked? 

'For the greater good' has long been a haunting and daunting phrase. Typically the phrase has been delivered by a small cabal of political elitists to the masses without any consultation of those same masses. So the current orthodoxy now seems to be that the minority gets to drive the majority, which begs the question of 'how does this represent the greater good when the majority is not part of the conversation?' 

Returning to the title of this article as the conclusion:

Hanlon's razor offers up the idea that most people are rude or ill informed rather than malicious. The word 'ignorance' does have some flexibility in meaning, within the English language.

Conversely, Hanlan's Point has a clothing optional beach, where people can be naked, semi dressed, or fully dressed and those options are up to each individual. It is the experience of this author that typically each individual at the beach leaves all the other individuals alone; without confrontation or condemnation. 

So, for this author the question is, would you prefer to be able to suffer a self inflicted sunburn or be staked out on the sand; if you don't choose now, you may not be able to choose later. Just think about that please, as you sip your next morning coffee...