In face to face conversations, when I'm asked to offer my opinion on some topic, I find that it is better to politely decline. I really can't think fast enough to offer an intelligent and cogent opinion on most matters. That's because I want to avoid knee-jerk responses.
So I figured I would place my opinions on my web site. If you happen to stumble upon this page, so be it. You may or may not agree with what I say here, but then, I'm not thrusting my thoughts on you via Facebook or Twitter or Parler or Truth Social or whatever "social media" platform that's out there.
So, if you're interested, read on. If not, no problem-o.
... It's Okay - Go ahead, hate your neighbors.
... It's Okay - Steal from and cheat on your friends.
... It's Okay - Do it in the name of Jesus Christ,
you'll be justified in the end.
PRAY FOR ISRAEL (?)
Pray for Israel? Why? They sold and exported sophisticated military equipment to a Muslim country (Azerbaijan) in return for money and oil.
And then, Azerbaijan used that sophisciated military equipment to perform ethnic cleansing of Christian Armenians in Artsakh (also called Nagorno Karabakh).
Now, Israel is finding itself being attacked by Muslims.
Pray? I dunno... seems like Karma to me....
I've often thought about starting a simple multiple choice survey just for shits and grins.
The survey would start with the following statement:
I am praying for Donald Trump ... (with the following choices)
1. To die.
2. To be thrown in jail.
3. To be re-elected as president.
4. To disappear from view.
The Trumpers will all go for #3. The anti-Trumpers have a variety of ills to wish upon the man. It's not scientific - and it is a bit like the stupid survey Elon Musk posted on Twitter to see if Trump should be allowed back on.
I don't have the means or the wherewithal to publish such a survey in any "official" capacity, nor a way to offer responses and track them. I was thinking about using Survey Monkey... nah...
Back in “the day” media outlets had to conform to something called “The Fairness Doctrine” – where the outlet had to present, without bias, all views on any story, no matter how mundane or controversial it was. Usually, the outlets would avoid the “controversial” subject matter and focus more on the “mundane”.
But, when they did get into the controversial subject matter, they were required to present all known sides of the story. My point is: the outlets (aka: “the media”) are no longer required to to this.
In the 1980s, good ol’ Ronnie Reagan repealed “The Fairness Doctrine” claiming it was not constitutional and violated the First Amendment right to Free Speech. So here we are, 40 years later and what’s happening is: the consumer of news is now responsible to determine “what is fair”. It is NOT the responsibility of the originator of the story. As a consequence, the viewer is presented with left or right wing fringe news outlets who say they’re “fair and balanced” (when in fact, they’re not) and contribute red meat into the echo chambers for the idiots who religiously consume stories from these so called “news outlets”.
At the top of the food chain are Fox “News” – MSNBC, and CNN – all of whom have decided to carve out a niche of nuttiness in the American Dumbass Viewer population. Then there’s OAN and NewsMax which have placed themselves squarely into the realm of extreme-extreme far right.
Social Media has proliferated the availability of echo chambers and extreme views. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Parler, and Truth Social. And - all of these outlets have required the consumer to decide which what’s right, wrong, legal, and fair.
However, I submit the average consumer is not trained in journalistic values. In their cluelessness they simply go with whatever "truth" these niche services claim to deliver and base their "authority" on the ratings. (3 million people watch!!! 3 million people can't be wrong?!?!?)
What was it that Fox "News" used to say? - "We report - you decide." They should have added, "And, because you're unable to properly check our sources, we'll tell you what to decide!"
The people who are 'anti-woke' are those who "just don't understand them gays" type. Being "Woke" is about becoming aware of social injustice and discrimination. It was originally subscribed to racial injustice and discrimination, but, it also applies to non-christians and sexual orientation. Since the conservatives can't really play a race card anymore because they need to fill their ranks with wanna be rich Blacks, Latinos and Asians, they've decided to vent their anger at alternative sexual orientation. So "woke" has become the new code word for "fag" or other words with a negative connotation toward alternative sexual orientation that are socially unacceptable. The conservatives are threatened by "them fags" when they have their pride marches or are represented on tv commercials or programs. "Well... shit.... we ain't got no White Pride parades!" they exclaim. Oh yes, whitey. They do have their marches. Complete with swastikas and upside down US Flags.
I think some it has to do with the backlash reported in the various and sundry press outlets and demonstrated in daily life. Example: the song "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits. The song has a reference to a "faggot" in the lyrics. Recently, the portion of the song with that lyric has been edited out. Some folks went bat-shit crazy when that happened. "They gone Woke!!!" is the complaint. Regarding Money For Nothing, I think the song is better with the lyric intact. Why? Because it ends with the statement that the so-called "faggot" is a millionaire - all the while the poor gay-bashing bastard complaining about it is a fat-assed, cigar-chomping appliance installer who is obviously a conservative and is jealous of the "faggot's" success. And maybe that's what it's all down to... jealousy. Maybe these gay-bashing, non-woke, folks are jealous seeing a 'fag' celebrate their happiness; because the non-woke folk are not happy. "Pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. If people of certain sexual orientation are seeking their happiness, why would it matter to others who don't share the same thoughts? I don't see the same kind of vitirol spewed by the LGBTQ community about deer hunting.
"JERKS - CARS"
Another click-bait article on the internet about which cars are associated with jerk drivers. So I thought I'd present my own list! Here goes, and, in no particular order of jerkiness:
Any BMW - Any Mercedes Benz - Land Rover/Range Rover - Tesla - Audi - Any brand of pick up truck - Chevy Camaro - Dodge Challenger...
To a slightly lesser degree: any idiot who outfits a typical family sedan or sub-compact with modified exhaust and custom wheels and paint job.
Honorable mentions: Prius - Honda Accord - Subaru - Mazerati - Porche.
There you have it ...and with no annoying ads!!!
"JERKS - DRIVERS"
The article didn't outline what kinds of things these jerky drivers do. So, I'll do my own outline:
- Excessive speed, anywhere, anytime. Such as: doing 110MPH on the freeway, or 65MPH on residential streets.
- Not caring how a 4 way stop works.
- Not caring how a traffic circle works.
- The mindset that "Everyone must yield to me."
- Rushing ahead of cars to cut in front of traffic when a lane is set to end.
- Passing on the right, using the bicycle lane as a passing lane.
- Running red lights.
- Turning left in front of oncoming traffic as soon as the light turns green.
- Turning right to cut through a corner lot, crossing all traffic lanes on the perpendicular street, then turning right again; all to avoid stopping at a red light.
- Failing to use signals.
- Driving with their lights off in the dark.
- Cutting left turns, where they end up in an oncoming traffic lane before getting back on their side of the street.
- Driving down the middle of the street forcing others driving in the opposite direction to pull over or risk a headon collision.
- Driving without lights in foggy conditions.
And most annoying of all for me, when someone does any of the above and they have a permanent handicap label on their license plate, regardless of car make/model.