Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

Is there a fast way to tell whether politicians are lying about global warming?

Leave a reply

Is there a fast way to tell whether the concept of anthropogenic global warming is being presented with political motives to fleece a gullible public? I believe that there is.

Al Gore in Davis Guggenheim's documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

The man pictured above is Al Gore. Al Gore has made it his mission to preach about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming. He has been so passionate about his message that he has written a book and a movie making the case that anthropogenic global warming could have catastrophic consequences in the near future. Among his stated fears is that the ocean level will rise as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

barack-obama-04

The person in this picture is Barack Obama, the current President of the United States and liberal idealogue. Like Al Gore, he believes that anthropogenic global warming will have catastrophic effects on the globe in the near-term future. In fact, he has stated that climate change is a threat to national security. Yes, in a world where Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and Hamas exist, Obama openly proclaims that climate change is a threat to national security.

al-gore-house-santa-barbara

Pictured above is Al Gore’s property in Montecito, California. It was purchased in the year 2010, after Al Gore published his book and his movie. The property is estimated to be $8 million in value.

Why would a person invest in property in an oceanfront city if they actually believed that it would soon be underwater?

magnum-pi-estate

Pictured above is oceanfront property linked to the popular show, Magnum P.I.. In the year 2015, President Obama was linked to the purchase of this property. The property was sold for $8.7 million dollars.

Again, if a person is sincere in their belief that rising water levels would pose a direct threat to the lives of those living on and near coasts, even saying that “seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science” (as Obama said in 2013), and saying that “we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods” (as Obama said in his State of the Union address in 2015), why would the same person buy beachfront property?

If a person is sincere in a belief, why would they make long-term investments costing millions of dollars that are entirely inconsistent with those beliefs?

Stealing jokes does not make you clever.

Leave a reply

joke thieves are not clever

Earlier, I overheard someone say something about how he trolled supporters of Donald Trump.

What did he do? He approached some Donald Trump supporters and told them some inspirational quotes, then told them that Donald Trump said those things.

Naturally, the Donald Trump supporters said that these inspirational quotes sounded nice. No surprise there. They were inspirational quotes. They sound nice by design.

I don’t believe that the guy actually approached Donald Trump supporters and attributed inspirational quotes to him. For one thing, I know the guy well enough to know that such an activity was well outside his range of usual activities. But my main reason for not believing him will become clear by the end of this post.

After the theoretical Donald Trump supporters said that the quotes sounded nice, he told them that the quotes actually originated from Adolf Hitler.

Still waiting for the punch line? Sorry, that was it.

Believe it or not, Adolf Hitler was capable of sometimes not sounding horrible. There was a reason why the guy had a following. Being a hateful, genocidal maniac doesn’t make for a very attractive political leader.

Now for the main reason why I don’t believe that this guy actually approached Donald Trump supporters about anything: In 2013, a Pinterest user posted pictures of Taylor Swift with inspirational quotes. You probably already see where this is going. On August 30 of that same year, the same Pinterest user was called out for attributing Hitler quotes to Taylor Swift. She was trolling.

After that, legions of copycats started popping up and doing the same thing, as though the rest of us don’t also have access to the internet and could have read about the same joke on Reddit.

Look, Donald Trump is a political figure. If you don’t like him, point out what’s wrong with what he stands for.

But if you’re an unclever hack, try taking credit for someone else’s prank that you read about on the internet. Why would anyone else have heard about it?

Anita Sarkeesian abandons Kickstarter project, Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games

1 Reply

MTIyMzAzMTMyMjM4NjQzODE0.png

If you’re an SJW, today might be a good day to crawl into your safe space, because Anita Sarkeesian has abandoned her Kickstarter project, Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games.

Of course, she’s selling it as “moving on to something else”, but the rest of us know what’s going on. Her project has been thoroughly exposed as a sham, and she’s decided to lick her wounds and try something else.

Anita has raised $158,922.00 on the project’s Kickstarter page. Whether she has any plans to refund any of the 6,968 backers of this project is unknown.

I’ve constructed the following graphic to help illustrate the progress that the project has made since it was first launched three-and-a-half years ago on May 17, 2012:

Anita's video agenda progress.png

Anita attended California State University, Northridge (which has a surprisingly high 52.9% rate of acceptance) where she majored in communications, which involved analyzing media for narrative. So when Anita takes in over a hundred thousand dollars to play thousands of dollars in video games, she’s doing what she went to school for. She’s not the only YouTube personality who comments on the content of video games, but I think she managed to do pretty well for herself in making as much money as she has.

The purpose of Anita’s series was to demonstrate that there is sexism in video games. Many video games do portray women in some pretty unrealistic and even outlandish ways, and in some cases heavily sexualizes them. Nobody really needed a social critic to point any of this out. The thing is, practically no one cares. Everyone who plays video games knows that they’re an expression of somebody’s fantasies.

Is Sarkeesian actually a gamer.png

Anita complains anyway, because as she sees it, video games normalize certain stereotypes. As Anita sees it, someone is needed to speak out against stereotypes against women because gamers are impressionable, unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. Of course, Anita is wrong.

One reason I prefer to stay away from radical feminists is because they tend to be extremely negative, sometimes assuming that complete strangers are criminals, particularly men. Most people don’t need to be told that almost no men actually have a desire to rape. Most of us recognize rape for the act of violence that it is. Of the men that actually have done it, most of them regret the act instantly. Even laws written primarily by men place rape on the same level as murder in terms of seriousness. Such laws have been around for a very long time, even in times believed by feminists to be the height of patriarchy. To the rest of us, this is obvious. To radical feminists, however, each man is potential rape waiting to happen. I have a hard time stomaching that kind of negativity.

I’m in favor of freedom of expression, even if what is being expressed is something I don’t personally agree with. I’m certain that Anita has heard of the game, Grand Theft Auto. It’s a bombastic game in which the protagonist is rewarded for committing outrageous crimes. However, the popularity of the game didn’t result in a surge in automobile thefts. This is because people know better, and aren’t so easily influenced by the expression of someone else’s fantasies, even if they enjoy the gameplay mechanics and play the game for hours a day. And even if someone steals a car because they learned to do it from a video game, it’s the car thief that’s held accountable, not the video game. The people who made the video game were exercising their protected freedom of expression.

So, what’s Anita working on next? She started a new crowdfunding project concerning the role of women in history. One can hope that the project won’t be nearly as divisive, unconstructive, and misleading as the one that she just gave up on (though this is Anita Sarkeesian we’re talking about, here). The initial fundraising goal of her new project is $200,000. That’s interesting considering that her previous project had a goal of only $6000. If she asked for thousands of dollars to play a bunch of video games, why is she asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to do research that one can do with the simple assistance of Google?

anita research project.png

Believe it or not, women didn’t get their rights because a bunch a firebrands were shrill enough. Women got equal rights with men because men decided that society would benefit from it. What this means is that the feminist movement in it’s current form isn’t just divisive and as a result counterproductive. What it means is that feminism, in it’s current form, has been unnecessary all along.

Update (4-10-2016): Anita has made a video update, but she made it available for backers only. I found out about it because I was curious as to whether the project has raised more money or gained new backers since it was announced that Anita was moving on to something else. It wouldn’t have surprised me if it did, but as it turns out, that wasn’t the case. The video that was posted was not on one of the topics in Anita’s outline for her campaign, so in that regard, the video didn’t do anything to give her backers what they paid for.

It’s obvious that the reason she posts videos for backers only is because she’s far more sensitive to criticism than she lets on. Criticism (which Anita mistakes for “harassment”) is a normal and natural part of the experience of  publishing content on the internet, and is to be expected when what is produced is of inferior quality. Anita is taking measures to hide her content from her critics because she can’t take it anywhere close to how well she dishes it out (though she’s not very good at that, either).

Militia Member Calls TYT Out On Their Disingenuousness

Leave a reply

TYT refuted

Many of you are probably aware that there is a YouTube channel by the name of The Young Turks (TYT for short). My first problem with them (besides that they named themselves for the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and are Armenian Genocide deniers) is that they are so far left wing that they fall off the side of the plane.

Their YouTube channel has been quite popular, which isn’t surprising considering that there are plenty of angsty 15-year-olds out there to pander to who are naive as to how the world works. Me, I’ve ignored them for a while. However, one of their videos caught my attention. It’s titled, “Read The WHOLE Second Amendment” (please be sure that you have AdBlock Plus on before clicking that link). In it, the host invites viewers to read the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

I’m for Americans reading the entirety of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In fact, here is a link to do so. It’s not that long. It would only take a few minutes to read.

The host’s argument is that gun rights advocates only read the second part of the Second Amendment, which, when read in its entirety, is as follows:

Article the fourth… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The host makes the case that the right to bear arms only applies to members of the militia, and not to citizens in general, and states that the modern-day equivalent of the militia is the police force, ignoring that there is such a thing as a preface separated by a comma that does not modify the intent of the message.

Like any liberal or otherwise far-left position, the host’s case is an appeal to ignorance. I’ll tell you why: According to the U.S. Code, I’m considered a member of the militia. In fact, you might be too. I left the following in the comment section explaining why:

comment

I made a copy of my comment to share here due to a tendency of liberal fringe groups to eschew protected free expression and instead delete anything they can they don’t agree with (for more information on this, look up “censorship”). That liberal fringe groups engage in censorship in what is supposed to be a free and open marketplace of ideas (the internet) tells you what you need to know about them. History tells us that if censoring all other viewpoints is what’s necessary for a political ideology to thrive, it’s usually because the ideology in question can’t actually withstand intellectual challenge.

The host reads the entirety of the Second Amendment, which isn’t a bad thing, but then he proceeds to engage in word games as to what defines a militia. Whether or not he’s aware of it, the U.S. Code, which is the permanent law of the Federal Government of the United States, clearly states that all males, ages 17 to 45, who are ordinary citizens of the United States, are considered members of the militia.

Here is how it reads:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Source: Legal Information Institute, law.cornell.edu

 

So, how about that? The host makes the case that the right to bear arms only applies to militia members, when American law defines ordinary citizens as militia members! The host made a pretty self-defeating case, didn’t he? What’s more, the law extends to those who so much as state the intention to become a United States citizen!

This means that the permanent law of the United States, according to U.S. Code, protects someone’s right to bear arms from the moment they state the intention of becoming a U.S. citizen forward!

There are those who would probably think that this is just some quaint relic of a law from the colonial period, perhaps a practical idea at some point, but impractical in today’s modern era. There is a problem with such an assertion: the law was last edited in the 1950s. This means that this law was intended for modern application.

One more liberal argument refuted. Not that that means that we’ll hear the last of it. Liberals and left-wing fringe groups love to prey on ignorance, so they’ll likely try to peddle the argument that TYT made, or some modification thereof.

Still, something about their argument is pretty chilling: the insistence that only police own guns. Are liberals even aware that they are working to create an environment in which dissent can be easily suppressed by force by a powerful federal agency? If such a thing were to come about, it would likely last well beyond the popularity of the liberal ideology in its current state, and come to be employed by an opposing political ideology that would have an equal or greater intolerance for dissent. That’s the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights was written with the intention of preventing.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason

Feminist slander campaign backfires, perpetrator loses job

3 Replies

foot bullet

When you voice your opinion on the internet, there is a possibility that someone is going to issue disagreement with you. That’s a possibility to prepare for in just about any marketplace of ideas. However, not everyone has that kind of maturity.

Recently, a YouTuber with the handle Thunderf00t expressed criticism of Anita Sarkeesian’s methods as a radical feminist. In response, fans of Anita Sarkeesian have (issued polite disagreement? No, they) threatened him.

One in particular by the handle of Laughing Witch took things a little further. She decided that the best way to handle his criticism was to invent a lie against him, and then attempt to ruin his life by telling that lie to his local newspaper, his local police department, and even to his own employer in an attempt to get him fired.

I’ve expressed before that modern feminism has serious honesty problems. However, this case takes things to a whole other level. I’ve disagreed with people on the internet before (I might even disagree with a few things Thunderf00t has said). But to this day, I haven’t decided that the best way to handle such a thing is to try to attack their job. Yet, Laughing Witch has found someone who has disagreed with the methods of radical feminism, and made up a lie about him being a Nazi and a hater of Muslims. He has also been accused of being a member of a conservative group, but that’s not an insult. Again, the lie was propagated to his local paper, his local police department, and his own employer in an attempt to destroy his livelihood and his standing in the community.

If you’re interested in a legal reason why this is a bad idea, look up the word “libel”.

Obviously, these claims aren’t even consistent. For one thing, Nazis historically didn’t hate Muslims. In fact, even Hitler expressed admiration of them. Also, the term “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist”. Conservatives are not socialists.

Of course, things like “facts” haven’t been known to make much of a difference to radical feminists. Not only did Laughing Witch slander Thunderf00t with these claims, she actually bragged about her actions on YouTube using her real name. That’s some kind of confidence.

Afterwards, radical feminists on YouTube celebrated getting Thunderf00t fired. This is in spite of the fact that Thunderf00t was not fired. This tells us what we need to know about radical feminism, it really doesn’t matter to them what’s true.

Laughing Witch bragged that she was immune to backlash because she was the vice president of the company that employed her, which was headed by her husband. She even expressed that she was pleased with her sudden influx of subscribers, probably not realizing how many of those subscribers were just interested in watching a ship sink fast.

loose lips

As it turns out, the ship sank faster than expected. Laughing Witch was actually fired from her job as Vice President of the company that employed her. Meaning, yes, this overconfident radical feminist was actually fired by her own husband. What’s more, she also removed her own YouTube channel (possibly at the request of her husband, who likely saw her online activities as being a serious liability for his company).

There are few things that I dislike more than slander. Because of this, it brightened my day to see that someone who attempted it fell into her own snare.

socrates slander

We probably haven’t heard the last of Laughing Witch. Persons such as herself usually love attention. She might appear again later with a new handle or with a Patreon account begging for donations, claiming to be the victim for all the problems that she brought upon herself.

Still, that someone would consider doing what she tried to do is pretty alarming. I think it’s a sign that radical feminism is quickly becoming more maladjusted, especially with someone like Anita Sarkeesian for them to get behind. Her fanbase has already demonstrated itself to be one of the most dangerous fanbases among YouTube personalities.

Are liberals secretly inept at tech?

2 Replies

BlackBerry_Curve_8310

The first batch of Hillary Clinton emails since the Benghazi testimony have been released, and one of the things they tell us about Hillary is her choice of cell phones. It seems Hillary is a Blackberry user.

I admit that my cell phone of choice was a Blackberry at one point. It was a Blackberry Torch, which I liked because it provided a combination of touchscreen and keyboard interfaces. It was an okay phone. However, the Blackberry brand is well past it’s prime. Perhaps the most significant reason that the Blackberry brand has as many users as it does is because it’s historically been favored in the business world. It was a pioneer at one point, and may have even been favored for some reasons. Today, the Blackberry brand doesn’t have the same kind of relevance that it used to.

It’s tempting to pick on Hillary because of her favoritism toward the Blackberry brand, but Blackberry phones are sometimes standard issue among large corporations (I suspect that they’re a means of keeping the staff on a leash; if the company gives the employee a phone, it can enable the company to contact the employee at any time). What I found interesting is that after spending time with a newer Blackberry, Hillary went back to an older Blackberry for it’s familiarity. It’s interesting enough that, instead of adapting to something new, she went back to an older phone for it’s familiarity. But on top of that, after going back to her old phone, she found herself missing the emoticons from the newer phone.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most serious-looking women I’ve ever seen, so it’s hard to imagine that she’d have a strong attachment to emoticons. She even asked whether there was a way to add them to her older phone.

What we’re seeing so far is actually far different from the image of the privileged coastal technocrat that liberals largely picture themselves as (some also view themselves as an oppressed minority that is part of an underground movement, and they see very little problem with being both). What we’re seeing is someone who, instead of adapting to something cutting-edge, instead went back to something older for comfort. And what’s more, she likes smilies. If she were to later come out saying that she plays Candy Crush Saga, that would lend to the idea that information like this was being fed to the public to make Hillary seem more relatable.

She also asked “How does this work” about a request to “connect” on the website LinkedIn.

Say what?

LinkedIn has over 300 million users. Each of these users likely figured out how to create an account without asking for someone else’s help. If she was really asking for help on how to connect on LinkedIn, perhaps she didn’t make her Facebook and Twitter accounts by herself.

To put this into perspective, the guy behind Time Cube was able to make his own website.

What’s more, Hillary asked one of her aides what her New York Times password is.

3

I get the idea that Hillary Clinton isn’t that good with tech. It seems like ineptitude with tech has increasingly become a liability for those of liberal persuasion. One example would be Lois Lerner, who played a part in a conspiracy to target conservative groups because that’s one way that a fascist can abuse power. When she was subpoenaed for her emails, it conveniently turned out that they were deleted. It’s pretty obvious that she or her cronies deleted her emails because there were things in them that could have gotten her in trouble. However, the emails were recoverable. It turns out that a supposedly-sophisticated organization like the IRS didn’t do a good job at covering its tracks.

Then there’s the scandal involving Anthony Weiner, who attempted to send a woman a picture of his genitals, but posted it to Twitter instead. I can picture a person mistakenly sending the wrong person a text message, but how does a person try to send a private message but accidentally make it public instead?!

Considering cases like these, I get the idea that liberals actually aren’t as tech savvy as they would like you to believe. Of course, the bigger problem for liberalism would be its ideology, and that they provide just the right environment for fringe groups such as radical vegetarians and feminists (the latter of which has been becoming increasingly fanatical).

MI0001937102

Liberalism is like a high-IQ club that’s free to join with no IQ test required, and everyone involved high-fives one another for having the same opinion. Of course, if they don’t come to the right conclusions, they haven’t actually been using their heads right, and that wouldn’t change just because they know how to use smartphones (which have been made so that they’d be simple to use for just about anyone).

Fat shaming and Nicole Arbour

1 Reply

A recent video by Nicole Arbour on YouTube caused quite a stir for it’s topic of fat shaming. In it, the host, Nicole Arbour, called out fat people for the claims that they make about themselves and pointed out that they have a problem. As you could probably imagine, the video got a lot of criticism. So much in fact, that the video was taken down for a short while before being placed back up and comments on the video have been disabled.

While her video did have it’s problems (such as that the host was mildly annoying), on her point that there is a problem with body fat in America, she mostly nailed it. America does have a problem with body fat.

So, why is Nicole Arbour so heavily criticized for her position? Because people don’t like admitting that they have problems that are their own fault. Yeah, there are some cases where people are fat because they have legitimate disabilities that affect their growth, and there are other causes that people can hardly help. However, cases like those are rare. In the case of nearly all Americans that are overweight, they got that way because they weren’t exercising very good self-control. We live in one of the few cultures in history that has an abundance of food, and people still treat it as though it might not still be there the next day.

In fact, in America, our own police forces have a problem with overweight officers. Considering that people count on them to protect them, that’s a scary thought. A physically fit perpetrator could easily outrun them. There are also security guards, though they’re not the same thing (if that’s the kind of thing you want to do with your life, that’s your choice).

People generally don’t like having it pointed out to them that their bad state is a product of their own choices, and is therefore their own fault. Because of this, people tend toward those who tell them what they like to hear, regardless of what’s good for them. This enables them to write off as “mean people” those who are pointing out what’s wrong.

A person who tells it like it is doesn’t always have to resort to satire. However, sometimes it takes a little more than gentle pleading to get people to change for the better. Most people seem to be familiar with only one kind of encouragement. I think it would be plenty motivating to take care of myself if it meant not becoming misshapen and disfigured, and if it also meant that I could avoid being made fun of for my weight, that’s also a plus. Potential suitors do pay attention to physical characteristics, and some of them can indicate lifestyle choices which are not ideal.

As a person who has been both skinny and borderline overweight, I can tell you that it’s a lot more fun to be skinny. I enjoy having that energy and sound health. There’s also the perk of being attractive. That might take some effort to maintain (perhaps more so for some than others), but it’s worth it.

If a person is overweight, what can they do about it? They could make the choice to take better care of themselves. However, it seems easier for many of them to write off people like Nicole Arbour as those who don’t know what they’re talking about as their paunch steadily grows and sags.

Animal abusers swiftly punished (but harvesters of human organs still run free)

Leave a reply

In the comments sections discussing the controversial videos that expose Planned Parenthood’s illegal selling of fetal organs, I remember reading about how the media is sparsely reporting the story and the political left is looking the other way, but if there were a video showing animal abuse, there would be immediate consequences.

As it so happens, a videotape by a group called Mercy for Animals has exposed blatant animal abuse at the hands of a farm in Tennessee. Immediately afterwards, Tyson Foods, who in turn supplies chicken to McDonald’s, terminated it’s contract with the farm.

So, there you go. Animals are abused, it’s caught on one video, and it gets immediate media coverage, and action is taken against the perpetrators immediately. However, when it’s human lives that are harvested for organs, and there are a number of videos, some of them hours long, showing evidence of the crimes that have been going on for years, it’s treated with a media blackout, and president Obama voices his support for the perpetrators without having watched any of the video evidence.

There seems to be a disease that is damaging American minds. The double-standard that the media is showing favoring livestock grown for food over their own human specie is just one symptom of it. There have also been more mass shootings in recent times. What this shows is an increasingly callous disregard for human lives.

One would-be incident was the possibly averted shooting that would have taken place at the Pokemon World Championships. There is a possibility that the two would-be gunmen were only joking. Even so, it’s become an occasion for some to use the incident to further their own agenda. There are a lot of people out there that have a problem with video games, and want to impose more futile regulations on them. And, of course, there are those who are out to take guns away from everybody.

Both guns and video games have been around for a long time, but mass shootings are a very recent epidemic. Even if you were to pad every wall and take all the sharp objects away from everybody, if the infirmity of mind that leads to mass killings remains untreated, they’re just going to keep happening.

The blatant disregard for human life is a growing epidemic in America, and the harvesting of human organs by Planned Parenthood is yet another symptom of it. As disgusting as this is, it’s even worse yet when you realize that the president of the United States himself is enabling it. If that’s where things are now, where do they go next?

Planned Parenthood might sue. Could this backfire?

1 Reply

Let’s start this off by sharing a video that Planned Parenthood and the American political left does not want you to see. The following is the latest upload by the Center for Medical Progress:

The latest video is the most incriminating yet. In it, a former member of Planned Parenthood explains how babies were extracted alive then had their organs harvested, including a brain which was obtained from the living infant by slicing it’s face open.

Pretty disturbing stuff, right? And yes, it’s illegal. If the infant is extracted alive, killing it is a homicide.

So then, what does Planned Parenthood have to say about this? They’re thinking of suing.

Picard-Facepalm

Planned Parenthood is considering legal action against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that exposed their baby-part-selling operations.

Yes, Planned Parenthood, who themselves have been selling baby parts in violation of Federal law, which is a felony, no less, is considering taking legal action against the group that exposed them for doing so, saying that it was illegal to spy on them in such a manner. In the United States of America, whose government has spied on it’s citizens.

This isn’t Bizarro World here. People who have been committing Federal felonies for years are considering suing the people who exposed them. Again, in America.

Planned Parenthood is considering this course of action, as opposed to not bringing much attention to themselves, because if they did, they might end up jailed for the crimes that there is video evidence of them having committed. I can imagine that ending up in Federal prison might ruin their day, as it probably would for most people. Considering this, wouldn’t they want to keep a low profile, to avoid bringing attention to themselves?

Republicans have been calling for defunding Planned Parenthood. Is that it? While it’s true that Planned Parenthood should be defunded (they should not have been receiving Federal funding to begin with), this shouldn’t stop there. Leadership of Planned Parenthood should be arrested. They broke the law. Why aren’t they being arrested?

The Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood, Dawn Laguens, demanded that the Center for Medical Progress submit “all of the videos and the source footage unedited, and they would hand it to Congress and law enforcement” as opposed to “splice it together in all sorts of crazy ways in order to tell a political story.”

Here’s the thing: if Dawn Laguens wants the full, unedited versions of these videos so badly, she can get them the same way everyone else has been getting them: by going to the Center for Medical Progress’ YouTube channel. They have been posting unedited versions of their videos in their entirety.

Didn’t she know that they were up there? Yes, there are edited versions about ten minutes long that get to the point. There are also corresponding FULL FOOTAGE videos, which happen to be far more incriminating than the edited versions. There goes the argument that CMP has only been uploading the most scandalous and heavily-butchered parts without sharing the rest of the conversations.

Also, I’m for Congress and law enforcement seeing these videos. I wouldn’t mind if every member of Congress saw these videos. However, I get the impression that Dawn Laguens doesn’t know how YouTube or the internet works. Turning these videos in to Congress doesn’t remove them from the internet. They’d still be on YouTube’s servers, probably on multiple servers to accommodate the high volume of traffic that these videos are getting. It’s likely that many people, anticipating efforts to silence the CMP, have downloaded the videos for themselves and might host them on their own web space or share them with a peer-to-peer service such as μTorrent. Once a file is on the internet, the expectation is that it will be copied many times and be around for a very long time, especially when the material gets significant media attention.

Another thing I find odd is that Planned Parenthood really seems to think that the American public is siding with them on this matter. That’s not the case. One thing that the comment sections of these videos show is that the people who have seen them are pissed. Big time. And as more people see these videos, there will be more people who will want to see Planned Parenthood’s leadership incarcerated, and the organization’s doors shut permanently.

Because of that, one would think that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t want to bring much attention to themselves right now.