Remember when a conspiracy theory surfaced that now-President Donald Trump benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election? You likely do, seeing as the corporate media ran with it for a long time, in spite of having nothing to show for it, and nothing came of it but yet another waste of taxpayer dollars by Democrats.

So then, we’ve established that foreign meddling in an election is something that the left takes seriously.

With that in mind, consider a prank phone call that recently surfaced targeting Kamala Harris, currently running for VP alongside the presidential candidate, Joe Biden. The fact that she was pranked wasn’t as exceptional as what the prank revealed about her.

The pranksters were a pair of Russian comedians, with one of them posing as popular young environmentalist Greta Thunburg. During the phone conversation, the impersonator offered Kamala a likely-nonexistent recording of Donald Trump disparaging Greta’s efforts, suggesting that it could be of use to Kamala as she campaigns against the incumbent President. Not only did she accept, Kamala said that one of her associates would get in touch with her and work together with her.

Greta Thunberg isn’t an American; she’s Swedish. And Kamala Harris was willing to accept a recording the Swedish girl would have secretly acquired of words that the President spoke to her in confidence. Kamala Harris would have happily cooperated with a foreign entity interfering in an American election.

Of course, this is far from the scariest thing about Kamala Harris, who…

• Kept people incarcerated to exploit them for cheap labor, even paying them $1/hr to fight wildfires,
• Put parents of truants in legal trouble, then laughed at their distress,
• Attempted to prevent a DNA test of a man on death row when the test might have exonerated him, which it did,
• Then demonstrated her accountability by blaming her subordinates for the attempted obstruction.

There is a recurring pattern of abusing and exploiting those who are powerless to resist. While Kamala might not have necessarily been involved, it was the California prison system that decided to experiment on male juvies with involuntary estrogen treatments. Something seems to be viciously wrong with the California criminal justice system.

“Fail with honor rather than succeed by fraud.”
-Star Wars, The Clone Wars

I know that tech companies and social media platforms have oodles of coders that are out to justify their collective existences, but more should be done to prevent them from fixing what’s not broken.

If you’ve attempted to use WordPress lately, you might have had issues with widgets. That’s not as big a deal for me as the fact that the numerous tools used to edit a post have vanished into a non-intuitive interface, assuming that you can still access the media you’ve uploaded through all that mess.

What really stinks of turgid ethics is that to access the classic editor, you have to install it as a plugin. All that would take from you is $300 per year for their Business Plan.

It seems as though it’s not enough for WordPress to intersperse our content with gross-out ads, now they want us to pay to use an editor that we’ve been accustomed to for years.

I’m curious about who is desperate enough for the older, better editor that they’re willing to reward WordPress financially in spite of the fact that WordPress 5.5 is breaking sites.

Let’s consider some of the biggest mistakes that a person can make: In many cases it involves committing a crime. Or it might be investing too much in the wrong stock. Or hurriedly marrying someone only to find out that they’re abusive. Or buying a house in a crime-riddled neighborhood.

Those are some big mistakes, but here’s a whopper: majoring in Electronics Engineering Technology (EET).

If you’re planning on becoming an EET major, here’s an idea of what you can look forward to:

As you get into it, you might have the idea that you’re joining “the winning side”. It’s not like majoring in English or some other elective, you might tell yourself. This is STEM we’re talking about, which all the science people speak of as guaranteeing a bright future. Once they have you believing that, they have you indoctrinated, to the point that it will be hard to change your mind.

For example, if you’re considering an EET degree, you might see someone attempting to warn you against it and you might dismiss them as being someone who made some bad choices.

Once you begin the program, it might actually be the fight of your life. Most college programs flood their students with assignments, but your EET coursework will easily eclipse your rudie-poo electives in terms of difficulty and perhaps even volume. You’ll really be in for it if you have a professor who likes the idea of “weed-out courses” which are filled with arbitrarily advanced material early on in an effort to process out the less-serious students.

In a 25-student class, you’ll likely see a couple students drop in the first week. By the end of the first semester, the class is likely to have been reduced to nearly half, and usually only around eight or nine students make it to second year. Most of the ones left usually graduate.

In case you’re curious, the students that carry on typically make fun of the ones that don’t make it, in some cases as far as a year after they drop.

Considering the challenge involved, and how few students who attempt it actually graduate, one might imagine that there’d be a bright and sunny future awaiting the student that overcomes the hurdles. If that’s what you think, consider the following number:

17

That’s how much money that you could expect to make, in dollars per hour, putting an EET degree to use.

Are you in disbelief? I’ve held three jobs since graduation that paid about the same rate, and I’ve seen another student from my class in the same position, so it seems like that particular rate isn’t extraordinary for EET grads. For comparison, I met an auto mechanic in the 90’s who made more than that even before accounting for inflation. To make the matter hurt more, a grocery store near one of the places I worked at had advertised a non-managerial position that started at about $15/hr.

With that kind of money, you can pick between a car or a one-bedroom apartment. You might even be able to squeak by with both if the apartment is a slum and the car is used. But you’d probably find yourself doing as I’ve done: using the company’s free coffee as an appetite-suppressant so you’ll feel less tempted to spend more money on food.

While this is going on, your dad might wonder why you’re not buying a house, your mom might wonder when she’s getting grandkids out of you, you might feel tempted to convince your friends that everything’s fine, everything’s just fine, and you yourself might be struggling to make sense of what’s going on.

At that point, you’ll realize that you weren’t on the winning side. STEM majors don’t guarantee success, hard work doesn’t always lead to a desirable outcome, and it is possible to work yourself raw for years and have little to show for it. Kind of like with most degrees.

If you’re considering majoring in EET, don’t do it. If you love your children, don’t sign them up for it. As for me, I don’t know what I’m going to do now. I know that I thought EET was a great idea in the past, but sometimes a person’s opinion changes over time and when presented with more information. Obviously, my opinion is different, now.

“What society does to its children, so will its children do to society.” -Marcus Tullius Cicero

Two is a natural counting number, and is placed between the numbers one and three on a directly-incrementing number line composed solely of successive integers.

Two is the lowest-value prime number; it is the first in the sequence of natural numbers that cannot be divided by a natural number to achieve a quotient that is also a natural number.

An integer is considered to be “even” if the quotient of dividing it by two would be an integer. Two is the only even prime number.

Two holds the third position on the Fibonacci Sequence, the previous two positions on the sequence being two occurrences of the number one.

It is also the number achieved when adding the multiplicative identity number, one, to itself.

In algebra, an exponent of two is used when a term consisting of a combination of variables and constants is to be multiplied by itself. This is of practical application when finding the area of a square when the value of the length and width are determined to be equal.

In trigonometry, the square root of two is the length of the hypotenuse when the opposite and adjacent lengths of a right triangle are both equal to one.

Interestingly, two is the only non-zero number where the sum of adding it to itself is the same as the product of multiplying it by itself.

Two is the base number of the binary numbering system, wherein each significant digit has two possible values (zero and one), which is of foundational importance in computer science, where the smallest element of data storage has two permutations, a high state (represented by a 1), and a low state (represented by a 0). Machine code uses the base-2 number system, whereas the base-8 (octal) and base-16 (hexadecimal) number systems are used as shorthand ways to represent binary numbers. The base numbers of these number systems are powers of two.

Remember: 2 + 2 = 4

In a legendary move of ideological checkmate, House Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) decided to ride the recent tide of anti-racism by introducing a resolution that would ban any political party that has historically supported the confederacy or slavery in the U.S.. Getting behind the resolution are GOP Reps Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), Andy Harris (R-Maryland), Jody Hice (R-Georgia), and Randy Weber (R-Texas).

“Wow, what are so many Republicans doing getting behind a bill that would dissolve a political party with a racist history?” you might be asking. And, for that matter, why wouldn’t every single Democrat get right behind it? After all, if the Democrats are anti-slavery and always have been, their votes should be magnetically drawn to any bill that wipes out any party with a history of slavery. Right?

Right?

You may even feel an impetus to look into the history of both the Democrat and Republican parties, and their respective histories with slavery and the confederacy. And you may have even come to some shocking realizations.

Which was probably one of the things the resolution was designed to do.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,”
-Rep. Gohmert

Ooh, snap! The sharp end of cancel culture has just been skillfully turned on it’s wielder! If the left can justify changing street names due to the connection of the names to pro-slavery figures in the past, the same justification could be used to change the name of the Democrat party! As for what to call them from here on, you could probably think of some suggestions.

Gohmert gave some solid examples of racism tied directly to Democrats. But you might be wondering, what about Republicans? At the time of the Civil War, the Republican party was freshly-founded by Abraham Lincoln shortly after the collapse of the Whig party. Republicans were a northern party that was strongly opposed to slavery, with black Republican Fredrick Douglass (whose statue was among those recently knocked down) being a key figure in the Underground Railroad, which freed slaves.

If you think Douglass was passionate, you’d get a kick out of Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican congressman who was so anti-slavery, that he wanted to revoke the voting rights of slave owners! He was a driving force behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which today are used as foundations for civil rights legislation. Not only that, he pursued the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, a racist president. Johnson’s impeachment failed by only one vote, but reduced the racist president to being a mere figurehead for the remainder of his term. By the way, the racist Andrew Johnson was a Democrat.

While there are some racist people who call themselves Republican today, their racist stances aren’t officially held by the party, and the rest of the Republican party regards them as outliers.

So, this particular resolution puts Democrats in a pretty bad spot. They are notorious when it comes to virtue signalling on race issues, apparently due to guilt over the skeletons in their closets. Therefore, one might expect them to vote in favor of the resolution. But if they do, they’d be voting for the dissolution of their own party! But if they vote against it, they’d be disappointing their constituency, and would risk losing minority voters, on top of the many voters who would have learned something about them, in light of this resolution.

This is trolling on a scale never before seen. If Rep. Louie Gohmert were one of the bad guys, he’d be an Avengers-level threat.

While some would make the case that those in government should not use social media for fear that it would make them look silly, I think it’s great. The very nature of the internet as a free and open marketplace of ideas is expedient to the discovery of those who don’t know what they’re talking about. Twitter is just one outlet that enables people to open their mouths and indicate a deficit of much-needed enlightenment.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in a gaping gaffe, declared the U.S. “a democracy, not a banana republic”, as expressed in the following tweet:

“We live in a democracy, not a banana republic. We will not tolerate the use of Americans as props in President Trump’s political games.” -Nancy Pelosi on Twitter

That the U.S. is a democracy is something that they tell elementary school students because there’s not much expectation that they would comprehend the nuance behind how the U.S. is run. It’s easy to see how the mistake is made: democracies involve voting, and Americans vote, so one might assume based on limited information that the U.S. is a democracy. As a sad side-effect in this shortcut in teaching, you have adults who don’t understand the proper classification of the U.S. government.

Because they didn’t learn any better, there are people going around speaking of democracy as though it were virtuous. It actually isn’t. A democracy is mob rule.

The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The constitution was especially intended to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, as expressed by James Madison in The Federalist #10. What’s more, the federal government grants substantial authority to states to govern their own affairs. Very much a republic.

The use of the term “banana republic” is interesting, considering that a banana republic is a small, politically-unstable country whose economy depends primarily upon a single export. That doesn’t sound like the American economy. In fact, the U.S. economy was rockin’ until Dems shut much of it down over a weak virus that mainly only kills people who were already being killed by something else. But I get it, she used the term because bananas sound silly, and because “republic” sounds like Republican, a group that Pelosi seems to take issue with. That the word used to describe the U.S. sounds like something she doesn’t like is a petty reason to mislead anyone as to the true nature of American government, especially for the Speaker of the House, who should understand American government better than most.

But can we really expect better from a leader who makes excuses for violent rioters while getting into Twitter slapfights with the President when he does something to make the situation better?

It’s been nearly a day since first hearing of this story. I’ve calmed down quite a bit since, but it might be hard to tell. When I hear about things like involuntary human experimentation, my gut reaction is to get a fire going that’s big enough for some sickening human beings to be thrown into.

What’s important to consider is that the complaint is of an alleged wrongdoing, meaning it’s veracity is still yet to be determined in a court of law.

According to a civil complaint filed in the state of California, a minor in a detention center was prescribed estrogen in an experimental treatment with no medical basis, and was compelled to take it. The complaint also alleges that other minors in the same facility have received the same treatment. The complaint also alleges that the treatment resulted in psychological damage, and physical damage requiring surgery for correction.

It would be surprising to me if there weren’t also criminal complaints, considering that the alleged offenses constitute grave crimes against humanity, and shouldn’t go unanswered. The civilized world has already gone to war against depraved science decades ago, and won. If we have to, I’m for doing it again.

Those behind debased science usually prey on the vulnerable among us, which includes the prison population, which can do little to resist. Also among vulnerable targets are the handicapped, loners, those with mental illnesses, and religious and racial minorities.

Considering the outrageous nature of the crime of involuntary human experimentation, which goes against the spirit of humanity, the penalty of death seems the most fitting for it given America’s constitutional framework. Anything else doesn’t adequately reward it for the transgression it is.

But while we’re considering fitting punishments, what would seem the most appropriate punishment for someone who conducts experiments on inmates, even going as far as altering their sexual characteristics, especially as they are made to join the prison population? There is one idea that comes immediately to mind. Pouring Head and Shoulders directly onto his eyes.

”There are things in the universe that are simply and purely evil. A warrior does not seek to understand them, or to compromise with them. He seeks only to obliterate them.” -Thrawn

It’s hard not to notice an uptick in the number of feminists who are attempting the dating game, but it’s not going very well for them. It’s not a surprise when you consider that they are a fad ideology that actively tampers with the gender dynamic.

While conservatives have been mischaracterized as old-fashioned and unscientific, their approach to courtship is actually strongly scientific, in that they’ve made observations, formed hypotheses, and rigorously tested them in a manner reminiscent of the scientific method. When it comes to courtship, they were really early to the science, as their approach has been battle-tested through the ages and determined to be axioma, found fit and is beyond dispute.

On the other hand, left-wing idealists, while eager to champion their ideas, are bringing ideas that are relatively untested and therefore by their nature risky. Their attempt-first-ask-later approach is reckless, and is nowhere close to as scientific as they are given credit for. What’s more, what of their ideas for which significant data exists determines that their flagship relationship approaches are adokimon, having been tested and found to be debased and unfit for the intended purpose.

Yet, they still continue to foist their ideas on the body politick. The continual failures of their approaches coupled with their fanatical insistence upon them gives fuel to the idea that the far-left is in league with an insidious population-control movement which uses mass misinformation to further it’s agenda. The irony behind such an endeavor is that it’s primary victims are leftists and the gullible, thus breeding out such groups, and autolyzing the movement itself. Among the victims of the theoretical movement would be feminists.

Because feminists have been indoctrinated into a worldview that treats the male-female relationship as adversarial in nature, it should be no surprise that they aren’t faring well in relationships that require compromise with both the opposite sex and their own expectations. Couple this with the fact that the concept of love has long been mysticized to the point that people find themselves doubting that it’s the “real thing” when they experience it, and the cards are really stacked against feminists when they finally get around to putting their fad ideologies to the test.

Some people are their own worst enemies. The hang-ups that they’ve taken on were usually foisted upon them by someone else, and internalized to the point of being self-reinforcing, making it much less likely that they’ll properly identify them as the cause of their problems.

The fact is, there are generalities that apply to women which can have a significant impact on their dating lives. Related to this is the fact that as women become more successful, they tend to notice fewer men who they find suitable for themselves. This is because women are naturally hypergamous, meaning that they tend to marry upwards on the social scale. Successful women can overcome loneliness by compromising with their inhibition and accepting men who aren’t as successful as they, but in so doing, they might find it difficult to resist their own natures.

What renders leftist movements self-defeating is that they teach men to be weak-willed and accommodating to the point of self-deprecation, and women to be aggressive and dominating to the point of being hard to approach, thereby making the two unlikely to find one-another appealing. The sad consequence is that politically-compatible leftist couples start families with decreased frequency, and if they were to date outside their own political sphere, there wouldn’t be much expectation for their success.

Simply put, feminists are bad at dating, and their own political ideology and philosophical notions are the cause of their own plight. If they had the introspection necessary to properly identify the cause of their own problem, they wouldn’t likely remain feminists. But if they were to continue on their course, it might become the hill that their dating lives would end on.

Suppose you’re presented with two pictures, one after the other. The first picture is of a young boy, sitting and smiling. His hair is neatly-parted, and his clothes are clean.

You might see him and think, “What a well-behaved child!” and think positively on what you see.

Then you see a picture of another boy, his face smeared with ice cream. He’s laughing, and his clothes are similarly smeared with ice cream.

You might see him and think, “What a misbehaved child!” and come away thinking negatively on the sight.

However, perception isn’t everything.

The reason why the one boy had ice cream smeared on his face is because he had ice cream. The boy who was neat and clean was smiling because he was told to, because someone had to take his picture. The boy with the ice cream didn’t have to be told to smile because he had reason to.

I don’t know about you, but between the two I’d rather be the boy with the ice cream. He’s enjoying a simple pleasure in life rather than being made to put on a charade for someone else’s amusement.

The boys in the comparison above can be likened to many real-world people in a variety of circumstances. Do either of them remind you of anyone you know?