The UK Online Safety Act

 Or, simply put, the "censorship bill."  Has anyone else seen this thing?  Two hundred twenty-five pages of overly vague nonsense, shifting the burden of censorship to the online platforms and providers for no good reason.

Since most of you don't have the time to waste reading this thing (advantages to being at least semi-retired, y'know...) let me hit a few highlights.  You can view the bill and follow along at https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-final.pdf ...

Starting with Part 2 - "Key Definitions"

- Under "User-to-User Service" and "Search Service," "(1) In this Act, "user to user service" means an Internet service by means of which content that is gnerated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user or the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service.  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1); (a) it does not matter if content is actuallyshared with another user or users as long as a service has a functionality that allows such sharing; and (b) it does not matter what proporton of content on a service is content desribed in that subsection." [emphasis mine]

Interpretation: For services that are like or could be like, say, Facebook or X, they can be regulated under this law.  Doesn't matter if you have content sharing turned on or off; or if, out of everything you have on your server, you have only one small file shared.  It's enough.

Part 3, Chapter 1, Part 5, Subsection 7 "Chapter 7 is about the interpretation of this Part, and it inclues definitions of the following key terms: 'illegal contant,' 'terrorism content,' 'CSEA content' and 'priority illegal content' (see section 52); 'Primary priority content that is harmful to children,' 'priority content that is harmful to children,' and 'content that is harmful to children' (see section 53); 'priority content that is harmful to adults' and 'content that is harmful to adults' (see section 54); "

For "illegal content" &c, the only one I have to look up is "CSEA content" (it's not defined in section 52, either,) but I can see censoring such content, and that's the sort of thing a provider should be jumping on, and a censor bot should be flagging for a human operator to verify and delete or not, depending.  So I can see all of that.

Section 53 defines what each bracket of "harmful to children" is, but does not describe what "harmful to children" itself means.  Wonder if it's described somewhere else?  If not, that leaves an awful lot of open territory.  Stay tuned...  Subsection (3) - " 'Priority content that is harmful to children' meanscontent of a description designated in regulations mae by the Secretary of State as priority content that is harmful to children."  I wonder how much I'd have to dig to resolve this tautology, because defining something as itself is just stupid.  Likewise subsection (4) " 'Content that is harmful to children' means (a) primary priority content that is harmful to children, (b) priority content that is harmful to children, or (c) content, not whting paragtaph (a) or (b), of a kind which presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the United Kingdom."  Good as it goes - but, again, what's "harm?"

Section 54 - "Content that is harmful to adults" - is similarly tautological.  What's "harm?"

Section 150 - "Harmful Communications Offence (1) A person commits an offence if (a) the person sends a message (see section 153), (b) at the time of sending the message - (i) there was a real & substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience, and (ii) the person intended to cause harm to a likely audiance, and (c) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message."

So we have to prove (or disprove!) state of mind at a point in the past, prove (or disprove) a question of intent, and prove (or disprove) justification for the content (this last is probably the easiest of the three to do.)  However, we're back to "causing harm" again - I've been thumbing through the instances where "harm" appears as a word or part of a word in this mess, and the title of this section is the 222d occurrence of "harm."  I am still looking for a proper definition, instead of the tautology originally offered...

Finaly!  Subsecton (4) - " 'Harm' means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress."  Goody.  I have problems with this (at the 226th occurrence of "harm," by the way...):

1) It's a horribly nebulous term.  What could cause 99 men to go to bits wouldn't even faze me.   Perhaps 999 men - I'm pretty unflappable, anymore.

2) This is a horribly nebulous definition in general.

3) What is "serious distress?"

4) We're dealing with a population that goes all to bits if you use the wrong fucking pronouns to refer to them.  What else would cause these thin-skinned wastes of space to go pieces?  

(Disclaimer - if you haven't figured out by now that I am not politically correct, or whatever term they're using these days, you haven't been paying attention.  That's a "you" problem.  Deal with it however you see fit, but I won't censor myself to protect fragile sensibilities, I'm going to keep saying - roughly - what I think.  I do tone it down just a bit...)

Were I in charge of, say, X; here's how I'd respond to such a bill: "Gentlemen, I have received your law, and I have given it the attention it deserved.  Having just swept the ashes into the bin, allow me to reply.  Your desire for censorship is a "you" problem, we serve the whole world.  You want Great Britain censored, you do it.  We will continue to jump on illegal content, and we are accelerating efforts to do so.  However, what you consider "offensive" doesn't even flick the needle on my offence meter, and I'm not going to expect people to put themselves in your place to enforce a vague law, rife with tautologies and nebulous critical definitions. Enforcing this will therefore be your problem.  Anyone you send to arrest any of my personnel shall themselves be subject to arrest for kidnapping, or at least liable to grievious bodily injury during the attempt to execute such a warrant.  And we will vigorously fund their defence.  Love, kisses, and fuck you very much.  Have a nice day."

Here's another fun one - Section 151, Subsection 1(c) - "A person commits an offence if - ... (c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information i it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physica harm to a likely audience ..."  How are we defining "non-trivial," and just how nebulous will this end up being?  "non-trivial" is anawfully slippery term to use in law, where definitions should be objectively quantifiable.

Section 154, Subsection (3) - "Proceedings for an offence committed under section 150, 151, or 152 outside the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, at any place in England and Wales."  Oh, really?  So, you're telling me you suddenly have global jurisdiction for the purposes of "offensive content?"

Section 156, adding Section 66!, (1)(a) - "A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person's genitals to another person (B) commits an offence of - (a) A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress, or humiliation."

Now, I'll admit that some things are the responsibility of the provider to strike quickly - and I already covered that (illegal content &c.)  However, it is impossible to determine exactly what people will find "offensive" and/or just how "offensive" they'll find it to be, and this is the sort of law that is going to lead to a patchwork of such laws from various countries, making the content filtering by nation resemble a crazy quilt.  This is the #1 reason why Meta, X, et al should not do country-level filtering - let the countries do it their damn selves.  Akin to the "Great Firewall of China," any country that wants content (of whatever sort) censored can take such responsibility upon themselves, so their people know who they can get mad at. And having a crazy quilt of routing tables gets needlessly complex - having each nation establish its own censorship 1) puts it in the right place (if any place can be said to be "right" for censorship,) and 2) makes administration so much easier for all concerned (especially since each nation can add sites and suchlike to its own routing tables to block, and they don't have to bother service providers.)

This law is horribly written, it's unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) vague, it puts the subjective burden upon the provider, it assigns worldwide jurisdiction to the United Kingdom (which won't fly,) and it's illogical (reading it made my migraine much worse!)

And its passage will only encourage more of this sort of nonsense, unfortunately.  After all, as I've long said - "Nothing has legs like a bad idea."

Red Flag Laws Done Right

               So much going on around about "Red Flag" laws.  "Oh, they're for your safety."  "Oh, they're for the safety of society."  "Oh, they're just a safety measure."

              Bullshit.

              The reason I say so?  If they're so concerned about the person being a "threat," they only remove a tool that may be used to exercise that threat.  Just one sort of tool, out of many.  Just one prepared tool, against so many that may be improvised by anyone who paid attention in high school chemistry and who took shop courses (id est, pretty much anyone with a reasonably well-rounded education.)

              If the person is such a threat, then the efforts should be focused on the person, yes?  Seal up the house, and take the person in for a 72- or 96-hour psych hold and eval, then decide what to do with/about him.  Decide if the person really is a threat, and handle him accordingly.

              Now, if I were in charge of such things, here’s how I’d structure a “Red Flag” law.  This would (I think) maintain the rights of the accused, preserve due process, and handle any threats at their source:

 

1)      The complaint is made.  This must be done by someone who knows you personally resaonably well – not your kid’s teacher (who may have never met you,) unless there are clear signs of abuse; or a cop who met you in passing and who has only interacted with you for two minutes with you giving no outward “danger signs,” or anyone like that.  A relative, or a (mental) health practitioner you consult regularly, or someone with at least an undergrad psych degree – someone with either the knowledge or experience to properly make such a judgement upon an individual.

2)      A court date is scheduled.

3)      You are advised of such court date – a minimum of three calendar days in advance, and a maximum of seven calendar days in advance (you must be given an opportunity to prepare a defense, but the assumption is that we must move relatively quickly on this.)

4)      At your court appearance, you face your accuser, who must articulate his concerns against you.  Failure of the accuser to appear nullifies the order with prejudice, and the records so marked. 

a.       You are given the opportunity to defend yourself, in the presence of a judge and a psychologist or psychiatrist (a masters-level practitioner in abnormal psychology at a minimum,) since most judges do not hold psychology degrees, and are therefore not fit judges of the mind.  (If a judge does hold a masters-level psych degree, then that single judge will do.)

b.       No attorneys are present.  You are defending your mind, not your legal status.  You will be doing so directly.  Yes, it will be stressful – that is the point.  Induced stress will be part and parcel of the psychological evaluation.

c.       You will have the opportunity to examine your “accuser’s” position against you.  You will have the opportunity to question your accuser.  This is proper, and a preservation of your rights under the Constitution – just as this whole process will be.  And if your accuser can’t be bothered to show up, then you’re obviously not enough of a problem to worry about.

5)       

a.       Your home will be guarded while you are having your evaluation, if it is ordered.

b.       The default position on this initial process will be the issuance of a 72- or 96-hour psychological evaluation hold, unless you can prove you don’t need one.  If you can prove you don’t need one, or the evaluation shows that you are stable, your home and contents will be returned to you in the condition in which you left it, all property intact.

c.       If the result of such evaluation is that a precautionary hold is ordered, or a period of observation is ordered, then it is time to hold property.  Anything that may be used to attack another is therefore inventoried as to kind, quantity, and condition (a written list and a photographic record of condition is made as the property is amassed,) and a permanent copy of such is given to the citizen (id est, a copy on optical media, such as a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM.  Some format that may not be altered.)  Such record is to be identical to the “official” record maintained by the Sheriff’s Department.

d.       Any property taken is to be properly stored, in such manner as it will not be damaged by handling, other property, or the environment, for an indefinite period of time.  A copy of the inventory of such property is to be kept with the property.

e.       It is understood that one may not remove all threats from a given home, there are too many ways to make various weapons to be had, if one knows how.  But, anything with a primary purpose of being used “as a weapon” (which, sadly, includes firearms,) or a major secondary use as a weapon (including things like field knives, baseball bats – if one is not on a team – collected martial arts weaponry, collections of WWII war materiel, &c) can be taken and held.

6)      Every six months, the order shall be reviewed in court.  The same procedure is to be followed as the original order, with the exception of the “psych hold” no longer being a major potential outcome of the proceedings.  However, the original complainant must still appear, must still articulate his concerns (if they are still present,) and must still be made to defend his position on such.  Or, he may state that there are no longer any concerns, and that the order may be lifted.

a.       The default position on review is that the order is to be lifted, unless it can be proven that the order should be maintained.

b.       If/when the order is to be lifted, the Sheriff’s department has ninety-six hours (four calendar days) to return the citizen’s property to them, in the condition in which it was taken.  Any property that is damaged (relative to the condition recorded when the property was taken) the Sheriff’s department has two weeks to make the citizen whole (but without undue delay.  The two weeks is to allow a chance to find uncommon items – common items are to be replaced immediately.  If items cannot be located, the price of the item – when new – shall be reimbursed.)

7)      At every stage, both the accuser and accused may bring witnesses to support their position.

8)      At every stage, both the accuser and accused are aware of what is happening.

9)      The accuser is not permitted to make his accusation anonymously  Doing so nullifies the accusation.

 

Discuss

 

Coronavirus, or the 2020 Election?

Found this one hiding in the buffer.  Enjoy...

 

 Which is more contentious?

Why is it so important that absolutely everyone be vaccinated against a disease with an aggregate 99.97% survival rate (99.995% under 60?)

Why is it so important that everyone be vaccinated - even if they've already had the disease and have immunities against it - immunities which have been proven in studies to be better than the "leaky" vaccine?  (Reinfection rates are considerably lower than breakthrough infection rate.  Israeli studies - here's one[1] -  show reinfection rates to be effectively zero.  The Cleveland Clinic[2] found no logical reason to vaccinate those who had previously been infected with COVID-19.)

The government decries vaccine hesitancy, but doesn't realise that it itselc causes vaccine hesitancy.[3, 4]

The vaccine makers didn't help their cause any, either.[5] (N.B. - It's since come out that, "the information is online."  Well, then, put a smaller piece of paper in with a statement to that effect, instead of a child's bedsheet left blank!  It's not that difficult to do, y'know?)

Our mentally soi-distant feckless leader Biden:
- Prior to getting elected: "Does not trust Trump to deliver a safe vaccine."[6, 7]  Now: "Everybody get vaccinated." (Read the papers)
- Before: "There will be no Federal vaccine mandates."[8]  Now: Read the papers.
- Acting like a drug pusher, rolling out boosters before anyone really even knows they're necessary [9, 10]
- And I'm sure much more I really don't feel like looking up at the moment (I have other things to do.)

And, of course, we're constantly being exhorted to "follow the science."  Um, okeh.  I have been "following the science."  I've studied SARS-CoV-2 enough that I can discuss it intelligently with medical doctors, on their level.  And you want to know one of the solid conclusions that we've all reached?  The Federal government, the CDC, and Fauci don't know what the Hell they're doing.  Some tips:

- Soap works.  Use it.  I know they say twenty seconds - foodservice says 30 seconds.  The extra ten seconds won't kill you (hey - as a first aider, I was taught to scrub for a full minute.  Deal.)  Soap works better than the alcohol hand sanitizers, and it doesn't burn those little cuts, either.
- Physical distancing?  Useless.  If you were to do 30 feet (10m) or so, maybe.  6 feet?  May as well just stand right next to him (and either the masks STOP particles or they DON'T.  If you're wearing a cloth mask, I'm willing to bet they DON'T.  Woven materials is an ineffective filter, and the pore size is just too damn big.) [11, 12]
- Gee whiz.  The science, once again, agrees with what I knew intuitively - that the cloth masks everyone is going about wearing border on useless.[13]  (N.B. - The minimal filtering effect offered by these masks can probably be considered negated by people fiddling around with their masks and with poor fitment.)

[1] Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Natural Immunity to Vaccine-Induced Immunity: Reinfections Versus Breakthrough Infections: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Previously-Infected Individuals: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
[3] Speaking of Big Buts, the Unethical Quite of the Month: Dr. Anthony Fauci :https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/08/25/speaking-of-big-buts-unethical-quote-of-the-month-dr-anthony-fauci/
[4] "They're Experimenting On Us" - Why Black New Yorkers Don't Trust the Vaccine: http://stateofthenation.co/?p=79083 (It's not just black New Yorkers - the vaccine rollout has been the biggest drug study in history - that has been and probably will ever be.  They've talked billions into taking part.  Because you do know that these vaccines are, technically, still in study period, right?  The only one that has gotten FDA approval, I believe, is still not available in the United States...
[5] YouTube Video of Pharmacist Breaking Out Package Insert of Johnson & Johnson SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v6DJIS0zd4
[6] "Biden Does Not Trust Trump to Deliver Safe Vaccine": https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-does-not-trust-trump-to-deliver-a-safe-vaccine
[7] "Biden Says Americans Can't Trust Trump on Vaccines": https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/16/us/trump-vs-biden
[8] FLASHBACK: President-Elect Joe Biden Was Against Vaccine Mandates: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/09/09/flashback-biden-was-against-vaccine-mandates-when-he-was-running-for-president-n2595631
[9] FDA Officials Said Americans Don't Need Booster.  Biden Went Ahead with One Anyway: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/09/13/fda-officials-said-americans-dont-need-a-booster-biden-went-ahead-with-one-anyway-n2595784?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1
[10] FDA Experts Among Group Opposing Booster Shot Plan: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-health-coronavirus-pandemic-science--38544e89b9dba06d49a800189c3ed42d
[11] Understanding Particle Size Aerosol-Based Transmission:https://www.4cconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/COVID-19-Transmission-Paper-updated.pdf
[12] Pathway is Important, Not Distance: https://www.4cconference.com/understanding-particle-size-and-aerosol-based-transmission-of-covid-19/
[13] American Association of Physicians & Surgeons - Mask Facts: https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

Climate Alarmism

                No, Henny Penny, the sky is not falling – and if it were, there’s not a damned thing you could do about it anyhow, because it wouldn’t be your fault.

               Awright everybody, I’m getting sick and damned tired of hearing about how we need to “reduce our carbon footprint” and all the plans for “carbon sequestration” and reduction of CO₂ in the atmosphere, and how we’re “killing the planet.”  Let’s get a few things out in the open, shall we?

-      -    The planet’s climate is cyclic.  Ice ages and hot periods alternate, and that’s been going on for eons.  It will continue on, until Sol explodes and Terra no longer exists.

-       -   The planet’s climate is driven by solar cycles.  Specifically, sunspot cycles.  I’m not saying that anthropogenic atmospheric global warming isn’t happening – but I will categorically state that we do not have anywhere near as great an effect as we’re being told we have.  At least, not in terms of carbon.  More on that in a bit.

-        -  Carbon dioxide may be a greenhouse gas, but its concentration in the atmosphere is measured it parts per million.  And, typically, less than 1,000 ppm.  Just for perspective, 1% concentration = 10,000 ppm.  Chew on that.  Then consider there have been whole epochs in Terran history where the proportion of CO₂ has been much higher in the atmosphere, but the global mean temperatures have been lower.  I’ll get to that in a bit, too.

-        -  Now, everyone wants us to cut CO­₂.  This is flawed thinking.  Why?  Carbon dioxide is what plants live on.  This means that there will be less CO₂ available for plants to perform photosynthesis with, so less to make oxygen output with, less food (produce) to grow, and less feed to grow food (livestock.)  Think there may be an agenda at work?  Chew on it for a bit.

-        -  You know what the bigger driver of heat retention – at least, in the atmosphere – is?  Water vapour.  That’s right – good ol’ H₂­O.  Humidity.  Cloud cover.  But, we can’t live without at least some humidity in the atmosphere – so what can be done?  I think that perhaps some windtraps could be set up to catch water from the air in regions of very high humidity.  But, we can’t get rid of it all – we’re just evolved to live with some humidity in the air, and we don’t want the entire planet to look like the Sahara now, do we?

-        -  Now, earlier, I said that atmospheric anthropogenic global warming wasn’t happening – at least, not to the degree we’re being told (the sky is most definitely not falling.  We don’t need to eat lab-grown “meet” cultured from “immortalized” (cancer) cells.  And don’t get me started on plant-based synthetic meat – if you want to eat a hamburger, just eat the damned hamburger.  And get your wooden imposters in the produce section where they belong!  However, there is much heat retention at the Terran surface that is anthropogenic in nature.  All this blacktop pavement, and all the asphalt shingles and dark composition rooftops all do a wonderful job of retaining heat (concrete pavement retains much less – yes, it still get hot to the touch, but it doesn’t retain anywhere near as much heat energy as asphalt does.)  All these roads, and all these roofs?  They cause a lot of heat to be retained at the surface – and there is your anthropogenic global warming!  All the new construction, and all the new roads?  Just add to it.

So, then, what can be done?  How can we resolve this?

-        -  Definitely need to plant more trees and greenery.  Not just for the other half of the respiration cycle, and not just for food purposes, but because it helps to increase the albedo of the planet’s surface, reflecting more heat away, and therefore helping to lower global mean temperatures.

-        -  Change pavement being used.  More cement, less asphalt.  We’ll have to figure out another way to use petroleum bottoms, or just store them somewhere like we do with radioactive waste (don’t throw it away – future generations may figure out a use for them.  But, put them where they won’t cause any trouble at present.)

-        -  Perhaps we could stand to reduce CO₂ emissions, but not to the extreme that the alarmists want us to reach, and “net zero” may not be strictly necessary.  We need to plant more greenery, which will make “net zero” easier to reach – because plants must be included in the figures.  And CO₂ is what plants eat.  And, it’s what they use to make oxygen for us.  Net zero isn’t the greatest idea we’ve ever come up with, we need to make sure we can keep plants in the equation, and any excessive industrial or anthropogenic CO₂ emissions can be made up for by planting greenspaces – which we damned well should be doing anyhow.

-        -  Change roofing materials.  Instead of composition, asphalt shingles, and tarpaper; come up with a suitable replacement for tarpaper that is lighter in colour (very heavily waxed Kraft?) and use slate instead?  Or figure out how to lighten the colour of shingles – significantly.

-        -  Set up windtraps and dew catchers in more humid regions of the world.  We don’t want to change the climate of these regions, we just want to reduce the humidity a bit – say, by 10% rh or so?  This should help bring the global mean temperatures down just a touch.

Anybody out there have any other ideas?  This is a topic I’d love to discuss – but please, no leftist yakking points that are impractical to respond to, unlikely to consider, and really aren’t anything more than mere talking points anyhow.  I have yet to hear anything come out of an environmentalist’s mouth that was a practical, defensive position that had a logical and realistic basis and approach to at least one facet of the problem.  If you can come up with something that you can actually defend in a rational manner, let’s kick it around a bit and see what happens!

Ideas for Poll Work -

     Thanks to the 2020 election, we now have an election system that half of the country simply does not trust, and that whoever wins the ’24 election, the other half of the country will immediately challenge the election result, and we probably won’t get a clear result until St. Patrick’s Day.  I propose the following, in an effort to keep things above board…
     These General Orders shall apply nationwide.
     General Order Zero – The ballot count is to be completed not later than 1200 on the day following the election, but as soon as practicable.  It shall not be subject to undue delay.  Counting shall continue for anything less than a natural disaster, or a major attack on the counting center.
     General Order One – No poll watcher shall be excluded from the ballot counting area, except for due cause.  Due cause shell constitute violence or threat of violence, unmonitored/unauthorized alteration of ballots, or similar egregious activity.   
     General Order Two – No ballot may be “cured” unless it has been examined, and the fault confirmed, by the ballot counter and poll watchers from every party present.  Any alterations are to be made by the curer, in the presence of poll watchers from all parties present.
     General Order Three – Ballots may only be counted by hand.
     General Order Four – No counting data is to be electronically recorded for any reason until the election count is finalized and the results announced.
     General Order Five – No counting data is to be sent or released to any other nation for any reason until the count is finalized and the results announced domestically
     General Order Six – In order to maintain balance, an equal number of Republican and Democrat poll watchers must be present.  (If a Republican poll watcher has to leave the room for whatever reason, a Democrat poll watcher must leave the room as well until he comes back; and vice versa.)
     General Order Seven – Distance demarcation keeping poll watchers from ballot counters shall be the same for all parties.  If one party is allowed to exceed such limits, then all parties are allowed to exceed such limits.  If one party ignores such limits and is not corrected, then all parties may hold such limits in abeyance.
     General Order Eight – Counting may only be halted for reasons of safety, and then only for as long as necessary to seal the count-in-progress, move the count to a new location, and resume counting.  “Sealing the count” is to be done in stages, as rapidly as possible, and in the presence of, and under the signature of, poll watchers from all parties present.
     General Order Nine – Method of counting:
     --  Incoming ballots are collected and counted hourly at the precinct level.  Sealed ballots dropped off are merely collected and tallied for quantity.  Tally sheets are affixed to each bundle of open ballots, with a running total sheet kept separately.  The final hour’s ballots shall have the “hour tally” sheet affixed to them, then the day’s intake bundled and the “running tally” sheet affixed to the day’s intake.  These bundles are then sent up to the County level.  Each hour’s intake is to be counted by two individuals, who both shall sign the tally sheet.  Totals for County level and above are sent up to the County, municipal-only measures and elections may remain local
     --  At County level, incoming bundles are examined for unauthorized alteration, to determine if any may require “curing,” and sealed ballots are opened and counted.  Tallied bundles may be “spot-checked” for accuracy in counting.  Ballots are “cured” as required (but this is hopefully not necessary.)  Totals are generated, ballots are prepared and secured for storage.  Original, signed total sheets are to be kept with the ballots for storage and sent up to state level for counting.  Only state and federal totals need to up to the state level.
     --  At State level, incoming County totals are added up and recorded.  For Presidential elections, electors are selected.  For Federal and state elections, candidates are notified as to the results.  State-level measures are enacted or struck, as appropriate.
x
     General Order Ten – Hard ballots shall be made freely available to anyone for purposes of an audit for a period not to exceed five years, but in any event not less than two years.
     General Order Eleven – “Ballot dumps” are void without provenance verified, and without good reason for being late.  “We found them behind a table” is not an example of “good reason.”
     These General Orders are to be issued to all poll watchers and election workers present, in the form of a small, durable pocket card.  “Durable” indicates either laminated paper stock or direct print onto PVC stock.  This card may be up to 4”x6” in size, it must be able to fit into a pocket commonly found on clothing, so as to be readily available to all.  This card may fold down to the requisite size (id est, it may be a 6”x10” card that folds down to a 3”x5” size, or a 6”x8” card that folds down to a 4”x6” size.)  Such card shall fold easily and along clear delineations.  It is not strictly necessary to memorise these General Orders, although it is encouraged.  In any event, such card must be carried at all times when in the counting area, and should be carried whenever on duty.

     Discuss.

I know I've been away for a bit...

 But I've had an awful lot going on.  I shan't disturb you with the details (for they are somewhat disturbing...) butits been a rough road for me for the last few years.

  Now, things are getting stable (somewhat, anyhow...) and I hope to be posting here at least somewhat regularly.  However, the topic of this will remain "Current Thoughts" (id est, whatever it is I'm thinking about at the moment...) and Iwill maintain no regular schedule for posting, but I hope to be more regular than I have been.

  This most certainly does not mean that I'll be posting every day (I'm not that prolific of a writer!) and even weekly might be a stretch, but at least something happening - maybe at least once a month?  I once again make no promises, but I'm wanting to give you all something to read, and that's what counts.  I want it to be generally thought-provoking, sometimes laugh-inducing, and (hopefully) always entertaining.  Do we have a deal?

Spread the word - The Dude is back...

JDK

“A Pirate Looks [Back] at Fifty”

               (Once again, apologies to the memory of jimmy Buffett.  Know you are missed by parrotheads everywhere…)

Granted, I left fifty I the rear view mirror a couple of years ago, so I’d be looking back at it – but, who said I had to be looking forward at it, hm?

Been reflecting on a phrase that gets thrown about quite a bit – “ignorance is bliss.”  As I’ve gotten older (starting at about age 12, really,) I’ve been learning more about how the world works, how deranged people can get.  And, the more I learn, the less happy I get.  It’s an inverse relationship.

It really started about age six, with my mother’s third husband and his two spawn.  Because of him, I had ten years of abuse.  Because of his two idiot sons, I learned to fight two opponents when I was six years old (I also learned that the man alone in the fight has a great advantage – anything you can hit is on the other side.  And making them hit each other saves effort for you.  So, I’d set ‘em up to hit each other – until I got to where I could throw them at each other…)

I always found it amusing when mom would bring home the rock salt for the water softener – half-dozen or so 80# bags – and the three of us would be assigned to unload it.  I’d go down, lay one on each shoulder, tuck one under my right arm, and walk away.  They’re both looking at one bag (the same between them…) looing about as confused as two monkeys trying to fuck a football…  (Granted, each of them could fuck up the moving parts of a rock, so there was that…)  They were all proud of the bodies they were developing in gyms from working with weights.  I didn’t care about my physique – which I got from just plain working.  Which allowed me to carry 240# of rock salt when I was only 170# myself.  Or what allowed me to carry 4500# of brick & mortar helping a friend’s father build a barbecue (I was the hod carrier – I went faster than he could keep up with.  Then we went and I got my picture up on the wall in the pizza place because I ate an entire “Maximus” pizza by myself, with breadsticks, and asked what was for afters…)

(The problem with lifting weights is that it’s all programmed motions, and you end up with those programmed motions when you try to work.  Not everything had a grab bar with a load on the ends, or is shaped like a dumbbell or a kettlebell.  Some stuff is awkward – comparable to holding up a 20-kg anvil, straight-arm extension, by the horn.  Try it sometime.  Even a 10-kg anvil is a challenge…  Since I didn’t lift weights as a rule, I didn’t have programmed motions, and no muscle memory.  This allowed me to work in whichever direction was most efficient – and it still allowed me to build a good deal of strength!  The footy team hated me when it came time to do the weight training unit in Phys Ed, because I’d just calmly run right past them.  Eight hundred pounds on the squat rack?  Three sets of 20.  Twenty-one hundred pounds on the hipslet?  I’d do more, but I ran out of plate.  Four sets of 25.  I was big, but I had massive legs…  I was so happy when BDU pants hit the surplus market, I was tired of taking darts out of oversized pants to make them fit – 33” thigh, 28” waist, 50’’ chest.)

(Yeah, I wander.  If you haven’t figured that out by now, now you know.  I leave my wanderings in, in the hope that they entertain, and possibly provoke thought.  Besides, if I’m writing it, there has to be a reason for it, don’t you think?)

So, as I’m leaving fifty well behind, and my wife is staring hard at seventy.  The upside is that she hasn’t seen the things I’ve seen, and doesn’t know most of the things I know.  So, she has an easier time being happy.  For this, I am pleased – if one of us can still be happy, best that it be her.  I don’t want her to know the things I know, and there’s a good reason that I haven’t told her everything I carry around in my head.  I do not wish to burden here.  There are things I will never tell anyone – my burden is mine alone to bear, I don’t want to be responsible for wrecking anyone else’s happiness.

So, what does make me happy?  People.  Specifically, women.  I have always preferred the company of women.  However, it’s not all women that make me happy, even though I do generally prefer the company of women over the company of men.  Specifically, there are only a few specific women that can make me happy.  Y’all know who you are.