21APR2020 – OCF Update – The Joy of Blogging

Keeping a website stocked with content is work.  Finding and posting a quote and a photo each day takes time and effort.  Researching and writing political posts takes time and thought.  Watching and reviewing movies and tv shows and listening to and reviewing music and reading and reviewing books takes even more time.  Keeping up with the software versions of the website plug-ins and other features is annoying and confusing.  Doing all these things while also working full time in a highly demanding profession in a very exacting company is extremely difficult.  But I consider running this website one of the more enjoyable aspects of my life.

As I mentioned in a recent post, I consider it important to socialize with like minded people.  And just as important as it is to talk about politics, I find discussing recreational and cultural topics just as important.  It’s like the feeling you get from going down to the local tavern and shooting the breeze with friends from town.  You can compare notes on what’s going on in the neighborhood and talk a little sports or discuss the local school issues or the state elections.  There will be differences of opinion but being likeminded people in similar circumstances with a similar history and world view you mostly have similar opinions.  And that’s a comfortable situation.

But nowadays people are always on the move.  We move because we lose a job and need to find a new one.  Or we move so our kids can go to a better school.  Or we move because our town has grown too crowded or because the crime rate has gotten too high.  So, we lose that circle of friends we used to enjoy so much.

Another thing that happens is your kids grow up and once they do, you lose track of the other parents whose kids used to hang around with your kids.  We all go our separate ways and before you know it, you’re pretty isolated from everyone but a small circle of family and a few very good friends.

So, you start to spend time on-line.  You get involved in websites that cater to your interests and hobbies.  And that was something that I did.  I frequented sites that had to do with my various hobbies.  Photography was one of them.  Field biology was another.  And fantasy and science fiction were a third.  And it was fun talking to people with similar interests and sharing information and experiences.  I met a number of interesting people.  But I also found out that politics was a stumbling block in all these areas.  What was true in each of these creative areas was that there existed an orthodoxy that underlaid all the other levels of thought that each of the sites was involved with.  And that orthodoxy was a progressive point of view on politics, social issues and even science.  It was anti-American (especially on sites that had a heavy European presence), anti-religious, anti-traditionalist, pro-homosexual, stridently feminist, globalist, against gun rights, anti-free speech and it rabidly believed in global warming.  I can remember on one particular photography website being banned for saying that Hillary Clinton was a criminal that deserved to be thrown in prison for life.  This was during a thread where the same sentiment had been expressed about George W Bush.  The second statement didn’t even warrant a comment from the moderator or a warning of any kind.  It was after this kind of unequal enforcement of the rules of internet etiquette that I figured out that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.  And I figured out that if I wanted to enjoy discussing political and social subjects in a more or less free environment, I would have to own the space myself.

So that’s why this site is worth the time and expense of hosting it myself.  No one can tell me that I can’t say that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.  No one can tell me that I can’t say that global warming is a scam.  And no one can tell me that I can’t say that gun ownership is what makes this the freest country on Earth.  By the same token if someone wants to disagree and say that global warming is a very serious problem, I don’t have problem with that.  Let him state his case.  If he can prove it to me, then I’ll admit it.  If he can’t convince me then we’ll agree to disagree.

If someone believes that affirmative action is fair, let him state his case.  I’ll disagree to the last but I’m not in the brainwashing business.  If he can have the discussion without foaming at the mouth and calling me names then have at it.  I’m not afraid of people giving their opinions.  As long as they don’t go off the deep end and start ranting and raving.  This site has a definite right-wing slant.  I state that right up front.  But if someone wants to talk about photography or old movies or old books I don’t particularly care if you’re a communist as long as you can behave like a grown up and contribute to the discussion.  I’ve been in discussions about religion between atheists and priests.  And they were able to keep it polite and even friendly.  They each knew the other wasn’t going to budge but they enjoyed the chance to tell their side and have their say.  And it made for an interesting discussion.

So, this is my way of saying thanks to the regulars and to the new readers and to encourage you all to read and comment and have your say.  Give and take is fine and is the reason for the whole thing anyway.

Okay that’s enough.

Yielding the High Ground is for Losers

In war attacking an enemy who is occupying the high ground is a daunting exercise.  Because all other things being equal, attacking the enemy is literally an uphill battle.  Gravity is your opponent’s friend and your foe.  Line of sight works for him and against you.  Almost every possible advantage is given to the force occupying the higher ground.

Now, the only thing worse than starting out at the bottom of the hill is starting out on the higher ground and then giving it up to the enemy for no reason.  That is the sign of a blithering idiot.  Case in point is the Battle of Gettysburg.  The Confederate forces routed the Union on the first day of battle but through the incompetence of one of the generals did not then occupy the high points and deny the Union the strategic advantage that eventually won them the battle, and consequently thereafter, the war.

One of the hallmarks of both Bush presidencies was the way these men allowed the press to pummel them at every turn.  And among the most memorable occasions for this mayhem were the Presidential Debates.  On these occasions, especially for Dubyah, a unanimous chorus of Leftist Journalists would lopsidedly pound the snot out of the poor old doofus at every turn, while his Democrat opponents would be treated to love taps when their turn came to answer questions.  In fact, most of the time, the questions given to Gore or Kerry consisted of Democrat talking points to use as segues into a new attack on poor old George.  And of course the Bushes were just the worst case of this syndrome.  McCain and Romney were both treated to a similar roasting when their turns came up for the debate demolition derby.

Knowing that the press is almost 100% leftist it is no surprise that the Commission on Presidential Debates is irremediably hostile to Republican candidates and if a Republican is running for a first term, unless he is in a very strong position vis-a-vis the Democrat incumbent, he probably has no choice but to submit himself to the uphill battle that the debate commission will engineer.  But if you are an incumbent President with a good record or even a fair record why would you give up the high ground and allow your enemies to sit back in comfort and pour artillery fire down on you while you have to slog up the hill through it?

That is why it’s especially satisfying to read that President Trump is not satisfied with walking into the typical ambush.  Several times now he has stated that if the panel and the rules don’t seem unbiased he’ll forego the whole thing.  And he can do it.  After all that is the advantage of the incumbency, your opponent needs to show that he is better than you.  If the incumbent has a good track record then it’s an uphill battle for him to attack you.  He wants the debate to provide the chance for a lucky knockout punch.  To extend the boxing metaphor, if you are going to fight him at least do it in your ring and with at least a neutral referee, not one of his henchmen who’ll allow your opponent to put some lead in his glove.

When considering who I would want as a debate moderator the first name that came to mind was Tucker Carlson.  Carlson would inject a right-wing perspective to a presidential debate that as far as I can remember has never been tried before.  Watching Bernie or Crazy Uncle Joe trying to answer any really hard questions about their nonsensical positions or actions would be a true revelation for the American voting audience.  Watching them try to answer honestly how the Green New Deal would impact the cost of heating a home and owning an automobile would be hilarious.  And can you imagine Joe Biden explaining how his half-wit son made millions of dollars as an energy company director when he can barely keep himself out of a crack cocaine halfway house from month to month.  That would be amazing to watch.

But we don’t have to restrict the idea to just Tucker.  Brit Hume, Sharyl Attkisson, Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh would all bring various skills and viewpoints that would balance out the typical leftist positions represented by someone like Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, Anderson Cooper or Chris Wallace.

So, here’s hoping that President Trump cuts a really good deal and holds the high ground or just foregoes the whole biased process and let’s the American people judge him and his opponent on the merits of what each has accomplished.  That would be another way to make his opponent fight an uphill battle.

More Trouble for Google

Hat tip to Vox Day for excerpting an exciting article by Sara Carter.  It seems another Google insider has handed over almost a thousand pages of documents to the DOJ exposing how the company’s algorithms discriminate against conservative entities.  This directly contradicts testimony made in front of Congress by Google upper management.  Apparently Project Veritas is going to reveal the former insider’s identity today.  Things are definitely moving in the right direction.  I wonder if there is any limit on the size of the fine that can be levied against Google.  ONE TRILLION DOLLARS !!!!!  sounds about right.  Full disclosure, I was holding my pinky at the corner of my mouth as I typed that.  Eat your heart out Dr. Evil.

Seriously, it doesn’t appear that the DOJ is going to need much more evidence to move forward.  It’s a matter of whether they have the will.  We shall see.

 

The President’s Social Media Meeting is Today

President Trump is hosting a meeting with non-leftist web personalities to discuss the anti-right bias at places like Twitter, Facebook and Google.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/9/trump-v-big-tech-social-media-summit-will-snub-tec/

The White House hasn’t published the invite list but many participants have self identified.

Along with well-known media figures like James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, I read that the Claremont Institute was invited.  I’m especially glad to hear that because of several members of that institute (e.g., Michael Anton and Angelo Codevilla) have shown themselves to be almost prescient about what needs to be done to reverse some of the damage done by the left.

It will be interesting to hear from the participants afterwards to see what they think will come from this meeting.

 

After you’ve read enough sexbot articles on Drudge maybe switch to something interesting