anti-right bias Archives - Orion's Cold Fire

How Else Should DOGE Change America?

February 20, 2025February 19, 2025 photog Current Events, Trump anti-right bias, corporate social justice, DOGE

Up till now my thoughts on DOGE combing through the federal budget involved how much money could be stripped from the budget deficit. But something else occurs to me. In addition to the wasteful spending on hare-brained research projects and woke propaganda we will also learn which companies have benefitted most from government contracts (both defense and non-defense). And this list may explain the agendas some of these companies follow. For instance, how much money does Google get from the federal government. Does this money represent a significant part of Google’s revenues? Does it have any effect on the agenda that Google pursues? Also, if that agenda is biased against conservative individuals and corporations can the Trump administration dissuade Google from this agenda by threatening their government contracts?

Here I’m using Google as an example. For instance, defense contractors like Raytheon, Boeing, etc. depend for a very large chunk of their income on defense contracts. They are beholden to the DoD for their very existence. Forcing them to drop practices and attitudes that clash with the directives of the Trump administration is assured to work. Using this kind of approach, it seems that great inroads can be made in the private sector. Law suits, audits of corporate documents and whistle-blower activity could go a long way in de-woke-ifying much of the corporations that do significant business with the federal government.

Next up would be lawsuits against banks that “de-bank” conservative businesses and individuals. De-banking has been the subject of frequent stories about individuals and companies that don’t toe the line on woke practices. A good example is the free-speech social platform Gab that has been forced to go to incredible lengths to work around the de-banking and other financial boycotting that woke corporations have instituted against it. It seems that a Trump administration Justice Department should already be investigating any and all complaints from conservatives and their companies both as individual crimes and as part of a RICO conspiracy. In fact, I’ll go further. Even though we’re only one month into the Trump administration, I’m already disappointed that investigations haven’t already been announced into these practices.

And if DOGE really wants something interesting to investigate let them set some of their AI geniuses loose on Google’s AI and find out why it always creates images of the Founding Fathers or Vikings or any other exclusively northern European individuals as if they were indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa. I’m sure people with the correct computer savvy would very quickly locate the smoking gun of anti-white discrimination in these Google products. And then Google would be forced to explain how this little pet project doesn’t violate the ban on DEI in federal contracts to Donald Trump personally or risk losing the enormous contracts they currently have with Washington.

Well, maybe that last is too ambitious. But you get the idea. I’m convinced the federal government has been picking winners and losers by the selection of contractors and this selection is tied to the “politics” of these contracting companies. Eliminating the biases by forcing changes on these companies, or better, by selecting alternative companies that do not have a leftist bias, could enormously shift the current leftist bias in corporate America.

And finally, the black hole of leftist bias, the dreaded “terms of service.” Companies tack a wall of text to their service agreement that provides them with literally an infinite number of objections to anything you could possibly do as a sentient being in the Milky Way galaxy, but then refuse to tell you exactly which of the myriads of conditions, they claim you have violated. What is needed is a federal law that states that if a company claims you are in violation of their terms of service, then they have to provide a detailed explanation of this violation. And if a US citizen wants to dispute this claim there will be a federal arbiter to hear the dispute gratis.

Well, that’s enough of that. Me daydreaming about Trump and Musk punishing woke companies is fun but farfetched. But investigating the relationships between the federal government (and Congress) and the contractors that get government contracts will be an even bigger story of bias, waste, graft and corruption than the NGOs that have been such an interesting grab bag to fish around in.

LA Times Owner Attempts to Quantify Liberal Bias in His Paper

December 8, 2024December 8, 2024 photog Current Events, Trump anti-right bias, fake news, LA Times, leftist media being dismantled, Patrick Soon-Shiong

This is a wonderful development:

“The Los Angeles Times could roll out an artificial intelligence-powered “bias meter” as soon as January, in the latest shakeup as the paper’s owner tries to reshape the outlet.

LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong announced the upcoming AI feature on Wednesday in an interview with conservative commentator and newly appointed Times editorial board member Scott Jennings on The Mike Gallagher Show, which Jennings was guest-hosting.”

If this is what Trump’s re-election sparks, it’s a long awaited reaction. This would drive the “journalists” on the LA Times insane. Imagine if Californians actually started to get both sides of the story. Unheard of!

This guy Soon-Shiong sounds like he wants to get rid of most of his employees. Kudos to him.

Texas Joins Florida in Tackling Social Media Bias and De-Platforming of the Right

March 6, 2021March 6, 2021 photog Current Events anti-right bias, free speech, Governor Abbott, Governor DeSantis, Red State Activism, silicon valley

Governor Abbott of Texas has joined Governor DeSantis of Florida in calling for state legislation to rein in anti-right bias in the social media platforms. Let’s hope they coordinate their efforts to enact the same legislation and then share it with the rest of the red states. I’d love to see these states sue the pants off Google, Facebook and Twitter among others. While they’re at it they might as well look at what Amazon is doing with banning books. They’ve got a whole lot of money that could really help a lot of state rainy day funds. You could build a lot of roads and bridges with what Bezos spends on the Washington Post every year.

So here’s hoping this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship between the red state governors and their legislatures. May a thousand law suits bloom and bleed the social media companies dry.

21APR2020 – OCF Update – The Joy of Blogging

April 21, 2020April 21, 2020 photog Current Events, OCF, photog's Corner anti-right bias, Blogging, internet, OCF, OCF Update

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

January 26, 2020January 26, 2020 photog Current Events, Trump 2020 Election, anti-right bias, fake news, President Trump's Accomplishments, The MSM, Trump

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

August 14, 2019August 14, 2019 photog Current Events, On-Line Article Reviews, Reviews anti-right bias, Google, James O'Keefe, Project Veritas, Sara Carter, social media, technology, Vox Day

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.