Miller has been living on a military base for fear of his life. He knows he is not popular. He just doesn’t care.

What he will do is make work so awful (a double whammy of purposeful and through incompetence) the few good federal servants left will leave or get hamstrung.

Look, everyone likes making fun of this guy. Right? He’s a cartoon villlain. High school speech. His essays in college. Well, he’s a true believer. Those guys are the ones that will burn the world down rather than admit they are wrong.

I don’t think anyone recognizes how dangerous this is. Following the resignations in DOJ and military removals, they are not planning on lowering grocery prices over there folks.

She can do it from her home as a private citizen.

Finally.

This is becoming my copy pasta moment. But Hakeem Jeffries…let’s start with his charisma. His charisma is more akin to that of a Home Depot bag of paver sand. You search through the poorly stacked pile selecting the one with the least holes. Yet, despite that effort, it still spills it’s contents all over the cart on the way to the register. Not a good look. But useful if you are doing what he is good at doing. Laying the foundation for your country to get paved over by corporate donors.

If that does not speak for itself, then consider this. As a potential Speaker, Mr. Jeffries would face the immense challenge of uniting a fractured party that has not managed to maintain a large and diverse tent of voters since Debbie Wasserman Schultz declared Bernie a non-starter. Mr. Jeffries is simply not capable of standing firm in the face of political opposition. Don’t take my word for it. Perhaps, instead, the ever present consumer advocate Ralph Nader may sway you:

More introspection may lead you to ask yourself whether you are up to leading the House Democrats in their immense and immediate tasks of policy and program restorations and adopting our Constitution’s mandated Congressional independence from the Presidency for the protection and advancement of the livelihoods, peace and freedoms of the American people. There is no indication that you are so willing and prepared. Unfortunately.

His record in Congress has not demonstrated the kind of bold, decisive leadership that the position of Speaker demands. Instead, he has often been seen as a cautious, moderate voice. Dare I say, a voice coming from a very real human (I swear) with a spine made of NeeDoh.

Let’s be frank. In times of crisis or when tough decisions must be made, the leader of the Democratic Party and Speaker of the House is not merely about personality. I understand that. Such positions require a deep understanding of the legislative process, the ability to negotiate, and the resilience to withstand the political pressures that come with the position. Jeffries has not consistently shown these traits in his career. For any informed observers, this must raise serious questions about his suitability for such a high-stakes role.

Finally, to convey my firm belief that Mr. Jeffries is not the right person for the leadership role come January, I paraphrase the amazing Forest Whitaker in his role as PFC Edward Garlick in “Good Morning Vietnam”

Hakeem Jeffries sucks the sweat off a dead man’s balls. I have no idea what that means, sir, but it seems very negative to me.

Hakeem Jeffries needs to go first. Let’s look back at his awful speech on election night, just to get started.

Standing in front of a crowd of well-wishers and hopefuls, he delivered a speech. A speech that will go down in history as a big ole nothing burger. A speech that is now, less than 12 hours later, largely forgotten in the political and collective memory of an otherwise monumental moment. I surmise this is because he lacks the commanding presence and leadership qualities necessary to serve as Speaker of the House.

His charisma, if it can even be called that, is more akin to that of a Home Depot bag of paver sand. You search through the poorly stacked pile selecting the one with the least holes. Yet, despite that effort, it still spills it’s contents all over the cart on the way to the register. Not a good look.

If that does not speak for itself, then consider this. As a potential Speaker, Mr. Jeffries would face the immense challenge of uniting a fractured party that has not managed to maintain a large and diverse tent of voters since Debbie Wasserman Schultz declared Bernie a non-starter. Mr. Jeffries is simply not capable of standing firm in the face of political opposition. Don’t take my word for it. Perhaps, instead, the ever present consumer advocate Ralph Nader may sway you:

More introspection may lead you to ask yourself whether you are up to leading the House Democrats in their immense and immediate tasks of policy and program restorations and adopting our Constitution’s mandated Congressional independence from the Presidency for the protection and advancement of the livelihoods, peace and freedoms of the American people. There is no indication that you are so willing and prepared. Unfortunately.

His record in Congress has not demonstrated the kind of bold, decisive leadership that the position of Speaker demands. Instead, he has often been seen as a cautious, moderate voice. Dare I say, a voice coming from a very real human (I swear) with a spine made of NeeDoh.

Let’s be frank. In times of crisis or when tough decisions must be made, the leader of the Democratic Party and Speaker of the House is not merely about personality. I understand that. Such positions require a deep understanding of the legislative process, the ability to negotiate, and the resilience to withstand the political pressures that come with the position. Jeffries has not consistently shown these traits in his career. For any informed observers, this must raise serious questions about his suitability for such a high-stakes role.

Finally, to convey my firm belief that Mr. Jeffries is not the right person for the leadership role come January, I paraphrase the amazing Forest Whitaker in his role as PFC Edward Garlick in “Good Morning Vietnam”

Hakeem Jeffries sucks the sweat off a dead man’s balls. I have no idea what that means, sir, but it seems very negative to me.

Alright. Schumer. He needs to go. But I want to talk about the other guy that needs to follow him out the door. Mini-Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries.

Hakeem Jeffries had a moment last night. Standing in front of a crowd of well-wishers and hopefuls, he delivered a speech. A speech that will go down in history as a big ole nothing burger. A speech that is now, less than 12 hours later, largely forgotten in the political and collective memory of an otherwise monumental moment. I surmise this is because he lacks the commanding presence and leadership qualities necessary to serve as Speaker of the House.

His charisma, if it can even be called that, is more akin to that of a Home Depot bag of paver sand. You search through the poorly stacked pile selecting the one with the least holes. Yet, despite that effort, it still spills it’s contents all over the cart on the way to the register. Not a good look.

If that does not speak for itself, then consider this. As a potential Speaker, Mr. Jeffries would face the immense challenge of uniting a fractured party that has not managed to maintain a large and diverse tent of voters since Debbie Wasserman Schultz declared Bernie a non-starter. Mr. Jeffries is simply not capable of standing firm in the face of political opposition. Don’t take my word for it. Perhaps, instead, the ever present consumer advocate Ralph Nader may sway you:

More introspection may lead you to ask yourself whether you are up to leading the House Democrats in their immense and immediate tasks of policy and program restorations and adopting our Constitution’s mandated Congressional independence from the Presidency for the protection and advancement of the livelihoods, peace and freedoms of the American people. There is no indication that you are so willing and prepared. Unfortunately.

His record in Congress has not demonstrated the kind of bold, decisive leadership that the position of Speaker demands. Instead, he has often been seen as a cautious, moderate voice. Dare I say, a voice coming from a very real human (I swear) with a spine made of NeeDoh.

Let’s be frank. In times of crisis or when tough decisions must be made, the leader of the Democratic Party and Speaker of the House is not merely about personality. I understand that. Such positions require a deep understanding of the legislative process, the ability to negotiate, and the resilience to withstand the political pressures that come with the position. Jeffries has not consistently shown these traits in his career. For any informed observers, this must raise serious questions about his suitability for such a high-stakes role.

Finally, to convey my firm belief that Mr. Jeffries is not the right person for the leadership role come January, I paraphrase the amazing Forest Whitaker in his role as PFC Edward Garlick in “Good Morning Vietnam”

Hakeem Jeffries sucks the sweat off a dead man’s balls. I have no idea what that means, sir, but it seems very negative to me.

Meanwhile in California, over 50% of the population voted against taxing billionaires via Prop 40. I don’t understand that one at all. The fear mongering worked, I guess.

Love it.

Be me. Try to do the right thing. Do what society tells me. Work hard. Get hit in the face by the rock of life and am stumbling hard.

Be them. Worst of the worst, crimes against absolutely everyone and everything. Reach the pinnacle of success.

I really think the Germans need to come up with a new word for the contrast I’ve stated.

Security theatre is security theatre. However, prior to TSA airlines were responsible for security. They contracted that security out to the lowest bidder:

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035131619/911-travel-timeline-tsa

That being said, my argument is not that TSA is better. I’m not arguing at all. I’m just offering some additional information to highlight what came before TSA.

DHS formed in the wake of 9/11 because federal agencies could not get their shit together and collaborate. Whether by design or rapid evolution, it became less of a coordinating agency between disparate federal intelligence agencies and more of a mysterious extra-judicial entity with a military arm. Oh and TSA. Let’s not forget about humble ole’ TSA.

Pre War is not good enough for such luxury. What you need is:

antebellum

“Wow, this vinyl flooring. SO Antebellum!”

Lies are what bind people into a manufactured reality that stymies their ability to live free and meaningful lives.

If we run with the cost trope, look at lies like a shady drug deal.

You are angry and want to buy some satisfaction. You lost your job, or can’t buy a house, the cost of living is too high. Whatever it is, you are looking for relief.

So a a shady dealer offers you a lie to give you some relief. You give them some personal freedom monthly and they sell you “immigration did this to you” and it works for awhile. But you start to realize the immigration story doesn’t hit the same way. You look for relief in new lies. So you give the dealer more freedom, and buy “its not just immigrants, its obviously trans people.” Yeah that’s it, those trans people are turning the steel factories into drag theaters, wrecking the economy. “Damn!” You think. “Its not my fault, its them!” The relief you get from the lies hooks you more.

The hook is powerful. But you’re never satisfied and you need more lies as your brain adjusts, maybe even protests. You’ve got to shut it up, and you start to conflate your issues with freedom itself. You’re happy to give more freedoms over to the dealer for relief through even grander lies.

The relief will always be temporary, but you don’t even realize that any more.

You’ll never solve the problems that plagued you and you’ll die angry and depressed. Maybe if you gave up just a little more freedom, you could have had a better life. You never awaken to reality that the people taking your freedoms are the ones ruining your life. The lies were too powerful, too addictive, and they rewired you to willingly accept your own servititude.

That’s the cost of lies.

Indeed.

“Ignore the disparity, civil war, and malice! Here is a theatre in marble too!” - Pompey, probably. “Ignore the death of a past-time, climate destruction, and war! AI will solve climate change and get humanity to the stars.” Our new overlords.

I heard this on a podcast and think it explains quite abit about the mentality of these executives. They are effective altruists with long termism, mixed in with a healthy dose of narcissism and greed of course. But the later two are not what I want to discuss.

Effective Altruists, or those subscribing to Moral Ambition have a sort of ends justify the means look at it all. You do everything you can to amass power and wealth so you can make the world a better place. When you add that in with longtermism, that all the suffering now is meaningless because it’s the countless billions of humans coming later that matter, and you gain some clarity regarding their worldviews and morality. That is, of course, without considering what they think “a better place” means. To these individuals, it’s a world shaped in their image. How they see fairness, and work, and love. And it is not a place most human beings, I wager, want to see come to fruition.

I must be clear I am not saying this is right, nor altruistic, nor condoning it. I find the entire amalgam of ideas and influences rotten. It just offers some perspective on what is driving these people.