“Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True” is finished, and so far there is no merit to an email solicitation approach. Although I’ve only sent about 2200 solicitations, I’ve had no real responses, meaning the success rate of this method is less than 1 in 2200 and isn’t worth the time invested.
I have research I intend to conduct related to topics in the book, mainly, creating an investment scenario for a CEP, where a mock investment strategy is created and the items for acquisition and creation are compared to similar privately owned businesses to gauge how much money a CEP could potentially earn. Knowing the earnings potential based on various levels of initial investment will allow people to definitively gauge what level of investment is required to position the CEP to fulfill the purposes for which it is created.
More relevant to most people is research I want to conduct on overemphasized issues, mainly race, sex, and sexuality, but other issues as well. I’ll use race as an example. I’ll compile all the news reports asserting racism. Apply the act to the word racism to see what acts reported as such meet the definition of the word. Second will be the impact of the racist act: promotion of unequal treatment and the denial of opportunity. A third criterion is the extent of the promotion.
Another area of research is an analysis of news media which is a little more complex and I haven’t formally considered the criteria of the research, but explaining the motivation for what is reported and the misconceptions that are promoted is something I am already frequently engaged in, and the research will take place along those lines.
I have new articles that will be forthcoming. One which I intend to begin soon is explaining the basic components of controversy. Establishing what a fact is, the difference between valid and not valid opinions, the distinction between arguments, morality, value, truth, and assembly. I also want to research the Federal Torts Claim Act to see if there is a way I can bring a suit against the federal government for the Balance Stimulus, which is just as much about bringing attention to the idea as it would be about winning the case. I’ve only read general points about the act not the details to learn if there is any legal basis for the angle. The angle being able to show injury to the general population through a system that produces wealth and income inequality and showing how congress and the president’s negligence has caused this injury. There may not be any basis for this, but it is an idea I’ve given some casual consideration too. There are many subjects I want to address, including public education, teaching methods, school policy, and most importantly curriculum.
The unfortunate thing is I already have a great deal of ideas and important material that I need to create attention for. Attending groups and written communication has failed to yield any results so I recognize the need to prepare video presentations of the material, and try soliciting podcasts. People don’t know how to read, and more importantly, people don’t understand how the systems function that produce the issues they’re concerned about. The misconceptions that serve as the framework for most people’s understanding of government, offer no point of reference when I’m trying to explain rules of function, whereas question concerning issues, lead to explanations of rules and the understanding of solutions. I think the podcast solicitation approach will consist of asking podcast producers to choose a portion of the book to read, and this will allow me to talk about other content through that portion. I didn’t prepare the solicitation, but I did a few searches that let me know it was going to be difficult to find what I’m looking for. The search results were a podcast of mainstream news outlets, whereas I’m looking for someone with a few tens to a few hundred regular viewers who reach a few circles who will become interested in the book.
A major impediment to the further development of these positions and ideas is a lack of feedback. I don’t know what people don’t understand or what they disagree with. Silence is an indication of denial, conscious or unconscious denial, or a failure to understand. People have told me my writing is difficult to understand, and I recognize my deficiencies in that area. Although my writing has improved, my sentence structure is long and winding. I may string 3 points together in a single sentence, and this is the way I think. Something is because something caused it, and produced this effect, and the effect is greater than this, which means it has this moral value. Variations of that kind of reasoning where the existence of objects is explained and compared to determine value. One issue I’ve been working on is in sentence descriptions, where I introduce an object and then qualify some quality or association with that object before proceeding with the purpose for bringing the object up. I try to avoid doing that and use parentheses when I do.
Before I begin the next campaign, I thought I would chronicle some of my social media exchanges. These are important not only for the value of what is expressed and the insight therein, but also as an indication of people’s views, media bias, conscious and unconscious denial, and a variety of other high quality social data, occurring naturally, and honestly.
1: 2/16/2020 Kay Saxon Post
Kay Saxon is a FB friend from the recommended people’s category whom I requested because her introduction was civically enthusiastic. I sent her a solicitation to read my book and I think she accepted it, sending me a thumbs up, and I sent her the book. The following is a post she made that I responded to. I’m sharing it because it gave me an opportunity to confront the position of the extreme feminist as well as the moderate feminist.
Kay Saxon Post
Sometimes, I look at crimes and realise, most crimes are committed by men. Often against women. Trafficking, murder, paedophilia, burglary, mugging…you name it, crime is a male dominated sector of societies.
Why do men have so little regard for laws?
Why do men have so little regard for humanity?
The problem with men…is patriarchy. They dominate societies. Their words count. They have an innate sense of privilege. They OWN societies.
They feel they’re owed something…owed a job, owed sex, owed wealth, owed power.
Until we can change this idea of privilege…we will continue to exist in a world dominated by men who think that societies owe them something.
Societies are changing, but much too slowly. There’s now a backlash against progress.
We, men and women who realise we are equal partners and humans, must keep fighting the fight against male perceptions of privilege.
Orion Simerl Comment: To understand why men commit more crimes than women requires the acknowledgement of a woman’s gender advantage. Desperation and a lack of opportunity is the driver of crime (Flemming 2011). Desperate women have options available to them that the heterosexual male does not. For example, when I was living out of my car I saw ads on Craigslist nearly everywhere I went for live in girlfriends, and I’m sure if you look at Craigslist in any major US city you will see these kinds of ads. Even aside from this example, women have a gender advantage in the willingness of a man to take care of a woman for companionship. I won’t go into prositution since it is illegal, but prostitution is another opportunity women have that straight men generally do not. Prostitution is a crime comitted almost exclusvely by women that is difficult to enforce and has the effect of woman comitting crimes for which they are not prosecuted for. Passive prostitution is not illegal. Passive prostitution is a woman who has casual relationships sometimes with multiple men primarily for material gain. The point is, women have a gender advantage when it comes to getting things they want including money.
Men commit more crimes because financially desperate men have few opportunities available to them, whereas women enjoy gender advantages that men do not.
We should also understand that every law that exists isn’t just. Which doesn’t necessarily speak to all crimes, but in the states (Kay is from UK) for the last 3 decades a good portion of crimes committed have been drug offenses, the possession and the distribution. While marijuana is being legalized in some states, marijuana is a substance that does not create behavior in its users that is averse to public safety or property. Why do we have laws? We have laws because we are freer with them than we would be without them. This means every law should prevent greater imposition than it imposes. A law prohibiting marijuana imposes without preventing any imposition, and therefore it is unjust. One reason some men do not respect laws is because they understand them to be unjust.
To go one further which will lead to a broader point, why do people use drugs or sell drugs? People use drugs to cope with their situation in life and people sell drugs because it is the best opportunity to make money they have available to them. The same as the drug dealer and the same as I mentioned previously, poverty and inequality drive the crime rate. The paper I mentioned by Luke Flemming is a global study where the crime rate of different nations is compared to poverty and inequality, and there is a correlation between inequality and crime that should be considered causation, because the crime rate increases as inequality increases as measured by the Gini coefficient. It’s difficult to respect laws when you live in a nation that doesn’t respect liberty, where the collective who benefits from the system in place circumstantially imposes on the poor and disadvantaged.
Why do men not respect humanity? It’s difficult to address the assertion since men constitute roughly half of humanity. In that conundrum is the answer, which is why humanity doesn’t respect humanity. Part of it is these expired assertions of disadvantage by feminists, or those who have interests in promoting racial causes, ethinic causes, or causes based on sexuality. It fragments the underclasses, directs attention, time, energy, and resources by asserting disadvantage where there is no relevant disadvantage. Are women denied housing, employment, educational, or service opportunities based on gender? Can women vote and hold public office? To assert disadvantage, people who have an interest in that promotion make nonsense posts like these, or claim women are sexually harassed or there isn’t enough women in office, all of which is baseless or unmeasurable. On a final note, patriarchal society ran by men, but what would women do differently? How about Hillary Clinton who as secretary of state supported the creation of a civil war in Syria and a civil war in Libya? How is gender an issue in politics when women do the same thing that men do when they get there? How about Margaret Thatcher? Condalisa Rice?
2: 2/21/2020 Bernie Sander Campaign Ad
The ad features a video of Sanders talking about taking on the establishment, and he rattles off Trump, the Republicans, Wall Street, and the Democrats among some other manufactured boogiemen. Here is the caption I responded to and the subject of my comment and exchange.
I need to ask you once again for your financial support. I am in Nevada where we are seeing a LOT of super PAC ads attacking us as well as ads from Pete Buttigieg and his super PAC. Collectively, the establishment is outspending us 5-1 here, and with only a few days left before the caucus, we cannot allow ourselves to be drowned out.
Can you rush a contribution to help us respond before tomorrow’s caucus?
1st Comment Orion Simerl: That’s misleading to say the establishment is outspending you 5 to 1 when there are 5 other candidates who you consider to be the establishment. If there are 6 candidates and you are being outspent 5 to 1 it could be that no one candidate is outspending you. A little more misleading when Bloomberg just entered the race and is outspending everyone. Meaning Bernie is probably outspending all other candidates except for Bloomberg.
2nd Comment Stacy Twou@Orion Simerl With individual donations that average $17.
3rd Comment Orion Simerl@Stacy Twou I don’t know if that number is accurate or not but according to the data on his 2016 campaign Sander’s doesn’t receive corporate money which is the underlying point of your assertion. It doesn’t change the fact that the statement is misleading and that Sanders misleads people. Sanders is in politics to be in politics, he enjoys performing political rhetoric, the celebrity that comes with the position, and the 6 figure public salary. He’s been in congress for nearly 30 years, has passed 7 rather insignificant bills 2 the renaming of post offices, 1 an increase in veterans benefits which is reintroduced every few years, the approval of a water partnership between Vermont and New Hampshire, extended protection to an area of protected forest, and made the bicentennial day the official bicentennial day in Vermont. He’s accomplished nothing for the disadvantaged people he performs with such passion for, and accomplished nothing to curb the power of industry in congress. I could also highlight some of the negative effects of his voting record, but I don’t think it adds much to the point that Sanders is a politician, not a revolutionary. Thankfully for him, the people of this country’s understanding of government is constructed nearly entirely on rhetoric and platitudes, which has allowed him to have such a long and prosperous career, despite accomplishing nothing.
4th Comment: Bart Pedersen@Orion Simerl someone spends 500k to your 100k. Thats 5 to 1
5th Comment: Orion Simerl@Bart Pedersen Yes that is, “the establishment” doesn’t consist of someone, it consists of multiple someones, and according to Sanders understanding, that is the 5 other competing candidates. That is not 5 to 1 that’s about 1 to 1 since the establishment is 5 people spending 5x more than he is spending.
Democracy Now Headlines 2/14/2020 (https://youtu.be/kMPy24sxbdM)
Democracy Now has become really bad in the last year or so. I theorize because DN discovered how lucrative it is to pander to the progressive wing of the democratic party, where adjusting their slant from radical to democratic progressive has tapped a new donor market. I comment much less frequently but this day I comment on most of the headlines.
1st Headline: DN reports that the Senate passed a resolution to limit Trumps power to take military action against Iran. It cuts to senator Tammy Duckworth saying Trump stomped on the constitution and circumvented congress when he authorized the strike that killed soleimani.
1st Comment: The resolution passed in the Senate wouldn’t have prevented Trump from killing Soleimani, since the administration claims the Iranian Revolutionary Guard contributed to 9/11, the Iranian revolutionary guard is considered a terrorist group, and the Authorization of Military Force Against Terrorists act allows the president to use force against terrorists who are connected to 9/11. Not only does it not prevent the assassination of Soleimani, it doesn’t prevent the president from using force against other Iranian generals or anyone who any presidential adminstration wants to call a terrorist and associate with 9/11. The president was already prevented from going to war with Iran. This resolution does nothing. This resolution is what your elected officials do to create the illusion of concern because polling showed the idea of war with Iran was an unpopular idea. Democracy Now reports it, I’m sure other networks will report it and feature so called experts who will weigh in on what this means for America’s national security and options for dealing with Iran. People’s attention is drawn to these things despite the fact that nothing actually happened. This is one example, and everywhere I look there is another, and people’s reality is built on substanceless premises. Senators have increased their value to the public through the appearance of preventing military action against Iran which polls showed people were against. The power of popular will is represented in illusion, not in substance.
2nd Headline: Democracy Now conflates race with class, calling the following comment made by Bloomberg racist: “There was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone. Redlining was the term used to describe how banks took whole neighborhoods and said these people are poor they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, if you’re a salesman don’t go in those areas. Then congress got involved, local elected officials as well and said that’s not fair these people should be able to get credit. Once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like”.
2nd Comment: Bloomberg didn’t say anything that was racist, he said if the area is poor, don’t loan money to poor people because they cannot pay it back, and this certainly contributed, because you wouldn’t have had the issue with derivatives if people were able to pay back their loans.
Commentary: Banks protect people by not providing loans to people that exceed or could exceed (ARM) a certain portion of their income. What Bloomberg is saying is 100% true, that government intervention into the market, where activists who confused class for race encouraged the federal government to incentivize and regulate banks to make low quality, and subprime loans. Income qualifications, down payment, and credit ratings exist for a reason, to ensure the lender can and will pay back the loan. These qualifications exist because they work. Activists exist on the fringes of issues which leads to results like the housing crisis. Bernie Sanders was for these regulations and quotas during the Clinton Administration that ultimately led to the 2008 financial crisis. We are never talking about derivative ratings if people can pay their loans, and we don’t have a problem with people paying their loans when we adhere to the standards and practices of responsible lending. Instead of claiming responsible lending practices are racist, which again, confuses race for class, or, worrying about poor people’s access to credit, you should be concerned with the income of poor people, as the income will give way to wealth, which will give way to credit. Sanders also voted for the commodity futures modernization act that deregulated derivatives, so either way you look at it, Sanders votes contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. (https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-the-subprime-mortgage-crisis/)
3rd Headline: Headline reports GQ report that Bloombergs companies have been the subject of 40 sexual harassment and discrimination law suits.
3rd Comment: LOL 40 sexual harassment cases against employees of his companies, and what does that mean? There’s no context for the number, what is the average number of sexual harassment accusations per capita and employees? Then we know based on how many people Bloomberg employs whether 40 is a lot of a little. Then you can at least make a weak argument that the actions of his employees are a reflection of his value of a harassment free work place. 40 doesn’t mean anything, and could be the lowest per capita sexual harassment and discrimination accusations, or the highest, but we don’t know.
Commentary: I know some cunt if this is ever read will probably think I’m distasteful or sick for laughing at sexual harassment cases, but I’m not laughing at sexua harassment, (that’s something I only do if I know the details and they are funny) I’m laughing at the statistical ambiquity of saying the number 40 in an effort to associate Bloomberg with sexual harassment, when the number 40 has no meaning when no context is provided, as I explained in my comment. That could be 40 out of 40 years, out of 250,000 employees, making it the most amazing record on sexual harassment and discrimination in the history of the country. I’m not saying that’s the case, but it is the point, that 40 means nothing without context. And now most of the people who watch Democracy Now when they go to their group, if Bloomberg is brought up, they’ll throw that 40 out there to say Bloomberg is prosexual harassment in the work place. It isn’t about Bloomberg or my concern for his image, it’s about the tactic, and how this tactic is used to manipulate people’s opinions. After these comments there is another example of this from a Fox News report, where Fox quoted numbers on the amount of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes without providing context. Exact same tactic.
4th Headline: Headline reports new record temperature in Antarctica 70 degrees
4th Comment: Hell yeah. Climate news is probably my favorite news because it is that redeeming feature of living on a planet with an incorigible and willfully stupid people, the unrelenting changes that will reduce habitable surfae area, increase the liklyhood of major conflict, and probably eventually escalate into the use of nuclear weapons. If that shit don’t make you feel good nothing will.
5th Headline: Democracy Now cites the Intercepts report on a Canadian company it claims bought a unit in a sheriff’s department to investigate parties that may be planning to sabotage their infrastructure project.
5th Comment: Democracy Now makes it more sinister than it actually is. You have the legal right to install this infrastructure. The Sheriff’s department may not have the resources to dedicate personnel exclusively to the task of ensuring no one interferes with the construction of it. The company finances law enforcement to protect its rights. Democracy Now presents it as if it is the private take over of law enforcement or using law enforcement as private security.
Commentary: It isn’t private security, law enforcement’s job is to enforce the law and they have various tools at their disposal that private security does not. The point is, the company is not using the sheriff’s department to further a private interest, they are financing the sheriff’s department to fulfill a public interest in the enforcement of law and protection of their property and lawful endeavors with and on their property.
6th Headline: Headline reports a federal judge has temporarily blocked Microsoft from beginning work on a 10 billion dollar cloud contract with the Pentagon after Amazon filed suit for not having their bid properly considered as is required under the competition in contracting act.
6th Comment: The court case is interesting, but if they are offering essentially the same services for the same cost I don’t think the case is going to have much merit on the strength of the quote alone. The reason being is if the services and price is comparable, then the choice can come down to subjective factors i.e. if the president likes the owner of the company. The only way Amazon should be able to advance this case is if they can show the services and price they are offering is significantly better than Microsoft. Either way, delaying the contract is good for Amazon who could benefit from consideration from an incoming administration, which is the prime intent of Amazon in this lawsuit.
Fox News: Sanctuary Cities are a Criminal Magnet (https://youtu.be/CLJkEdtFAdE)
The story was all over the place, attempting to make the case that Sanctuary Cities attract criminals, implying that illegal immigrants are criminals, and then asserting that illegal is not a race. A good slogan for the slogan minded, so while one group chants being latino is not illegal, the Fox minded can chant illegal is not a race. They flashed statistics without context to make the case that illegal immigrants are criminals and drug smugglers, and then exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants estimated to be in this country.
1st Comment Orion Simerl: Any group of 10 million people in this country is going to have individuals who commit crimes like those mentioned above, but to refer to a few individuals and the crimes they have committed, in an effort to imply that the lifestyle of these individual’s represents the lifestyles of the group is deceptive.
2nd Comment Orion Simerl: Unfortunately you cannot address the drug problem without addressing economic inequality since drug addiction is rooted in people requiring a substance to help them deal with their circumstances in life, or selling drugs as the only worthwhile income opportunity. Drugs have never been about supply and always been about demand, and the political and economic systems in the United States produce individuals who demand drugs.
3rd comment Stev Wood1@Orion Simerl Now that we got a lecture about drugs what is your point ? That it is OK to sell Meth and Crack to your kids or are you just sticking up for the drug traffickers and saying them getting rich on misery is the poor depressed persons fault?
4th Comment: Orion Simerl@Stev Wood I’m saying that people who have ample opportunities in life typically do not become drug dependent because they’re focused on ambition, and no one takes the risk of selling drugs if they have better and more worthwhile opportunities to make money. What I propose is a balance stimulus, 20,000 to the bottom 20% of income earners, 10,000 for the next 10%, and 5,000 for the next 20%, to put the bottom 50% of the country in a position to have better income opportunities and relieve financial stress.
I don’t have an issue with drugs, what another person does with their money and their body is only a concern to me if it interferes with the liberty of other people. Some drug laws have an indirect moral basis as abuse of these drugs increases the likelihood that a person will commit crimes because of the influence of the drugs or to procure the drugs. Selling drugs is also only an opportunity for disadvantaged people to make money if drugs are illegal. I’m a proponent of the prohibition of most drugs.
The point is drug use isn’t caused by people bringing drugs into the country, drug use is caused by a lack of opportunity.
A supplementary point is most illegal immigrants are not involved in drug smuggling, it is inaccurate and prejudice promoting association. NYC has 1.2 million illegal immigrants, and only 18,000 of have been convicted of a crime according to the statistics Fox flashed, which means only 1 in 66 have been convicted of a crime, less than the general population. If immigrants are less likely than the general population to commit a crime it also means they are less likely involved in the distribution of drugs. It also means that while Fox is trying to persuade people that immigrants are more likely to be criminals, according to their own data they are less likely to be criminals.
5th Comment Orion Simerl: There isn’t 22 million illegal immigrants it’s closer to 10.5 million https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-research-center-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/
1/30/2020 Daryl Davis Responds to Dave Chappelle’s Clayton Bigsby Sketch (https://youtu.be/UETvxBYadhI)
I am a fan of Davis work, he has proven that welcomed and repeated exposure to a person who contradicts the stereotype of his group can change the mind of a racist. In this comment I’m critical of his opinion on Dave Chappelle’s skit over a decade ago about the blind black white supremacist. He says people “think it’s hilarious, but I’m going to tell you something, It’s not hilarious. Dave Chappelle, he’s a comic genius, and perhaps if I’ve never been to a klan rally I’d find humor in it. But he’s never been to a klan rally. I have, I’ve been to plenty. And those things are not funny. They are a pressure cooker waiting to go off. If that valve is not released, it’s going to explode, and we saw that in Charlottesville.”
1st Comment Orion Simerl: What you saw in Charlottesville was a municipal government who took an action to remove a statue that does nothing to improve the quality of life of their constituents that they knew would cause conflict and disorder. Then you had people who went to an event where people were protesting the removal of the statue intent on creating conflict with the group who was exercising their rights of free speech and assembly. The group came armed with pepper spray, other weapons, intent on imposing on these people, and this precipitated the tragic result that occurred. Which has nothing to do with a Klan rally, and what a klan rally produces in society doesn’t have anything to do with a funny sketch about a klan rally that should speak to an underlying message, even if it was unintended: racism tends to be the product of impressions not left by the people who the impressions pertain to, but by other elements in the individual’s surroundings. That is, you could be black and blind and hate people based on a visual characteristic because of what you hear and what you’re told about these people. The sketch isn’t only funny, it’s educational, because in life, a good deal of racism is not produced through direct observation.
Democracy Now 2/7/2020 Headlines
Amy Goodman reports how the El Paso mass shooter was being charged with federal hate crimes, stating his manifesto echoed Trump’s rhetoric about an invasion of Latinos. Everytime DN has brought up this incident she makes that same assertion about the shooter, that attempts to associate Trump with the mass shooter implying that Trump’s rhetoric motivates these mass shooters.
My Comment: This is the third time this was reported since this incident occurred, and Amy repeats the same “Echoing president Trump’s rhetoric” after the man’s 3 page manifesto explicitly stated his views and actions were not influenced by Trump or any other politician. For those who see these posts that seem intent on defending Trump like this one or my criticism of impeachment that is not my motivation. My motivation is to point out where DN and the media in general attempt to manipulate people’s perception through repetitious false claims, and manipulate value through false associations. That is the real enemy, the reinforcement of bias founded on misconceptions. As I mention frequently, bias induced denial is where individuals feel bad when they hear information that challenges their beliefs and so they avoid or refuse to acknowledge such information. This is the root of all our problems. What’s interesting is, the shooters manifesto which is only 4 pages also expresses grievances that are more in line with Democracy Now positions than with Trumps. The manifesto states “The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history. The takeover of the United States government by unchecked
corporations. I could write a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused…” Here are other quotes from the shooters manifesto that express the same ideas that are expressed on Democracy Now “The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are hearing the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over harvesting resources. Watersheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands.” https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm Non of that is an echo of Trump’s rhetoric.
I’ve commented on Coronavirus on numerous occasions as it has been talked about day in and day out. It is a new news saga, where the frequency with which it is reported is a reflection of the interest created in the public. Some of the ways interest is created is by exaggerating the danger through emphasizing statistics without providing context, in broadcast tone and inflection, style of music, images, etc. Use of adjectives, for example, sometimes it is the coronavirus and sometimes it’s the deadly coronavirus, which isn’t inaccurate because it is deadly, but if you have a 1 in 40 to 1 in 50 chance of dying if you contract it, it isn’t deadly very often. How a story is covered in the beginning will determine how long people will be interested, how long you can cover the developments, and how much money you can make from it. Emphasize the growing number of reported cases and death toll, use adjectives that imply it is a serious threat, add creepy music to the background, show people sick and hospitalized, people in masks, and people become interested. Not that it shouldn’t be covered, obviously people need to know the risks associated with travel, but to sensationalize it before a population whose lives will not be affected by it serves no purpose to the viewers beyond the entertainment value of the story. My comments reflect a desire to bring things into perspective. The following comment attempts to contextualize the statistics associated with the virus. In other comments, I’ve also compared Coronavirus with pneumonia, where pneumonia has a 10 to 20% fatality rate but most people would probably rather be diagnosed with pneumonia than Coronavirus.
2/5/2020 FB Comment: Orion Simerl: CoronaVirus aint shit. 28,000 cases 565 deaths. Which means roughly 1 out (49.55) 50 who get the virus die so it has 2% fatality rate. Whose dying? Most likely children and elderly meaning if you’re 10 to 55 years old in the unlikely event that you contracted CoronaVirus, you’d probably feel real sick for a few weeks and then you’d be fine. To put that in perspective what has the flu in the United States done so far this flu season? 19 million cases, 180,000 hospitalizations, and 10,000 deaths. If the flu was reported the same way Corona virus is reported you people would never leave the house.
Commentary: I do understand that the danger of Coronavirus is the ease of transmission, where if not contained it can spread quickly and a 2% fatality rate can lead to serious overall casualty numbers. The issue is it isn’t much of a risk outside of China, and everytime there is a new virus people are led to believe it could be the next great pandemic. Viruses are covered in this manner to increase and maintain ratings as it determines the price they can charge for advertising, to state the obvious.
Facebook 2/13/2020 James StPatrick Post
The post read “If you haven’t watched “Who Killed Malcom X” on Netflix you should watch it.
1st Comment: Orion Simerl Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Common knowledge is it was the Nation of Islam and the FBI knew about it.
2nd Comment: James StPatrick@Orion Simerl you should watch it. You are right. But this fills in the blanks.
3rd Comment: Orion Simerl Aside from the clips of the assination, in the first episode it’s more about trying to associate racial disadvantage in the 1960s with racial disadvantage of today, up to the point where the older gentleman alleges being harassed for dating white women, which, if it happened it happened 50 years ago. They’re showing Malcoms speeches and trying to apply it to police brutality in the modern context. The difference is when Malcom was making these speeches there was overt racial prejudice by police in some places, whereas today it is far less prevalent.
He reduces Malcolms message to police brutality to reinforce the modern fad, which is disrespectful to Malcolm. Malcom was more than a symbol of standing up against police brutality, Malcom advanced ideas for black liberation, which is a liberation of the mind, but more importantly economic liberation. He had ideas based on the understanding that in order for black people to be free, it required black people to own the businesses that produce the goods and services in their communities. My favorite line from Malcolm is when he was confronted with the assertion of progress because movie theaters were becoming desegregated, and he said it doesn’t make a difference if a black man can sit next to a white man in a movie theater, if the black man doesn’t have a job and the money to purchase a ticket.
Today if we’re talking about disadvantages we’re talking about money. Are black people being denied jobs based on race? Are black people being denied housing based on race? Are black people being denied education based on race? No, but in the 1960s they were. The inherited disadvantage of past generations of black people is the same as poor people: there is no wealth to pass down to succeeding generations. When they desegregated the movie theaters, the black man could have found out about another group who couldn’t get in the movie theaters, and that’s poor people of every other race. Interests today are class based, and the overemphasis of racial discrimination fragments class interest.
I have two ideas I’m trying to advance, the first is called a balance stimulus ( details on my website http://orioncs.net/how-to-serve-the-interest-of-the-poor…/). The balance stimulus would provide the bottom 20% of income earners with $20,000, the next 10% with $10,000, and the next 20% with $5000 dollars. It requires money to make money, and in some cases it requires money to position oneself to make money. If you continue to put money into services you’re serving the condition of being poor, but you’re not helping a person out of that condition. Poor people need money to improve their income opportunities. The other idea is a Center for Economic Planning, basically funds a corporation that would be owned and directed by the public to plan economic matters; to create and acquire businesses at the direction of the public, people deciding what opportunities will exists, increasing the quality of opportunities, and profit in ownership that can be applied however the public decides, including investing in politics, where the profits from owned businesses will be able to compete with the interests of industry. Details available in my book available for free request through my website ( orioncs.net )
FB Post 2/16/2020 Kay Saxon
This exchange is here temporarily, doesn’t fit the theme of these exchanges.
The post showed Virginia gun rights proponents assembled near the state capitol with a caption that read This is How America Collapsed. I didn’t read the article when I commented I responded to the assertion that gun rights were a problem in the United States. I briefly skimmed the article and the bias is apparent despite the article covering a broader range of topics than gun control. The article asserts that it was “men waving machine guns chanting neo-facist slogans’ ‘, but fails to provide even a picture of anyone waving a gun, or even people with their mouths open to support the assertion. Not the subject of the comment exchange, but a casual observation in viewing the article worth mentioning. If the article goes on to provide quotes, these quotes at most represent the views of maybe a few percentage points of people in attendance, and the article through the portion I read attempts to associate gun rights with neo-facism.
1st Comment Orion Simerl: That is 22,000 people in Virginia demonstrating against an effort to limit their right to bear arms. Gun control is an issue pushed by the democrats to create the illusion that they have a soultion to mass murder, because we can’t discuss the reasons why people want to indiscriminately kill large numbers of people. As was observed in Australia, the gun control action after 1996 mass shooting did not reduce incidents of mass murder or casualties of mass murder comparing the 20 years before the massacre to 20 years after the massacre. People who want to kill other people are going to do so even if they don’t use a gun. What is wrong with people having guns and how are guns and people demonstrating for their right to possess guns, how America collapsed?
2nd Comment Kay Saxon@Orion Simerl:I think you need to view the facts about gun control in Australia.
3rd Comment Orion Simerl@Kay Saxon In the 20 years prior to 1996 there were 18 mass murder incidents that claimed 95 lives. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 25 mass murder incidents that claimed 96 lives. Gun control in Australia failed to reduce incidents of mass murder and casualties of mass murder. Those are the facts regardless of whether you meat puppets like them.
5th Comment: Orion Simerl@Jeremiah Tafuri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Can you count?
6th Comment: Jeremiah Tafuri@Orion Simerl Umm. Counting doesn’t seem to be the issue here. If you are trying to say people did not kill folks, that is clearly inaccurate. If you are trying to say that people killed folks without guns, then maybe we are getting to a point. As an American, and clearly desensitized, I gotta say, these are rookie numbers. These ‘mass murders’ are a daily occurance in the States. Which generally are done with firearms, not ‘bashing’ or ‘arson’. “Massacres” are not the same thing as mass shootings.
Are you trolling here or do you did you not read the methods used in your source?
7th Comment: Orion Simerl@Jeremiah Tafuri What’s the fundamental problem with mass shootings? That people are killed or injured. The means is irrelevant. What I’m saying I stated very clearly: gun control measures in Austraila did not reduce mass murder incidents or casualities. Rookie numbers in what way? It is the most complete list of mass murders in Australia and each incident is supported by a citation to the report, so yes I do understand the methods and it is accurate. The United States is a nation of 330 million people that has great economic inequality that leads to desperation, dissatisfaction, as well as social alienation that causes people to want to kill people indiscriminately. Russia’s population has very few guns yet they have a higher murder rate than the United States. You’ve failed to make a single point concerning your position. 1: I did not claim people did not kill folks, I provide the most reliable data on the subject that shows gun control does not reduce incidents of mass murder or casualties. 2: Mass shootings are massacres. The problem isn’t that people are being shot and killed or injured, the problem is people are killed and injured, the means is irrelevant because the effect is the same.
I am certain that the term ‘mass SHOOTING’ is kinda the focal point. And by rookie numbers I mean that ever fucking day in the US there is usually an incident wherein more than 5 people are shot in a given incident. EVERY DAY.
To your points: 1. Gun control definitely reduced the number and severity of mass shootings in Australia, by the source you provided. 2. Mass shootings and mass killings are different things. Which is why ‘gun control’ is the point of contention here.
What are you attempting to get at with your post?
The point is very clear and I’ve made it on multiple occasions, gun control is a pretext to make it seem like politicans in the United States have a solution to mass murder. This is a problem because it doesn’t speak to the reason why people want to indiscriminately kill other people. Gun control does not reduce mass murder because people who want to kill people are going to kill people regardless of whether they use a gun, or bombs like in Sri Lanka, or a rented truck like in Canada.
10th Comment: Jeremiah Tafuri@orionsimerl Yeah. I think that I can answer that. A gun is a specific tool made specifically for killing humans. Bashing can be done with any number of things and we all live in flammable constructs. Do you really not grasp the difference between using a specific tool engineered for murder and using random objects or fire to murder?
You are not wrong that gun control, in the sense of removing all guns, is really just a lame duck method for politicians to pretend like they give a shit. Gun regulations are useful and have been shown, in the States, to be effective at reducing gun violence. The 1934 gun control measure and the mid-90s laws passed in California had demonstrable impacts on mass shootings specifically and gun violence generally. These are easily researched.
Gun control isn’t about stopping people from wanting or trying to kill mass amounts of people. It is about limiting the access to weapons specifically engineered for the purpose of mass murder.
Again, what is it that you think that you are arguing for here? Because so far your argument has been a non sequitur.
11th Comment: Orion Simerl@Jeremiah Tafuri You can’t answer the question of what difference does it make if people use a gun or use another weapon to kill people? You answered what is the difference between a gun and another weapon. Nothing about my argument has been non sequitur, each comment I’ve made has addressed points precisely, your argument is non sequitur as I just demonstrated in that you dodged the question by explaining the distinction between an object intended for use as a weapon and an object not intended for use as a weapon. Again, let me ask the question in a way that you may be able to grasp. If 100 people die as the result of mass murders and the weapon was a gun, or if 100 people die in mass murders and the weapon was a knife, a bomb, arson, a car, etc, what is the difference when the problem on both sides is 100 people died? Gun control is only relevant if it reduces mass murder, because the problem isn’t how people are being killed the problem is people are being killed.
California is a good example and easily researched, like what US state has had more mass shootings than any other state in the United States: California. https://www.statista.com/…/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by…/
A decline in gun violence can only be attributed to gun control if other states that did not adopt gun control experienced an increase or stayed the same. California ranks behind 28 states in its rate of gun violence, many of which have much less restrictive gun laws and a much higher rates of ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Gun_violence_in_the_United…
You’re still wrong.
12th Comment: Jeremiah Tafuri@Orion Simerl https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-how-policies-can-reduce-deaths-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR0KQpPn-TghUS7rSv7IRPJ8AfsUMNxpz1Qp93Zzx6kQvA_wpUJ9cWftiLY Headline reads “Gun Control Really Works. Science Shows Time and Again that it Can Prevent Mass Shootings and Save Lives.
13th Comment: Orion Simerl Jeremiah@Tafuri I know you like the headline but the substance doesn’t speak to the headline. They are comparing Switzerland to the United States and insinuating that a difference in gun laws is responsible for a lower incident of gun violence. However, the homicide rate and inequality is correlated across the world, where the greater the inequality the greater incidents there are of homicide. Switzerland has a gini rating of 33, whereas the United States has a gini coefficient of 49. GIven the strong correlation which is observably causation (everywhere inequality is higher homicide is higher) gun laws cannot be cited as the cause for a lower rate of gun violence because homicidal violence increases as inequality increases.
I also agree that violence is a correlation to inequality. As I believe I have also stated. I think the only real contention that we are having is that you are conflating mass murder with mass murder by gun. Certainly, both are mass murders. However, one, guns, are addressed by gun control measures and the rest are not. Which is why I asked what it was you were, or thought that you were, arguing by including those two things together.
15th Comment:Orion Simerl@Jeremiah Tafuri It is a logical conflation, as I stated, because the problem is murder, whether it be by gun or any other means, the problem is the same. If you do not have a fork can you not still eat a steak? This is what the gun control argument is, it is like attempting to solve obesity by limiting people’s access to utensils. If a person wants to eat they are going to do so regardless of whether they have silverware. The same as a person who wants to kill people is going to kill people regardless of whether they have access to a gun. Gun control hardly reduces access to guns, I’m a felon, I could get a gun if I wanted one. In California there was a 16 year old who shot kids at school with a pistol. What gun control measure would have prevented him from procuring that pistol? He is already prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. This tends to be the case with most mass shootings where what is being proposed wouldn’t prevent most mass shootings or most gun caused homicides.
16th Comment: Jeremiah Tafuri@Orion Simerl Again you are willfully missing both the point of gun control and the distinction that I have repeatedly made. This is problematic. Gun control legislation has definitely reduced mass shootings, there is some amount of evidence for this. The reason why gun control is talked about in terms of reducing mass killings is specifically because guns are only useful for killing people. A rock can be used to do the same job, i.e. kill, but it isn’t as easy to do and isn’t as easy to do a lot of killing with. A good marksman with a 30 round magazine could, conceivably, kill 30 people, with ease and within a very short period of time. A really great rock killer would not be able to accomplish that same level of carnage within anything close to the same period of time.
We both agree that murder is bad. You, however, are suggesting that gun control should/could also reduce the incidences of mass bashing with rocks that end in murder as well, which is non-sensical.
Whether or not a specific individual can get a gun isn’t relevant to gun legislation, however counterintuitive as that may seem. Laws don’t target specific humans, in fact they would not be constitutional if they did. Laws, in the States, target populations. If you had done your due diligence you would have noticed that gun laws do, in fact, reduce gun violence. Why is certainly a complex subject.
I am going to ask you again, what exactly do you think that you are arguing here? If it is murder is bad, congrats you have made that argument. If it is that murder can be done with something other than guns, therefore gun legislation is a wast of time, you are making a fallacious argument that makes no damn sense.
You seem like you are an intelligent and literate human that is making what appears to be a good faith argument, if perhaps poorly constructed.
17th Comment: Orion Simerl@Jeremiah Tafuri “Gun control has definitely reduced mass shootings”. Again, why is it better if people are killed with another weapon as opposed to a gun? You’re arguing that a gun is a more effective means of killing than all other weapons. The problem is you cannot prove that assertion whereas I have provided evidence against that using Australia as an example. Why is it better to be killed with something other than a gun, which has been the question you avoided from the beginning and the reason you maintain your circular reasoning without addressing the point.
I’m not claiming that gun control should prevent other mass killings, while you attempt to construct another strawman to avoid the main point of contention. I’m saying, if you have 100 people who die before gun control, and 100 people who died after gun control, then even if you’ve reduced mass shootings, you haven’t reduced mass murder and gun control has had no effect on the problem. If people want to kill other people, if they can’t procure a gun, they are going to use something else and there are something elses that are just as effective at killing. You can’t acknowledge this point because you’re invested in your position, which is why you stay on the periphery of the points and avoid acknowledging the point directly. Since gun control fails to prevent incidents and casualties of mass killing, reducing mass shooting is irrelevant because mass murder is occurring in the same frequency and casualties. This is a very solid argument which is why you keep making the same frivolous assertions to avoid the points that are irrefutable.
The problem I have is mass shootings is that you are not trying hard enough.
19th Comment: Orion Simerl@Abd Elhalhuli Wikipedia as a source for information varies by entry, but your dumbass thinks a wiki source is subjective. As I explained in the previous exchange, each incident contains a citation to the news event that establishes that each incident occurred. You don’t know how to evaluate a source letting other people think for you, as they did when you wrote “Wikipedia…Ha”. Laugh at a quality source without being able to show any deficiency concerning the assertion the citation establishes. It is the most accurate and complete list of massacres in Australia’s history that currently exists meat puppet.
Either way nobody cares
21st Comment: Orion Simerl@Abd Elhalhuli LOL. There is frustration with people, observing their inability to understand simple things as a choice of value, which is harmful to their interest as well as everyone else’s. When the inability is as gross as yours it feels good to vent the observation. That is the source of me being upset, and as far as bullies go, I fucked bullys up, and went to jail and prison for it.
23rd Comment: Orion Simerl@Abd Elhalhuli If we consider that all those choices have led to the understanding that I now possess, I couldn’t be more pleased with those choices, despite the fact that I still face difficult circumstances. My book is available for free download on my website. orioncs.net “Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True”.
1:I asserted that gun control does not reduce the number of mass murder events or the casualties of mass murder events. I presented Australia as evidence as the best example having passed significant gun purchasing and ownership restrictions about 25 years ago. The list I referred to is the most complete list of mass murder events available with each incident providing the citation to the report. Comparing the 20 years prior to the 1996 mass murder that prompted the gun control measure and the 20 years after, we find that gun control failed to reduce incidents of mass murder and casualties of mass murder.
2: The other gentleman recognized the point proven at least in the context of Australia, that GC failed to reduce incidents of mass murder and the casualties of mass murder. He broadened the scope of the GC debate, from incidents of mass murder to gun violence in general. His main two points were A: That guns are more effective at killing than other weapons. B: that reducing gun violence through gun control reduces violence.
A: I returned to Australia data which shows that other weapons are just as effective at killing large numbers of people as guns. If guns were more effective than other means we should have seen a decrease in the casualties of mass murder events. We didn’t see this. To further substantiate the point, I referenced the bombings in Sri Lanka that killed over 100 people, and the man in Canada who rented a truck and killed 17 people injuring many more. This is evidence that guns are not more effective murder impliments than other weapons, since other weapons have proven effective at killing as many or more people than people with guns.
B: In an effort to reinforce the idea that gun control is effective the gentleman I was exchanging comments with offered a business insider source where the headline boasted science proves the effectiveness of gun control laws. I read the article and the comparison was between the United States and Switzerland who the article claims has comparable gun ownership with stricter regulations, and a much lower incident of gun violence. The problem with the comparison is crime, including violent crimes like homicide are driven by economic inequality. Inequality is measured through the gini coefficient. The gini coefficient is a number 0 to 100, where 0 represents completely equal and 100 represents the greatest degree of unequal. The US rating is 49, while Switzerland is 33, and represents a substantial difference in economic inequality. This means the US is predisposed to greater incidents of crime and violence, and therefore will have greater incidents of crime and violence, regardless of differences in gun laws. The methodology is flawed and conclusions are flawed because the article is attempting to make the cause of a greater incidence of gun violence about the gun laws, when the US is going to have a higher incidence of crime and violence, because of economic inequality. (Bryant Economic Research Paper Vol4 No7 Spring 2011, “The Relationship Between Poverty and Crime: A Cross Section Analysis of the World” Luke Fleming. Pg 13 “…when the GINI index increases by one, homicide rates go up by .477 per one hundred thousand people.” pg14“Income inequality is positively related to all three types of crime. As money is distributed more evenly, all three types of crime should decrease.” “The only variable significantly related to homicide is the GINI index.” )
B Point 2: The gentleman acted as if he didn’t understand the point I was making. Where gun violence isn’t the problem violence is the problem, and people who want to kill people are going to kill people regardless of whether their access to firearms is limited. Since it isn’t more difficult to kill large numbers of people with other weapons, it certainly isn’t more difficult to kill fewer people with other weapons. I bring this up to move from mass murder to murder in general, since the evidence I’m drawing from is mass murder incidents. The point is, as long as people want to kill people people are going to kill people. There is no merit to the assertion that guns are more effective than other weapons especially if we’re talking about killing fewer numbers of people, which represents most gun violence, where there is typically 1 to 2 casualties. To restate the example, if 100 people are going to be killed, and without gun control say 50 are killed by guns. Now under gun control, the same 100 people are killed but only 30 are killed by guns. Gun control advocates will say gun control works because we’ve reduced gun violence by 40%, but what value is that when the same number of people are killed? Which is why I asked what is the difference between someone being killed by a gun or a different weapon, when the same amount of people are going to be killed?
I think the advice being offered may be better for the one who is giving it, than the one who it is being offered to.
28th Comment: Orion Simerl Kay Saxon Which is irrelevant because it does not reduce the number of people who are the victims of homicide. Meaning the same number of people who were going to kill people with a gun, still killed the people they were going to kill, which was the subject of my last message and the addressment of that sad source you provided. As I stated : if 100 people are going to be killed and without gun control say 50 are killed by guns. Now under gun control, the same 100 people are killed but only 30 are killed by guns. Gun control advocates will say gun control works because we’ve reduced gun violence by 40%, but what value is that when the same number of people are killed? You’re not addressing the problem which is people are being killed, and the reasons why people want to kill other people. Because as long as people want to kill people they will find a way. Gun Control does not reduce the homicide rate or reduce the incidents or casualties in mass murders. Gun control is immoral, it is imposing without preventing imposition.
30th Comment: Orion Simerl@Kay Saxon I’ve already shown that you can achieve the same numbers with other weapons, the truck in Canada, the homemade bombs in Sri Lanka, the Australian incidents and casuelties of mass murder 20 years after gun control compared to 20 years before, I already proved this point on multiple occasions in these exchanges. Now take your advice and broaden your understanding of evidence and proof.
32nd Comment: Orion Simerl Kay Saxon LOL, coming from the person whose comments fail to demonstrate she has comprehended a single point or understands the nature of her own position.
33rd Comment:Jeremiah Tafuri Orion Simerl you aren’t making coherent points. You’re conflating issues and pretending that you have a rational argument. Which you don’t. You really do need to get a/a better education. You’re really embarrassing yourself.