The Lion King (2019) – I’m hopeful, but skeptical

To me the remake of Beauty and the Beast starring, of all people, Emma Watson was nothing more than a cash grab. The various political correctness controversies around the movie killed any possible hype I may have had – the idea of making a character “gay” just to have a “gay” character was just… hollow.

Then there was the attempt by John Legend and Ariana Grande at the titular “Beauty and the Beast”. I’m sorry, but Grande and Legend just do not have the vocal power that allowed Dion and Bryson to give that song what it needed (though some have said Dion should’ve performed it solo).

Even Angela Lansbury had more feeling behind the lyrics, even if she couldn’t put much power behind it.

So the fact that Disney in many respects ruined a very well-respected classic movie only because they knew the movie title alone would put butts in seats at the box office, to the tune of $1.25 billion, it’s no surprise that Disney is attempting the same with Aladdin and The Lion King. And Mulan.

To say I’m skeptical about the new The Lion King would be an understatement.

We’re talking about a movie with an unrivaled reputation. It pulled in more at the box office than Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. Combined. Earning short of $1 billion. Virtually unheard of for a film in 1994, let alone an animated film. Only Jurassic Park did better at the time.

Its soundtrack won Academy Awards, Golden Globes, and Grammies. Its songs are still recognized today, almost 25 years later. Largely recognized as some of the best music to come from Disney, and some of the best to come from Sirs Elton John and Tim Rice.

So Disney is working against one hell of a reputation. And I’m not the only one who is skeptical.

That 87 year-old James Earl Jones was able to reprise his role as Mufasa has me hopeful. The movie would not have been the same without him. That they did not bring back Nathan Lane (Timon), Whoopi Goldberg (Shenzi), and Jeremy Irons (Scar) has me disappointed.

But the trailer for the movie again has me hopeful.

The original saw James Earl Jones working alongside the late Madge Sinclair as Sarabi, who had previously worked together in the Eddie Murphy comedy Coming to America. This time Jones is working alongside Alfre Woodard, who played the queen mother in Black Panther. Making me wonder if they could’ve found anyone any more perfect for that role. Also coming from Black Panther are Florence Kasumba as Shenzi (previously played by Whoopi Goldberg), and John Kani as Rafiki (previously voiced by the late Robert Guillaume).

The film also introduces JD McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph as young Simba and Nala, respectively, with Donald Glover and Beyoncé Knowles voicing the adult Simba and Nala, respectively.

Disney has a lot riding on this. A lot of us grew up with the Renaissance, or were parents through it. And The Lion King alone holds a special place in a lot of hearts for the story and music that was able to drive emotion like nothing else.

But, done right, Disney has the potential to bring The Lion King to life. Not bring it new life. Bring it to life in a way not thought possible in 1994. Done right, it could become the new classic.

Let us all hope Disney does not disappoint on this. Again, I’m skeptical. But hopeful.

Lying about the US and Australia

Harper’s Bazaar: “How can we stop mass shootings?

Okay, let’s get into this…

There have been 316 mass shootings this year in America. There have only been 314 days thus far in the year. There should not be a mass shooting for each day in America.

The source I’ve been going to readily for mass shootings in the United States is Mother Jones. Not normally a source I readily recommend, but they have a spreadsheet they’ve been keeping up to date cataloging all the mass shootings since 1982.

So how many mass shootings have there been in 2018? Including the most recent shootings at the Pittsburgh synagogue and Mercy Hospital in south side Chicago, there have been only 12 mass shootings in 2018, one per month average.

Now the definition of mass shooting varies. Not including the shooter, some say that there should be 3 or more deaths, while others say 4 or more. Rarely I’ve seen some try to define it at 5 or more deaths, but I think I’ve only seen that once or twice. So if we strike the mass shootings in which only 3 were killed, the number falls to 8 for the year. If we go the very rare route and also strike all in which 4 or fewer were killed, the number falls to 6 mass shootings in the United States.

So while the author says “We don’t have to live this way”, I guess she doesn’t realize that we don’t live this way. Period. Which means her idea of “let’s take away the guns” is based on a faulty premise. Which every time I’ve seen that idea, it often is.

For one, there are several hundred million firearms in the United States. Yet how many homicides in the United States by firearm? According to the latest CDC numbers for 2016: 14,925. Out of several hundred million firearms.

So good luck rounding all of those up. You can’t “just pass a law” here. You have to actually enforce it. Which requires… guns. Wielded by the government.

Not to mention the fact that law enforcement agencies across the country would not enforce it and probably do everything in their power to stop the Federal government from enforcing it.

And if war were to erupt over this, you’d see a massive number of defections from the military and officers refusing to obey orders. Something I’m sure that Representative Swalwell [D-CA(15)] never bothered considering before making this asinine statement:

To think our military officers would obey an order to use nuclear weapons on the citizens and residents of the United States… Disgusting.

In 2012, guns killed 48 people in Japan, eight in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada—and 10,728 in the United States.

And do you know why there are so many homicides? And, more importantly, who is responsible?

In other words, the vast majority of gun owners aren’t the problem. This is why I’ve called gun control “punishing the innocent“. And unless you’re willing to actually shine light on this problem with regard to gun violence in the United States, your calls for gun control ring hollow.

Especially since, do you honestly think the groups most likely to commit murder in the United States will just… give up their firearms willingly? And let’s also not forget that the vast majority of homicides in the United States are also crimes of passion. Meaning, take away the gun, and they’ll just use something else.

After all, more people are beaten to death than killed with rifles in the United States.

It’s commonly understood that the founders included that clause because they could not accurately anticipate the needs of the populace, say, 250 years in the future. Given that the constitution is intended to provide people with “domestic tranquility”— which no one can experience when our schools, our movie theaters, our concert halls and our yoga studios are places where we might have to contend with a mass shooter—it would be a pretty great time to make use of that elastic clause.

The Constitution doesn’t provide anything except a framework for the Federal government, defining what powers it has and how it’ll conduct business. The Second Amendment is a restriction on all levels of government, applied to the States by way of incorporation.

The Elastic Clause doesn’t apply here.

Nor does the Elastic Clause mean what you think it does, since it applies only to the powers enumerated for Congress. For one, the proper name for the Elastic Clause, which you conveniently omit, is the Necessary and Proper Clause. It basically means “these are the enumerated powers, and we also grant to Congress the power to enact whatever legislation is necessary and proper for the purposes of carrying out these powers”.

Quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819):

We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.

And the Supreme Court has already explicitly said that banning firearms “in common use” is not within the scope of any government’s authority.

But kudos on actually trying to read the Constitution. If only more gun control advocates would do that.

There have been no mass shootings in Australia for 20 years.

It’s rather odd that you’d say this while also saying there have been over 300 just this year in the United States. What definition are you using for mass shooting? Because you’re clearly NOT using the same standard here.

Remember when I said that some define a “mass shooting” as 4 or more victims? That’s to avoid having to acknowledge the Hectorville Seige in 2011 in Australia. Thus far, that is the only random mass shooting since 1996 where 3 or more individuals were killed, not including the shooter. There was a spree shooting at Monash University in 2002, but only two were killed there with 5 injured. And a Hell’s Angels feud in 1999 as well that left 3 dead and 3 more injured, but that is not a spree shooting as it’s commonly defined.

If you add in family murders, things are a bit more bleak.

And if you add in mass murders not involving a firearm, things don’t look good for Australia, whether you include family murders or not. The first mass homicide after Port Arthur was a fire at the Childers Palace hostel that left 15 dead.

All in all, Wikipedia lists…. 17 incidents since Port Arthur, excluding Monash University and a hostage situation in Sydney in 2014. So things aren’t as golden in Australia as they’re often made out to be.

But that’s since Port Arthur. Mass shootings had to have been a common occurrence before then, right? Nope.

The last spree shooting in Australia prior to Port Arthur was in 1992. Then 1 each in 1991, 1990, and 1988. There were three in 1987. Prior to 1987, I don’t see any spree shootings listed.

So what do you notice about these numbers compared to the United States? Two things: 1. not much change after Port Arthur as before, and 2. Australia never had a problem with mass shootings. Or even firearm homicides for that matter.

Whereas the United States has always had a firearm homicide problem. But it peaked in 1993 and hasn’t been that high since.

Seriously things are safer today than ever when it comes to the risk of being killed by a firearm. Unless you’re black, that is, as already shown above. But for some reason, gun control advocates never point out that nuance.

They also don’t want to accept that banning firearms in the United States won’t stop them from coming into the United States illegally. It’ll just leave the citizenry powerless against those who will still, somehow, get their hands on them.

Slight detour

Trying to find a place in Kansas City where I can rent a spray booth without having to buy a guild membership is becoming rather arduous. I did find a place out toward Lawrence that I need to check out, but we’re talking about a spray booth large enough to fit a car. Still, if it’s my only option, again, without buying a guild membership, then so be it.

But this slight update isn’t about that. Instead it’s about a problem we recently had with the system. Or rather the pump.

It’s an AlphaCool VPP655 pump, which is AlphaCool’s D5 Vario. And recall from previous that we tried for UV purple coolant. And I tried for it by adding drops of the PrimoChill UV Purple dye to the coolant in the system, letting it mix and come up to the color we wanted. Unbeknownst to me, though, the coolant wasn’t entirely mixing. And eventually the UV effect and color would be so diminished I’d… add more dye.

After a few months of doing that, this was the result:

This buildup eventually caused the pump to start grinding. So I tore down the system and got the pump out of the housing and replaced it with a spare D5 pump. Then I rinsed the inside of the system with distilled water. Wasn’t concerned with getting it perfect, but I needed to get as much of the old stuff out as I could.

For the new coolant, I still went with PrimoChill Liquid Utopia with the UV Purple dye. The small bottle of Liquid Utopia is to be diluted into a gallon of distilled water. And an entire bottle of UV Purple dye is also perfect for… a gallon of distilled water. So I dumped the entire bottle of dye into the gallon jug of coolant and mixed it up. Shaking it periodically and letting it sit, rinse and repeat.

The result? A much, much more vibrant purple than I’d ever gotten. A much more vibrant UV effect as well. The purple color in the GPU block is still a little… duller than the rest of the loop, but that’s due to it being just an exposed copper plate.

But the color is also what my wife was initially hoping for.

Presume Michael Avenatti innocent

Since I get a lot of flak from those I know about not bashing the right “enough”, I’m going to take this opportunity to do just that. One of the beauties of being a libertarian.

Recently, celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti was arrested on domestic violence charges. Avenatti is not only famous for being the attorney representing Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit attempt against President Trump, but also for trying to locate additional accusers against now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And, predictably, Avenatti has proclaimed innocence:

Recently I said that we should presume Kavanaugh innocent in the face of the numerous allegations that are, let’s be realistic, impossible to prove. Yet many presumed the allegations true and demanded Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination or for Trump to pull it himself. The allegation was all they needed.

Amazing as well how no one seems to be mentioning Kavanaugh or any of his accusers much anymore. But, back to Avenatti.

It would be supremely hypocritical of me to defend due process and the presumption of innocence for everyone else and not do the same for Avenatti. I’ve said before that if you’re not willing to defend it for everyone else, why should everyone else defend it for you. So I’m going to take the high ground that conservatives appear to have so willingly abandoned and do just that: Michael Avenatti should be presumed innocent unless and until the charges against him are proven.

So why are conservatives basically presuming him guilty, in rather disgusting fashion?

In short because the Democrats were doing that with Kavanaugh. And there are numerous other cases wherein impossible-to-prove allegations have been made against other men as part of this whole “me too” fiasco. This certainly doesn’t excuse what conservatives have been doing with Avenatti. But the pattern put in motion by the left and Democrats is going to be adopted by the right and Republicans. Anything the Democrats does will become fair game.

Principles, however, should never be sacrificed on the altar of politics. Yet all too often they are. And this time conservatives are doing it.

Teenagers are NOT being locked up for trick-or-treating in Hampton Roads

This has to be one of the more insidious things to hit my news feeds lately: outrage over ordinances that exist in Hampton Roads that set a legal age limit at 13 years-old for trick-or-treating on Halloween. And what’s all the more infuriating is EVERY place discussing these laws implying these laws are a recent incarnation.

They aren’t.

The laws have been around since the late 1960s. And they were enacted after there were several crimes that occurred on Halloween night by teenagers who weren’t simply begging for candy.

I grew up in Virginia Beach. If I remember correctly, the last year I went trick-or-treating was 6th grade, 11 years old. It was the same with most of my neighbors as well. In general kids stop going out trick-or-treating once they reach middle school, and it’s generally rare that kids continue doing so at that point. And it is generally accepted among parents that middle school is the appropriate cut-off.

But in all the time the laws have been in place in Hampton Roads – again, it’s been almost 50 years these laws have existed – how many have actually been arrested just for violating that law? It’s so few we might as well say none. Residents aren’t turning in teenagers who trick-or-treat, and most kids stop going out on beggar’s night before they reach the age cut-off.

And the number of teens actually out trick-or-treating is so low the police generally ignore them unless problems arise. In which case they’ll intervene. This is similar to the laws regarding lemonade stands in which police and the city generally ignore the fact they exist, in violation of standing laws and ordinances, unless someone complains or other concerns come up.

That’s why you’ve probably not seen this story picked up by the mainstream media. I’ve not seen one mainstream media outlet actually discuss this. Because a simple fact check would reveal the laws are long-standing and not recent developments. And virtually no one in the affected cities has actually called for their repeal. Since virtually no one has been arrested just for violating those laws, and very few people become subject to them.

So why do these laws stipulate jail time and fines for teens actually charged with violating the law? For the same reason most petty offenses also stipulate jail time: in case there are accompanying charges that warrant a greater detention. Police have discretion over whether to actually arrest teens who are caught – and that’s so rare an occurrence we can say it virtually never happens – and the Courts have discretion over how to sentence any teens who are convicted or plead guilty.

This whole backlash about these laws ignores the fact they have been around for 50 years, and the residents of those cities don’t care these laws exist. Beyond that, it ignores the fact the law rarely is enforced, because it very, very rarely needs to be enforced.

It’s making a volcano out of an ant hill, and then flipping its lid like Mount St. Helens did in 1980. Which seems to be par for the course when it comes to the Internet.

Blackmail scam

There are some tell-tale signs that an e-mail is a phishing or scam attempt. I’ve received “Your account has been compromised” e-mails bearing the hallmark of… Bank of America and American Express. I’ve never been customers of either. So whenever I see those, I just forward them off to their respective security contacts and delete them.

But one e-mail I received this morning was… rather interesting. Based on my research, this isn’t anything new. It’s a modified version of e-mails that have been circulating for a while. And given how much e-mail I have to filter through every day – even after the spam filter gets ahold of it – I’ve gotten my share of scam e-mails over the years. If it’s a phishing attempt, I forward it off to the relevant company.

In this instance, I’m posting the scam attempt publicly, to let the search engines pick up on it. And it appears to have been recycled (Reddit post, Democratic Underground post), just with a different Bitcoin address.

I guess you’re wondering why you’re receiving this email right?

It would be highly beneficial to your privacy if you didn’t ignore it.

I have placed a Malware on an adult website (…P…0…r…n site) and as you visited and watched the video your device has been affected, placing a spyware on your machine. Which has recorded you both with webcam and screen capture while you had your “fun Time” allowing me to see exactly what you see.

This has also affected your smartphone via an exploit. So do not think for one minute you can circumvent this by reinstalling your OS. You have already been recorded.

After that my malware collected all your messengers, emails and social networks contacts.

I guess this isn’t good news right?
But don’t worry too much, there’s a way we can fix this privacy issue. All i require is a Bitcoin payment of £ 850 which i think is a fair price considering the circumstances.

The address to make the payment is: 333vDCcYipberH4wKgMnXppaBeauRPoNH7

If you don’t understand bitcoin, go on youtube and search for “how to buy bitcoin” or google for “localbitcoins”, its pretty easy to do it.

You have only 48 hours after reading this e-mail to send payment (Be warned i know when you have opened and read this email, i have placed a pixel image inside it. Which enables me to know when you have opened the messaged on exactly what day and time)

If you decide to ignore this email, i will have no choice but to forward the video to all the collected contacts you have on your email account, as well as post on your social media accounts, and send as a personal message to all Facebook contacts. and of course make the video publicly available on internet, via you-tube and adult websites. considering your reputation, i highly doubt you want to be exposed to your family/friends/coworkers during this current time.

You can actually go to the police, but these people will not likely do anything, the most significant stuff they can do is lock my wallet and you will deprive other people from the opportunity to pay me. So think twice before doing foolish things.

If i receive payment all the material will be destroyed and you will never hear from me again. If i do not get my funds for virtually any reason, such as the inability to send cash to a blacklisted wallet – your reputation is going to be wrecked. So make it fast.

Do not try to make contact with me because am using a victim email that was hacked and exposed.

If you don’t believe and want proof just reply to this email with “PROOF” and i will send your video to 5 of your contacts via email, and post on your Facebook wall. In which you will be able to remove it once, not forever.

Here are some resources talking about this scam:

And it’s apparently been picked up by the mainstream media as well. Just search for “blackmail e-mail scam” or something like that and you’ll find it.

Revisiting Amethyst – More color testing

Recall in the previous article on this that I’d purchased touch-up paint, specifically Mopar Deep Amethyst Pearl, which was a paint used on Dodge Neons and some other cars for a brief period of time. Not long after the paint arrived, I also bought Rust-Oleum Self-Etching Primer and another aluminum panel, along with mineral spirits for “proper” surface preparation.

The touch-up paint is lacquer-based. This is only a color test. I won’t be using it for actually painting the 750D.

So since this is about a color test, how does the color look?

The shade of purple is about spot on to what I wanted – ignore the lighter areas as I was spraying onto this inside a small Amazon shipping box. The pearl, however, isn’t as prominent as I would like. So after I was sure the lacquer paint had (nearly) completely cured, overnight, I went over it with the Rust-Oleum Frosted Pearl clear coat.

My wife wasn’t really fond of this outcome. And I can understand as the frosted color and pearl make it look a little… too pearly. But she thought it too dark. And part of that could be the fact the automotive self-etching primer I used is dark green – according to Rust-Oleum.

So redo with white primer? Not yet.

Krylon Metallic Shimmer with Rust-Oleum Universal Clear Gloss

The Candy Purple specifically – no. 3928.

Yes, Krylon also has a clear coat, but I already had the Rust-Oleum can. The only issue is the Krylon paint is not a paint+primer, meaning I needed to use primer under it. So I went with Rust-Oleum again and the 2x White Primer. The 24-hour wait between primer and paint is the only downside given the temperature has not been as warm as previously.

This met her approval. The color, not the quality of this test paint job.

So the question that you may be considering: why did I not do this in the first place? This particular Krylon paint is only available at craft stores in my area. Home Depot doesn’t carry Krylon in spray cans, only Rust-Oleum. And Lowe’s doesn’t have the Metallic Shimmer lineup. Wal-Mart carries both Rust-Oleum and Krylon, but I don’t recall seeing the Metallic Shimmer there, as of this article going live.

Michael’s is the only place in KC I could find this before considering ordering it in through Amazon. And I don’t exactly go to Michael’s much.

Though I would recommend checking out Wal-Mart first for spray cans since they have much lower prices compared to Lowe’s and Home Depot.

* * * * *

So now to convince my wife to be without her system for a week. And figure out what to do with the rest of the paint I’ve bought for the color testing. Perhaps custom paint several of the panels in my rack, or the rack frame?

I’m not painting the entire chassis purple either. Only the outer panels, though I will paint both the inside and outside of those panels. Perhaps excluding the front fascia – not sure yet. I might repaint it gloss black with the pearl clear coat. The inside of the chassis, motherboard tray, etc, will be white pearl – likely white paint with the frosted pearl. This mix should have it looking like white quartz and amethyst. And the white internal will blend well with her white mainboard.

This should also brighten the system quite a bit, especially with the white LEDs on the fans and adding additional white LED lighting to replace the UV cathodes.

And there’s also still the plan of replacing the tubing with copper tubing that is also painted to match the chassis. Though keeping the clear pump housing and reservoir.

Understand Kavanaugh’s response to the allegations

Now that the nomination is through the Senate Judiciary Committee, let’s look back a moment at the allegations themselves and how they were being made. For context we’re talking about an allegation that is not provable. Despite Ford’s assertion that she is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who attacked her, it is still nothing but an assertion. No evidence exists. No evidence is possible.

But to those who were decrying Kavanaugh’s emotional state during his rebuttal, I’ve got to wonder if you’ve ever had to push back against false accusations. I have. Not of sexual misconduct, mind you, but of a more… frustrating nature, against which defending yourself is utterly impossible.

During my junior year of high school, there were various rumors floating about various people. I never really heard of any except one, but one aspect of these rumors did hit my ears: I had allegedly been the one making them. Some context first. My junior year of high school, I was the new kid on the block, so to speak. I’d just moved to Fairfield, Iowa, and was an unknown to everyone. There was one young woman who introduced herself to me on the first day, and I was introduced into her circle of friends.

A few weeks later was when things turned south as she accused me of spreading a rumor that we were sleeping together. Mind you, at this time I hadn’t yet turned 16. Over the next several weeks, more rumors emerged, and I was tagged as the one spreading them. One of them turned into a threat to my life. I lost friends, hanging out with a small group of outcasts at lunch, and otherwise kept to myself.

One afternoon in, I want to say, March, the guy who had threatened to kill me drove up next to me as I was walking home. I’d heard a rumor was going around, and that I was allegedly spreading it, that I’d slept with this guy’s girlfriend. His girlfriend was in the passenger seat, he rolled down the passenger side window and yelled at me something along the lines of “I’m still going to kill you. Don’t think I forgot.” I didn’t respond to him. He drove off and I continued walking home.

Here’s an idea of where I was mentally: nowhere. The rumors and accusations I’d been spreading them had taken such a toll on my psyche that I just didn’t care anymore. To the point where I attempted suicide by riding my bike into traffic at an intersection across US-34, the main road in Fairfield, to end the torment.

Despite any attempt, there was no way I could clear my name. No way I could set the record straight. The student body was pretty much against me because I was the new kid in town. They had no reason to believe me and every reason to believe those they’d known for years.

Somehow most of that situation cleared up my senior year, and it was a hell of a lot more peaceful compared to my junior year. But that still doesn’t erase the anguish I experienced. I don’t think I ever filled my parents in on what was going on either. So to my mother, if you’re reading this, I’m sorry, and hopefully this helps explain some of the difficulties I’ve caused during that year.

Now let’s take the allegations against Kavanaugh. I’ve written previously how feminism has elevated claims of rape to be beyond reproach, to where the claim is to be believed without question. Allegation = conviction. No wavering, or you’re a sexist, rape apologist, and possibly a rapist yourself. So how can you defend yourself against an allegation when everyone has already presumed you’re guilty?

The frustration of such an attempt is what Kavanaugh displayed at the Senate hearing on Thursday. I could feel his pain. Because I know his pain. Because I’ve experienced his pain. A lot of people have not.

Which is why I put forward a thought experiment to a friend of mine yesterday. With the hope of putting into her what he was going through. For context, the friend has two daughters. One is about 21, the other is 12. And while I originally used her daughter’s names, I’ve changed them here:

Let’s fast forward about 10 years.

Lianna, your oldest, starts publicly stating all kinds of allegations against you, allegations she’s somehow become convinced must be true. Stating that you were neglectful and abusive as a mother. Everyone sides with her and against you. These are allegations that not only have not been demonstrated to be true, but can never be shown to be true. Regardless, you start losing friends, and everyone starts wondering if the same has also been happening to Hannah.

You, Hannah, and your husband state the allegations are, without doubt, false. Yet it’s becoming clear that, regardless of how much you try to defend yourself, everyone has sided with Lianna and against you. They’ve believed her because she “knows” the allegations are true, despite never proving them and never being able to prove them.

The more you try to defend yourself against them, the more irate you become. Everyone now starts taking your anger and emotions at the accusations as additional evidence the allegations are true, because if you’re becoming that angry and emotional now, how angry were you getting when you were raising Lianna and Hannah? Clearly that anger means the allegations have merit, meaning you were an abusive mother.

Again all of this despite the fact that not a lick of evidence has been produced *demonstrating* the allegations. All that exists are assertions. You know they’re false. Hannah and your husband know they are false. Yet, again, most everyone who hears of the allegations sides with Lianna and against you.

Again, to emphasize, I’m not saying this will happen. It’s a purely hypothetical scenario to outline the incredulousness of what’s happening with Judge Kavanaugh, though this happens to other men as well. But hopefully it’ll give you a little insight into how Kavanaugh was responding to these allegations during his testimony yesterday.

The disgusting responses Democrats have had to Kavanaugh are rather telling. First they say “Wow, these allegations are egregious and ‘credible’. Clearly he is not suited for the Supreme Court.” And now it’s “Wow, look at how angry and emotional he’s getting. Clearly he is not suited for the Supreme Court”.

Hopefully in reading this, you’ll understand a little why he got emotional and angry at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I’m hiring?

And continuing on my previous trend of posting solicitations I receive in my e-mail, here’s one I received a few days ago that was obviously a blind solicitation – meaning they didn’t look at my website as they claim:

Hi Kenneth,

I see your company has some Software Engineering openings to fill. I may be wrong, but I would guess that despite your best recruiting efforts, you either cannot find smart developers fast enough, or they are too expensive, or both.

Could we send you some resumes? We are the #1 talent-based employer in Latin America. Our employees are not only super smart (we hire only from the Top 1% of applicants), but they also are fluent in English and work in the same time zone as you do.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Adam Harris
Sales Executive

Direct: [REDACTED]
Address: [REDACTED]
Email: [REDACTED]  |  Website: [REDACTED]

So my reply was pretty direct and succinct:

Really? This is news to me. Care to tell me where you saw such a listing showing I’m looking for engineers?

Why just delete the e-mail when you can give them a snarky response first?

Presume Brett Kavanaugh is innocent

Two things are definitely true about the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh:

  1. It is impossible to know if the allegation is true, and
  2. Democrats don’t care, as they’ve presumed it to be true

To the Democrats, the allegation is enough. Someone came forward with a 36 year-old allegation that is allegedly “credible”. I’d call it incredulous, personally, since, again, the claim is unprovable. That means it is, by default, not credible. Since a claim’s provability has a lot do say about its credibility.

Kavanaugh has, of course, vehemently denied the allegations, maintaining not just his innocence, but demanding the presumption thereof. And it seems few are granting him that benefit. Someone came forward and accused him of a crime, so Republicans should… throw him under the bus, claim Democrats.

There’s a reason the Republicans haven’t done that: to avoid setting a precedent. Dirty tactics are not beneath Democrats. We’ve seen that time and again, along with the tantrums they’ll throw when the Republicans spoon-feed them their own medicine. So why should this be any different.

If this tactic is allowed to succeed, it will have a chilling effect unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Letting an unprovable “credible” allegation torpedo any nomination, not just a Supreme Court nomination, sets a dangerous precedent. And it’s one that, you know, Republicans will try in the future.

This is little more than a “Hail Mary” play by Democrats. They’ve tried numerous ploys to stop the confirmation hearings, all of which have thus far failed. And they’re desperate to stop his confirmation because of a threat narrative that has grown up around him, derived from the threat narrative manufactured about Trump. So this is a “Hail Mary”. Democrats are demanding the Senate refuse to confirm Kavanaugh because…. of a 36 year-old, unprovable allegation.

It very well may have happened. But the presumption of innocence demands that evidence be presented proving the allegations. And as evidence at this juncture is now forever impossible to be brought forward, so it seems, Kavanaugh is entitled to be presumed innocent.

After all, Democrats would demand the same of any Democrat nominee against a Republican attempt at the same the Democrats are currently doing.