Metallica... The Last 32 Years...

Metallica... The last 32 years...

Christ it's hard to believe it's been that long since the black album. I remember buying it and listening to it the first time, quite well. 

Anyway... A friend posted the question, what is the best song that Metallica has released AFTER 1991... And while I do have an answer for that, I wanted to really dig into it more than just flatly stating one song. Because I think most people... Even most people who still consider themselves huge Metallica fans (which I absolutely am)... Just skip over a LOT of material, that's actually not bad, or is even good, and is certainly worth including in your playlists.

One thing I find I always have to say during discussions about post '91 Metallica... "Load"  and "Reload" are actually a lot better than people remember. They're not great, they aren't even solidly into "good" territory, but they aren't awful either; maybe "not good", but not awful...and most people seem to remember them as being actually awful.

There are a few genuinely good songs, and a couple actual very good to great songs (or at least their live versions, as they play them currently... Which in some cases are VERY different, and much better, than the original album cuts)

The biggest problem... with a lot, maybe most of, their post '91 output actually, not just "load"  and "reload"... Is that most of the tracks should have been about 1/3 shorter... There's a bunch of just screwing around that doesn't add to the song, on a LOT of tracks.

And just to reinforce that, they still regularly play "Fuel", "King Nothing", and "The Memory Remains", in most of their live sets.... And play them MUCH faster, and much more aggressively than the album cuts. 

I'm excluding S&M, because it's not original studio releases... Otherwise half of S&M would be the top half dozen they've released post '91, simply because they're among the best songs Metallica has ever released, from all their albums to that point, compiled. It's not a fair or valid comparison. 

"St. Anger" is almost all hot garbage... I don't think there's any question, it's the worst album Metallica have ever released...but they still play "Frantic" regularly live. Personally, I don't like the album version that much, but their live version ain't bad. It's definitely hard rocking thrash at least (which you can't really say about anything from "Load" or "Reload").

I can't stand the "Death Magnetic" release mix, or the drum sound generally, but if you download the properly mixed version they licensed for "Rock Band" it's actually decent. Again, not great, but on balance, I'd say it's a good album overall. Also again, most of the songs are too long without good reason, and could probably be cut by a third and be a lot tighter, more focused, and generally better. 

Tightening the whole album up, might even have made it into a very good, or great album... Or maybe not... It would certainly be well into the good territory at least. 

"Cyanide", and "All Nightmare Long" are solid tracks (though once again, ANL is too long and needs more focus)... And "Cyanide"  is still in a lot of their live sets. Again, both live versions are better than the album tracks, because they're played faster and more aggressively, and with way more feel and energy. 

"That Was Your Life" would be good if it were judiciously trimmed. At 7:08, it meanders too much, not enough focus. A tight 4:30 to 5 minute version would just be concentrated classic thrash. "My Apocalypse" is only 5:08, but at a little under 4 minutes would absolutely thrash hard, and I think be very good to maybe even great. 

Also, I really WANT to like "The Day That Never Comes", but again, it needs to be trimmed and focused. As it is, it's mediocre at best 

So, I'm not ready to render an opinion about "72 seasons" yet, or even any particular tracks from it. 

So far I've only listened to the album straight through once, and have only played a few tracks any more than that. It's going to take me at least a few months and a few dozen listens to really "get" the album and it's songs. 

Now, we are finally back to what I consider to be at least a very good album... Maybe not truly great, when compared to their best...but very good at least, and the best original studio album they've released post '91 for sure... "Hardwired to Self Destruct"... 

I know it's been 7 years... which really it doesn't feel like it's been that long .. the last few years have really screwed with my sense of time... but I feel like I'm going to need a few more years of sitting with it and appreciating it to decide whether I think it's a genuinely great album or not... But it's at least very good. 

"Hardwired", pretty damned good, straight thrash like they haven't released since "Ride the Lightning", and their best title track since "... Justice...". 

"Atlas, Rise" feels a LOT like their attempt to do an Iron Maiden song... It doesn't QUITE work, but I still like it a lot. 

"Halo on Fire", I dunno, it's like... It feels like it shouldn't be as good as it is, but when I think about it, I always find myself liking it way more than I expect to. That said, at 8:05, its the first song on hardwired that I think would be better if it were significantly trimmed. I think it would definitely be much better, maybe even great, at around 6 minutes or maybe even less.

"Confusion" is a solid good to maybe very good. Not great, but really good. It's quite reminiscent of some of the songs on the last really good "Deep Purple" album, 1993s "The Battle Rages On" (also the last album recorded with the Mk II lineup). Actually, several songs from the album have a lot of that "harder end of Deep Purple" feel, which I really like. I also noted a lot of similar feel with the Testament album from the same year, "Brotherhood of the Snake" (when I first heard the track "The Pale King", I actually thought it WAS Metallica for a minute)... Which again, I think is a good thing. 

"Man Unkind" is the first song off the album that I think isn't at least good. It's like... Bits and pieces of the song are good in isolation, but as a whole the whole, it just falls apart and doesn't work at all. 

"Here comes Revenge" is... It's kinda "generic Metallica song" that could have been from any year of the 80s... Which means it's at least good. Nothing original or outstanding about it, but it's decent straight ahead classic Metallica. I find myself thinking again, that if the song were 4-5 minutes instead of 7, it would have been much better.

"Am I Savage" isn't GREAT, but it's got a cool, kinda funky, almost Pantera like groove to it, that I like... I'd call it good based on that. 

"Murder One" has a solid kinda "God that Failed" feel to it, which I dig, and again I'll call it good, based on that feel. Not great, not original, just solidly into the "good" category. 

"Spit Out the Bone"... Straight up, '83-'89 style thrash. Blistering galloping rhythm and riffage. It's this albums "Whiplash"... Very good, almost great, and genuinely great live (they're a bit looser on this song live... It's got more feel and energy and breathing room to it). 

And finally... To answer the original question... 

I skipped over it, because it's my final answer as it were...

"Moth into Flame", is actually just straight up a great song, period. 5:50 of straight high speed, pounding and driving, yet still nicely melodic, thrash metal...

...Best song on the album, and that's saying something, because there's not much on the album that isn't at least good, with several tracks very good to great... 

...And as far as I reckon it, the best song they've released after 1991.

"It's just normal"

I was talking about how hard it can be to get people to understand that yes, really, they actually are being racist, when they just don't think of themselves in that way at all... 

...Their idea of racism being the KKK or similar, and since that's just not them at all 8n their minds, they think "I'm not racist"... 

Even though they may say ignorantly and casually racist things, and believe ignorant racist stereotypes, etc... Because they grew up withmost people around them saying the same things, thinking the same things... And they just think that's normal, not RACIST... They're good people, and only bad people are racist right? 

... There's really a whole hell of a lot of folks like that... In fact, almost everyone has some of it unconsciously in their head somewhere... That's true whether you're white, black, puce or magenta... 

As it happens, my family presents a particularly interesting historical example. 

My Grandfather, was actually the attorney who represented the community group from south Boston, in their legal efforts to stop forced bussing of public school kids in Boston, for purposes of better racially integrating Boston public schools (which a court had determined were effectively racially segregated). 

He didn't think of himself as racist in any way. And in fact, he didn't consider being anti-bussing to be a racist position; though he acknowledged that there certainly was a lot of racism from that side of the issue.

He considered it a matter of parents choosing the environment and neighborhood they wanted to raise their kids in, and often chose those based on the quality of schools in their neighborhood. Then, some lefty judge was sticking his nose where it didn't belong, and taking kids out of their community, and sticking them on busses for up to 4 hours a day, to some school far from where they lived... Both black and white... And that it was harmful to the kids... Both black and white... 

... All of which was absolutely true... It WAS harmful to the kids, both black and white... and it was taking kids and acting against their parents choices, by force, by some crusading dogooder lefty judge, who happened to live in a very rich all white town, and sent his own kids to private school. 

... But it was also true that Boston public schools were effectively segregated, as in fact most neighborhoods of Boston were effectively segregated... 

... Which my grandfather acknowledged... He just believed it was wrong to do harm to the kids, and taking control away from their parents... in the name of addressing racial inequity.

Oh... And the folks in that community group trying to stop bussing? Almost 100% democrats, as was my grandfather. He even held several elective offices as a Democrat all the way up until 1976 (he ran a primary challenge against Ted Kennedy for Senate, and was destroyed 86% to 14%, and never ran for anything else again. Oh and his father had been a street level democratic politician as well. A Boston selectman, and one of the Democratic party delegates to the Democratic National Convention in 1912. He actually cast the Massachusetts delegations nomination vote for Woodrow Wilson). 

He didn't actively consciously hate black people, or consider blacks inferior to whites...

... And he really had a lot of good reasons why he believed he wasn't racist... 

He was born in 1931, in the worst white neighborhood in Boston... which at the time was actually much worse than the worst black neighborhood in Boston... as a first generation American. Dirt poor, but damn smart, and hard working.

He ended up getting a special full scholarship from the Catholic archdiocese of Boston, to Brandeis University, to be in their first graduating class... Brandeis of course having been explicitly founded as a university that would not discriminate against Jews or people of color.

 The archdiocese funded two competitive academic scholarships, one for a Catholic boy, and one for a Catholic girl, to be part of the first graduating class; as a gesture of ecumenical goodwill. My Grandfather won the boys scholarship. 

He went to college at a religious and racially integrated, co-ed university, specifically founded on the principles of non-descrimination. Had no issue being students with, and even friends with, black students. Made some lifelong friends there who were black. 

He then served in the newly re-integrated army, towards the end of the Korean war... Had no issue serving with black men, and again made several lifelong black friends while serving. 

He then put himself through grad school, nights, while working two jobs; one as a probation officer, and the other as a municipal road repair crew supervisor.... I honestly have no idea how he slept... But he had no problem working with black folks on probation, or in the road crew.

He got a master's in math, and a secondary certificate in education, and became a high school math teacher for Boston public schools, in Roxbury, where he taught mostly black students... And again, he had no issues teaching and relating with black students and their parents.

He then went back to night school for his JD, while teaching math during the day... and became an attorney. Many of his clients were black, and he never had any problems representing them.

He genuinely believed that he wasn't racist at all... 

But when one of his daughters tried dating a black guy, he went into a blind rage, and beat the hell out of her...

...(he was also drunk at the time... My Grandfather was the most loving, generous, kind, gentle man... When he was sober. He was also an alcoholic, and when he was not sober, he was often violently abusive. He had been a competitive boxer in high school, college, and the army. He knew how to deliver a beating, and just as an example, had broken most of my ribs by the time I was 13... When I finally got to be so big, strong, and well trained, that I could stop him from doing so ever again)... 

To his dying day, in 1996 at age 65, if you asked him, he would absolutely say that he wasn't racist... And actually believe he was telling the truth..

Except that he had a thousand little things, little ways, that he was, all the time, without even thinking about it. Using slurs against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc... Just as the normal word he would use to talk about them. 

Making derogatory statements like "oh that's just how the" [insert whatever slur name for whatever group here] "are. You know they all" [insert derogatory stereotype here].

Getting angry at the thought of his daughter dating a black man, or Hispanic, or Asian or.. anybody but a white guy, preferably catholic. Or "God forbid" marrying one, or having a baby with one etc... Etc... 

... Not that I need to tell you ... You know exactly what I mean, obviously, you've lived it... 

Unconscious and casual racism was just, normal to him. It's how almost everyone around him was, for most of his life. He never thought about it. 

If he HAD truly examined himself in that way... I think he would have been able to change. It would have been hard, but he was a man who did hard things when he needed to. I'm sure he would have tried... And he would still have failed because a lifetime of ingrained habits is pretty hard to change, and it's somewhere between extremely hard and impossible,  to always consciously examine all those reflexive unconscious things and change them. But I think he would have done a lot better. Because he didn't want to be racist, and he specifically did want to not be racist, whenever he actually did think about it (I tried having discussions with him about it several times when I was a teenager, and he would casually say something really racist... Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't). 

... But there's no denying, he was unconsciously and casually racist, all the time... It was just normal to him, and to almost everyone around him, for most of his life.

Some pain never goes away... it just comes less often

Jesus Christ... If you have ever had someone you love hit with early onset adult dementia, or had someone you love die in a nursing home during COVID, do NOT watch the 2021 Jodie Comer and Stephen Graham film "Help"... Unless you WANT to feel all of that again, all at once, for some insane reason.

I managed... I don't know, 1/4 of it? maybe less? before I couldn't watch anymore (the scene where Grahams character Tony, wanders off out of the care home, and is found... And what he says in that scene... I  broke down and couldn't watch any more). 

Maybe watching that on my birthday wasn't the greatest idea... Because it's those days, that you want to share with them, that are the hardest after they're gone... But honestly, I think it would have hit me as hard no matter what. One line in particular just... Gutted me completely... It's been more than 11 years since my mother died, and I think even in another 11 years it would gut me again just as bad. I shut it off an hour ago, and I'm still tearing up every few minutes. 

The film won Jodie Comer her second BAFTA (the British equivalent of the Oscars and Emmys combined), and Stephen Graham his EIGHTH ...yes, 8th... BAFTA nomination (without a win... Which is I believe the acting record), and for good reason. Their performances are... Absolutely devastating is the only way I can describe them. The film as a whole was nominated for best drama BAFTA, and won the international Emmy for best film... It's incredibly well done... The writing, the performances, the production values... Couldn't be better if they tried.

 ...But as the son of a mother who started experiencing dementia episodes at age 47 (the same age as Stephen Grahams character in the film), until she died, less than 9 years later, at just 55... It's too painful for me to watch.

... The Faculty Council has Decreed it to Be So...

The thing you have to remember about the left, is that they do not live in the same universe as the non left... Their fictional reality construct simply superficially overlaps with ours... at least in their heads..

The mainstream left, are collectivist paternalistis down to their very core... 

The faculty council has decreed that the sky is tangerine, therefore the sky is tangerine. 

Being collectivist paternalists, they literally cannot conceive of a world where individuals are competent to make their own decisions, about their own lives, without society having a veto... or in fact a right of review and refusal for any and all behavior period. In their universe, someone is always in charge, and always has the power to make and enforce the decisions and dictates of society.

... or at least there SHOULD be...

The rules are set by the good and smart people who are in charge, and if you follow them you will be properly rewarded, and if you don't follow them you will be properly punished,, all as decided by the people in charge. 

The wages will be set, and the prices will be decided on, and if it isn't fair, well, then the people in charge have the power to fix it and change it. If they don't, it must be because they've been corrupted by the special interests, and are rigging the system for the bad guys.

Because the sky is tangerine... The faculty council says so. 

The left live in a world consisting of repeated games of "mother may I", where some grand overseer must give their approval, and the operative question is always "who told you that you were allowed to do that?".

In fact we can simplify this construct... In their fundamental conception of reality, everything is forbidden, unless specifically allowed by "society", where someone is always in charge, and run jjng the game, and setting the rules, and deciding who wins and who loses and what the rules are... and this is called freedom. 

In their universe, "rights" are created and granted by society, through the state, and they mean whatever society decides they mean, which is subject to change any time society decides. Their world is one where the universe is owned and conrolled by "society" and society has to approve of your choices and behavior before they are allowed. 

Essentially opposite to actual reality... which makes their insistence that they are the only people who ACTUALLY want and provide freedom and rights for the individual... 

... I would say tragically and absurdly amusing...

... but honestly... The amusement fades very quickly, leaving only the tragic parodies of "freedom", and "rights,; wherein we are all nothing but serfs, bound involuntarily to a semi-autonomous collective, the rulers of which decide what we are allowed to do, what we are allowed to be... the basic freedoms and constraints on our lives.... all decided on by the people in charge... 

Which is why it's so important that THE RIGHT PEOPLE absolutely MUST be put in charge, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY... so that way, THE RIGHT PEOPLE can make sure that the game is fair and everyone gets what they deserve, and no-one goes hungry, and everyone makes a living wage... all because THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN CHARGE decree it to be so. 

If it doesn't work out ffhat way, then it simply MUST be, because THE WRONG PEOPLE are I charge, and theyre rigging the game for their cronies and the special interests... 

Remember... They live in a world where the sky is colored tangerine, because the people in charge say so... 

As if this level of control were actually possible... 

Society (in fact, all notional collective constructs are...,but society is the overarching construct of the colllectivists, within which all other constructs must exist) is an illusion... a useful and convenient fictional social construct. It has no more extant substance than any other ephemeral notion passing through any individuals head. It gains form, shape, and power... pseudo-existence,  and the superficial trappings of substance.. from the individuals within it, from which it has no separate existence, and no rights, privileges, or powers not delegated to it by those individuals...

... Though in the leftist conception, it then arrogates to itself ALL powers, privileges, rights, and other things, which it then controls, manages, and distributes as it sees fit, according to the rules of the game, and run for the benefit of the people...

... because tangerine sky, remember?

I can prove to you that society is a collective illusory construct in one paragraph:

Without individuals, there is no society... yet without society, there are still individuals. Society is nothing but a construct of their choices and actions, granting notional existence through the force of collective belief, and collective choice.  It exists nowhere but in the minds of those interacting with it. 

Sadly, this does not mean that society can be whatever we choose it to be... It is still limited by the fundamental nature, and the constraints which lie upon, the individuals that make it up... It can have no powers beyond those of the individuals within it. 

... that is... inconvenient... for the left, as their notions of society require it to have perfect information, perfect reason, and  perfect monopoly over the legitimate use of collective force....

..Which of course, society does not, and can not have, because no individuals have these powers, thus no collective composed of such individuals could have any capacity for such powers, approaching anything near to perfection.... nor any other capacity of such scope and dominion, across all knowledge, skills, attributes, and powers.

As such, in order to preserve the illusion, the left pretends that all they wish reality to be, is either already achieved, or will be, as soon as those stopping it from happening, get out of the way, or are defeated.

Any who challenge these absurd fictions must be first dismissed, then destroyed... because the left are fully committed to the notion, that so long as society BELIEVES something to be right and true and good; this automatically makes it so.

It only takes a few who refuse to play along... or who wish to expose specifically the fundamental impossibility of the social constructs they wish to impose, the powers they do not have. The outcomes they cannot possibly achieve... for their collective counterfactual fantasy construct to collapse.... because no, we don't live on a planet with a tangerine sky... no matter that the faculty council decree it is so. 

There is no better man, evolved and perfected through society... there is no perfect system, driven by perfect information and perfect reason, and there cannot be. Thus, utopian ideals and the constructs they create according to them, always and inevitably must fail.... surely as any castle with its foundation set in shifting sand, must inevitably crack and collapse.

Much as Stalin could never acknowledge the inevitable failure of his five year plans...the left can never acknowledge the failure in their own reason...

.... The ideas and the plans and the constructs MUST be sucessful.. they must, because the faculty council  has decreed that reality is this way and works this way, and because their ideas are good and right, and must be imposed on all .

They must be, because all good people in society believe in them... and because all good people believe them, all people who believe thrm are food... only those who are bad dont believe them, and everyone who does not believe them is bad... ignore the circularity, tautology is perfect argument after all right? There are no flaws, therefore it is perfect and true... all according to the will of the collective and the dictates of the faculty council. 

...if their notions fail it can't possibly be because theyre impossible or stupid... all good people believe in them and insist they must work, therefore that is reality... society has dictated it. If there are failure, it must be because the bad tninkers... The ones who are against the rules of the faculty cohncil... are actively preventing the inevitable success of the superior and more enlightened plan...

... After all... all good and right thinking people believe it to be true... It must be true... right?

... and I MUST be good, and justified, and enlightened, because I believe what all good and right people believe, as dictated by the faculty council... 

...The sky is tangerine... 

...the faculty council has decreed it to be so...

When all you know is the talking points....

Any time someone starts shouting about the NRA buying people off, or shilling for the gun industry, I know they're an ignorant and lazy fool, simply parroting a party line fed to them by someone else. 

First, the NRA is not an industry lobby, it is a membership organization, acting in the interests of it's 5 million members...  

There IS a "gun industry" lobbying organization, it's called the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the NSSF), and they do a very good job of lobbying for the shooting sports industry as a whole... but they don't actually spend much money doing so, relative to the size of the firearms industry as a whole, or relative to other industry lobbying groups... all of which are utterly dwarfed by the public sector and union lobbies.

The NRA (including the NRA-ILA) is entirely funded by small contributions from it's membership (currently standing at appx. 5 million members), of under $1,000 each. There is no "gun industry money"... if there were it would have to be disclosed, and the FEC filings show nothing at all.

And as far as the "NRA money", the NRA isn't even in the top 500 donors to Republicans or Democrats most years... in fact taken together, individuals and political organizations and lobbyists explicitly advocating for and supporting gun control, give more than 100 times as much money to Democrats and the Democratic party, as the NRA and NSSF combined give to BOTH parties and their candidates combined.

The average donation the NRA gives to any specific candidate or officeholder is just $2,000 per year. 

For the 2016 federal election cycle the NRA and all its affiliates was 488th in donations to parties or candidates... donating just  $1.1 million dollars total for all 470-ish federal races in 2016, with their single largest donation to any candidate being $9,900... and 159th in money spent on lobbying for or against issues or candidates, at just about $3.2 million TOTAL for all federal issues, legislation, or candidates.

Just as a comparison, ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL whose primary cause is gun control, donated more to anti-gun activities... $36 million in 2016... including contributions to congressmen and senators, and spends more on anti-gun lobbying every year, than the entire NRA and all its affiliates.... And the Democratic party has a couple dozen of these individual megadonors, and a couple hundred "bundlers" who bundle up anti-gun money. from individuals every year. Another one of their individual megadonors spent 78 million... Though he has TWO issues, climate change and gun control, not just the one. 

The average member of congress.. both house and senate... spends about $2 million a year on campaigning and other partisan political costs. The $9,900 they get from the NRA isn't what sways their votes... it's the FIVE MILLION NRA members who call their offices several times a year, or send letters, postcards, and emails... 

...The NRA sends a lot of postcards and emails to it's members, asking them to call their congressman or senator, about specific issues and legislation... I get several emails a week and a few mailings every month... even the occasional phone call... 

The NRA gives FAR less money total each year, than just as an example, the national dairy farmers association, the national realtor association,  or pretty much any industry lobby...never mind the unions which dwarf all industry lobbies COMBINED... why? 

Because, ONCE AGAIN, the NRA is not an industry lobbying group, it's a membership organization promoting proficiency and safety in the shooting sports. The vast majority of the NRAs money... about 80%... goes to it's actual core mission of promoting firearms proficiency and safety. About 5% goes towards fundraising.

The specific legislative action arm, the NRA-ILA accounts for less than 15% of the NRAs spending annually. The NRA-ILA, gives less in TEN YEARS than any of the top 100 donor groups give in a single year... And again, they don't lobby for the firearms industry, they lobby for individual rights. 

The NRA-ILA lobby for laws and regulations, federally, and in all fifty states, which respect and protect the fundamental, inherent, and pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms, for all lawful purposes. 

That's not the NRAs language by the way, it's the constitution's, and the supreme court's. Read DC v. Heller if you're confused.

Oh and by the by, the NRA are non-partisan, and historically speaking, in any given year, about 15-20% of their contributions go to Democrats. Which they actually catch hell for from conservative NRA members who tend to forget that we need pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans. Though in 2016 it was unsual... They only opposed 2 republicans and only supported 11 democrats. 

Since anyone ranting about the NRA can't even be bothered to find out the most basic facts surrounding their fallacious farce of a non-argument; they can, and should be, at best ignored, if not actually mocked.

That Word... I don't think it means, what you think it means....

"Oh those RINOs and NEO-CONS won't do anything... we have to purge the party of these spineless unprincipled traitors"

It's kinda funny... I generally find most who use the terms neo-con or RINO, except ironically or as a joke, to be unable to define either in a meaningful way.

Much as George Orwell wrote about the term "fascism" in "Politics and the English Language",   for almost everyone using the terms, "RINO" and "NEO-CON", are just signifiers for "things and people I don't like".

Thing is... The only current Republican members of congress (both house and senate) who can fairly be called "RINO", are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Brian Fitzpatrick, Chris Smith, John Katko, and Jeff VanDrew (who actually was a democrat until last year).

Everyone else, is absolutely within the "normal spread" of positions for Republicans... That includes Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Fred Upton, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and most of the other congresscritters (not on the RINO list above) that voted to impeach Trump.

In fact, several of those that voted for impeachment, are notably far MORE conservative than Trump... The first couple I mentioned above have lifetime ratings over 90%  from the American conservative union, and almost always vote with the party (they're available online from  acuratings dot conservative dot org /acu-federal-legislative-ratings/ )

The first major mistake many make, is in thinking that loyalty to, or agreement with, Donald Trump; is any kind of criteria for being a Republican, or a conservative... Since Trump was and is, neither of those things. Trump is an ACTUAL Republican in name only, and always has been... He was officially a democrat, until he needed to be a Republican, at which point he officially signed up to be a republican... but he never actually changed anything other than the initial beside his name. 

The second, and fundamental mistake however, is in thinking the republican party is actually conservative, or in fact has EVER been conservative, by any meaningful definition of the term (except perhaps, relative to the actual left). 

The Republican party is, and since reconstruction mostly has been, a moderate centrist party about MOST things... Generally averse to change and risk, and generally collegial in reality, regardless of the rhetoric fed to the base for fundraising purposes. 

Even Reagan wasn't ACTUALLY conservative... He talked a good game, but in reality, he was as much a "neo-con" as Bill Kristol.

Barry Goldwater was the closest thing to an actual conservative in the post war Republican party... and he was really more libertarian than conservative by modern sensibilities (though he of course considered himself to be conservative, and was mostly thought of as such in his time). Before Goldwater, you need to go back to Coolidge to get an actual conservative.... and before that... Ummm... 

.... Yeah... Look at the history... The Republican party is NOT conservative, and never really has been. 

Historically speaking, post reconstruction, the majority of the republican party, has been in the mold of Bush the elder, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover... RELATIVELY conservative compared to "progressive" leftists in the democratic party, they're still for Big Government, just not AS big as Democrats. They're still just as paternalist as Dems, only about different things in different ways. They're in favor of plenty of control, intervention, and regulation, on both social and economic issues... because everyone has their "special" cases, and those "special pleadings" add up. 

Reagan was a near literal revolution in the party, and he wasn't even actually that conservative... He was RHETORICALLY conservative, but in fact he governed as what most who identify as "conservative" today (who, mostly, are very definitely NOT conservative in any meaningful way), would call a RINO... Or if they actually knew what the term means, pretty close to a neo-con. He was a free spending, massive debt accumulating, heavily interventionist in domestic affairs, heavily interventionist in foreign affairs, massively intrusive, NON-conservative; by anything like a reasonable definition of the term. He just TALKED about being otherwise... and how that was better.

... Which it IS... but he didn't even try to actually govern that way...

In fact, the Reagan administration and Republican congressional leadership, essentially made what some might consider a "corrupt bargain" with the Democratic senate majority leader Robert Byrd (for the first and last years of his term... the Republicans had a narrow senate majority for 6 of Reagans 8 years) and Democratic speaker of the house during his presidency Tip O'neil (all but the last few months anyway); wherein the Republicans got most of THEIR spending priorities passed through congress and signed by the president, and in exchange, so did the Democrats... and both knew that was happening, so they were able to freely posture, to raise money off "fighting for their constituency", while in reality, there was always a deal to be made.

Which ACTUALLY meant that the government was doing FAR MORE than it had ever done since WW2... And not coincidentally SPENDING far more than it had since WW2, and accumulating FAR MORE DEBT than it had since WW2. 

The fact is, Goldwater and Coolidge were major outliers, and exceptions to the general run of Republican candidates and presidents... and were largely unpopular within the party because of it. 

For that matter, Reagan was also unpopular within the party, until he placated the southern religious social conservatives after his brokered convention loss in '76 (which happened in the first place, because he offended said southern religious social conservatives, in an attempt to gain broad centrist appeal, by selecting a more liberal Republican running mate, and saying a few things the leaders of that block didn't care for...   Had he not pissed off the southern faction of the leadership, Reagan would have won the nomination in '76... but probably lost the presidency).

The social conservatives have never actually been a majority in the party... Only a plurality... A little less than 40% at peak... but they're a very LOUD plurality minority... and those opposed to them are very LOUD too, about how big and bad the social conservatives are; making them seem like they were and are much more powerful and consequential than they actually are... or for that matter, much more conservative, and much more principled and consistent than they actually are. 

... But every national candidate in the Republican party has to make the southern religious social conservatives at least tolerate them, because said southern social conservatives have enough power and mass to BLOCK someone. They can't actually MAKE the king... as I said, they're less than 40%... but they can keep someone from being crowned, and no other single block is able to do so, because no other single block is more than about 25% of the party... Nor is any other single block motivated and organized enough to do so. 

But that doesn't make the party actually conservative, or actually socially conservative, at the national level (local is an entirely different story... State and local level politics are a totally different beast). 

One other thing the party has very firmly NOT been, along with "actually conservative" is POPULIST... In fact, they've GENERALLY been rather the opposite, at least when it comes to national and international issues and policies (local is a different matter entirely). 

Until Trump that is... 

Or at least the Republican party hasn't been populist since the FIRST Roosevelt... who was VERY firmly a populist progressive (Hoover wasn't a populist by nature, but he took some seemingly populist... and quite harmful... actions based on some truly epically bad advice from his cabinet and congressional caucus)... 

Actually, TR would have been a quite "progressive" democrat in the post WW2 period up through the late 60s or so, and he had a disturbing tendency towards fascism (seems to have run in the family).

Hell... TR could easily have been LBJ, or his cousin Franklin...

...He wanted strong social safety nets set up and paid for by government, with socialized pensions and healthcare. He was for strong protectionist tariffs and strongly against free trade. He was pro-union and anti-corporation to a shocking degree, and he was pro-government regulation of almost everything. Read "The New Nationalism", and it's like postwar democrats fantasy platform...

...except that TR was personally moral and ethical, unlike the thoroughly unethical, amoral, and frankly evil, racist rapist that LBJ was.

So... if you're an actual conservative or libertarian or "conservatarian", guess what... YOU are the one who is a Republican in name only.

If you're one of those who is using RINO as an insult to describe Republican party members who aren't at all conservative, you've got the perspective reversed, because THEY ARE THE PARTY; not the conservatives and libertarians, who generally VOTE republican, because they are less awful than the realistic alternatives.

... If you think about what the party actually is, as opposed to what you think it SHOULD BE... Well... RINO... isn't an insult, or at least it shouldn't be. It's kinda like that line "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer".

Intel Evaluation

I've explained this before based on other intelligence documents and situations such as Manning, Snowden, the Clinton emails etc... seems that it's time to explain it again...

Standard methodology for evaluating the qualify and reliability of information is a matrix.. often a 5x5 matrix with 1 axis numbered 1 through 5, the other axis A through F.

The first axis is the quality of data.... what does the source have DIRECT primary access to, what do they have 2nd order access to... information once removed from direct access, which is confirmable by at least two direct independent sources. What information do they have indirect access to for background information, not considered a primary or secondary source for confirmation. 

Then the second axis of the matrix, is how reliable the data from that  asset or source are likely to be. This is ranked based on the asset or sources provable access to the information they have provided, their motivation, their known biases, and their history of reliability (or unreliability).

In this case, lower numbers and letters are better...something graded as A1 would have have a numerical score of 1, meaning it was considered 100% reliable, and confirmed. Only items graded in the top two grades of both quality and reliability can be considered confirmed or very likely/highest confidence. Only items in the top three grades of both quality and reliability can be considered likely or higher, and then only with multiple independent confirming sources of that grade or better. 

 Anything with a value worse than 3 OR C can only be considered background information unless confirmed with at least 1 independent source of grade B2 or better, and cannot be considered likely or better without two independent sources of grade B2 or better. 

There is an inflection point at the third grades of reliability and quality... even without further confirmation, information graded better than that point is considered to be more likely to be correct and reliable than not. Without further confirmation, Information graded worse than that point is to be considered more likely to be incorrect, deceptive or misleading, than correct. Anything straddling the line is considered to be downgraded unless it is further confirmed. 

For example, something rated C3 can only be considered at most 10% likely without further confirmation, and can never be considered more than 90% likely to be correct, even with three independent confirming sources, unless those sources are themselves better than grade C3. 

Thus simply gathering MORE data cannot upgrade a C to a B, or a 3 to a 2, unless that data is provably of higher quality and reliability. 

Information in the worst two quality or reliability grades... D or f, and 4 or 5... is only be considered as background information, rumor, "buzz" or noise... it may indicated rumors which are inaccurate but commonly circulated or believed among the population for example. An item rated as F5 has a maximum likelihood of only 25%, and that is with at least 4 confirming sources of grade D or F etc.... etc... Items in these categories may also be known to be, or considered likely to be, deceptive, incomplete, or have major errors.

So information  graded as B2 or better, can generally be considered to be likely or better, and thus potentially actionable. Anything below B2 should not be considered to be reliable or likely to be true. Anything worse than C3 should be considered to be at best unconfirmed rumor, and may be actively unreliable and deceptive, unless multiple independent confirmations are available.

Information graded C3 may in some circumstances be considered actionable; if there is both sufficient confirmation of the information to believe it is likely or better, AND the information and action taken in response to it, is sufficiently critical, or the risk associated with NOT acting on that information is sufficiently high... however at all times you must remember you are not action on high confidence data, and caution must be taken to ensure that you do not take action which may not be justified by the information you have available, and its quality or reliability. Thus the action taken should primarily be focused on mitigating risk, and improving the quality and reliability of your data, so that you CAN act on high confidence data as is appropriate.

... You should not be shooting or arresting anyone, or swearing out any warrants, based on C3 data... but if the C3 data is sufficiently important AND there is sufficient confirmation of it that it could be considered likely but low confidence, then it's appropriate to continue investigation to try to confirm or disprove that information... just as a "for instance"... 

Special weight in assessing the quality and reliability of a source or asset and their data;  is given to any  history of intentional or calculated obfuscation, manipulation, or deceptiveness ...as opposed to honest error, or unintentional manipulation (due to personal, or institutional biases for example... often individuals, organizations, government entities etc... lie to themselves, because their personal or internal institutional biases, or their political biases, dictate their view of "reality")... Has the source or asset fabricated, manipulated, or specifically framed the data they have provided to you, to present an inaccurate or biased picture with the data overall. If so, what agenda or biases did they frame the data to, and how did they do so? 

Notably, any history of intentional deceptiveness permanently downgrades a source or asset, such that they cannot be considered a confirmed or confirmable primary source in the top two categories of reliability... on an A to F scale, their data can never be considered higher than a C without at least two independent confirmations. 

Which brings us to the Fusion GPS "Steele Dossier"...

Put simply... the dossier is not an intelligence document. At all. It is a random assemblage of D3-D5 and F3-F5 grade junk, with with a few pieces of actual C3 and better data available from public and open sources, and little bits of other confirmable but only vaguely related data to make it seem more reliable and more significant than it is. 

There are no pieces of useful or actionable information outside of those confirmed in open sources, that can be considered confirmed, reliable, likely, or even of sufficient quality to be included as possible background information. The sourcing is non existent, or even clearly and actively disinformation. Both the quality, and the reliability of the data are actively negative... unclassifiable as anything other than garbage or deliberate deception and disinformation... Further, the document was created by and for parties with known direct and admitted bias, and deceptive and manipulative history... this makes the dossier a clear piece of active disinformation... as anyone who has ever evaluated intelligence... or civil or criminal evidence... could tell you within seconds of looking at it.

That includes congress critters with intelligence oversight, and other politicians and appointees who have such experience. It for damn sure includes FBI agents, and u.s. attorneys looking for legally actionable probable cause.

Anyone claiming any kind of actionable intelligence, or anything remotely like sufficient probable cause for any kind of warrant or court order came from that document, is actively and intentioinally being deceptive and manipulative.... and in the case of any sworn law officer, or officer of the court, they are committing misconduct if they claim any such thing.

Now... If that ain't funny... I don't know what is...

In case you haven't noticed, I have a somewhat odd, absurd, and dark sense of humor... Given my background it would be amazing if I didn't. 

Obviously, as a cancer warrior, I am among the more heavily medicated humans, not actually residing in a long term care facility. 

I take something like ... I think it's 17 maybe, it's easy to lose track, and miss one or two?.. different medications on a daily basis, and a couple more on a weekly or monthly basis; between cancer and associated paraneoplastic syndrome, endocrine dysfunction (or total lack of function, since my thyroid was removed in 2012), nerve damage, autoimmune inflammatory issues and arthritis, and every other damn thing wrong with me.   

Funny thing about cancer, and cancer treatment; especially endocrine cancer with paraneoplastic syndrome... you end up taking a lot of odd medications for odd reasons.

Paraneoplastic syndrome makes you have symptoms of diseases you don't have, because it causes your body to not make some hormones, and make too much of others. Endocrine cancer does that already even without the paraneoplastic syndrome.... So you end up with issues that seemingly have nothing to do with where your cancer is, or what kind of cancer it is...  And the treatments for the cancer have odd side effects on top of that.

... Thing is... I actually do think it's funny. It's really quite absurd just how hard everything is trying to kill me, and that I'm alive at all.. And with my twisted sense of humor, I find it all utterly hilarious in its absurdity... 

One thing I find particularly absurdly funny, is that I spent decades in competitive physical pursuits... weight lifting, football, wrestling, jiujitsu, etc... And never took "performance enhancing substances" more serious than ECA...

... Side Note: ECA is Ephedrine (or pseudoephedrine), Caffeine, and Aspirin. Three completely legal over the counter drugs which in combination can slightly improve oxygen uptake and aerobic performance; and improve energy, focus, and alertness... mostly it's like drinking several cups of strong coffee, and many people take that combination every day without even knowing or thinking about it...  

... And yet now, as a middle aged nearly bedridden man, I take enough testosterone, and dextroamphetamine, to rival an 80's WWF wrestler. Sadly, not to "enhance performance", but just to not lose all my muscle tone and muscle mass, and to stay awake and be able to focus enough to be functional.

Another thing I find absurdly funny, is some of the actual drugs I take, and what they're usually prescribed for, vs. what I actually take them for. 

Right now, I take EIGHT different drugs that have significant anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, or anti-psychotic effects; five of which are actually specifically considered antidepressants or antipsychotics... 

Meaning those meds are often or primarily prescribed as first line or second line treatments for depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, OCD, various psychoses, and even schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (oh, and three more meds... hormones... that aren't used specifically for those issues, but which also tend to help with them).

... And I don't suffer from any of those issues, and I'm not prescribed any of those meds for treatment of those issues...

So what am I prescribed them for? 

Well, as it turns out, we don't really understand either neurological pain, or nausea... I'm tempted to say "at all" but I suppose we have some small understanding of them in some ways; just not very much. 

Other than obvious issues like organ or other discrete specific systemic dysfunction, physical damage, dehydration, clear blood chemistry issues, or severe vitamin, mineral, or other nutritional deficiencies; we don't really know what causes either, and we don't really know how either work. 

As such, we don't really know why many medications that may help some people to relieve either of those sets of symptoms, work on those sets of symptoms; or why some  meds work for some people, and not for others; or why they work great for some and barely work for others; or they work in combination with other meds for some, but not for others.

Hell... some meds can work great for one persons neuropathic issues or nausea, and the next person can have a paradoxical effect and those meds make the problem worse. I've had that happen with several different meds over the past 15 years.   

So, you end up cycling through various medications, and cycling up and down dosages, and cycling in and out of combinations of different meds; hoping that this one or that one will work for you, or this or that combination or dosage will work etc... etc... 

It can be maddening... sometimes literally, because of the side effects.... but it's so absurd, I can't help but find it funny. 

Three of those eight medications, I take to treat moderate to intermittently severe cancer and cancer treatment related nausea. For whatever reason, most nausea meds, are also antipsychotic meds, or from the reverse perspective many anti-psychotics are also effective for some or most people at reducing nausea. We have no idea why. 

Two of them are to treat a combination of both ADHD, and severe fatigue, and sleep dysfunction. We don't know why or how one of those meds works either, except that it seems to temporarily suppress the brains fatigue response. Both also tend to reduce depression and anxiety in some people (and paradoxically increase them in some others). 

The other three, are all for neuropathic pain and other nerve damage related symptoms... and again we don't know why, but a lot of antidepressant or antipsychotic drugs, are also effective for SOME people to SOME degree, in treating neuropathic pain and associated issues. For some folks they work completely, for others they barely work at all, or they work in combination but not singly, and we have almost no idea how or why.

Reading that, a lot of people will have the instinctive response "no, bad, wrong, the problem is all those medications, you should stop taking all of them and just do XYZ"... whatever they thing XYZ may be.

No.

I've been going through this for 15 years now... I've done all the experimenting and testing with my body and what goes into it, and where I'm at right now, if I remove or reduce any of my meds, it makes things worse. Sometimes MUCH worse. Sometimes INTOLERABLY worse. 

I HAVE done the "stop everything and start over" thing, a couple times now; all under doctors supervision, because the docs were concerned about the number and dosage of my meds and their interactions as well. It resulted in me being completely non-functional, or almost killed me, each time. 

It's not like my docs and I haven't thought of this, and tried, and tested it... and it's not like my doctors are trying to pump me full of medications I don't need. Every single one of my docs is trying to MINIMIZE the medications and dosages I take... and this is the minimum right now.

... In fact, it's below minimum on a couple of them, because one of my docs is TERRIFIED of how screwed up my system is, and how high my dosages have to be just to work (I literally take what should be a lethal overdose of a couple of my meds, and they just barely work at those dosage levels) and is erring on the side of caution as we slowly and incrementally bump the dosages up every few months, as she sees the lower dosages aren't doing enough... 

Oh, and before someone chimes in with "just smoke weed"/"just use thc/cbd edibles"/"just take cbd"... I've tried. Not only do they not help even with my nausea, they actually make the nausea worse. They work great for some people... I'm not one of those people. 

Once the cancer is knocked down a lot, then I will be able to drop dosages on some meds, and likely drop some entirely. It's what happened each of the last four times. 

What you've got to understand, is that cancer... particularly endocrine cancer...  is a systemic disease. It causes every part of your body to malfunction and every system to dysfunction... and you have to manage that, or those malfunctions and dysfunctions can and WILL kill you. 

...In fact, it's very rarely the cancer itself that kills you directly, its the combination of all the other issues the cancer causes, simply overwhelming  your bodies ability to function.

That said... I am certainly looking forward to the day I can stop taking about half of the meds I currently take... which I will be able to, if this time is like the last four times Ive been through this. Within a few months of the cancer going into remission or being removed, I was able to drop MOST of my meds. 

... Not all by any means though... Since some of my meds aren't for the cancer and side effects (ADHD, inflammation and arthritis, some of the nerve issues), and the cancer itself has done some permanent damage, requiring medication for the rest of my life (thyroid meds for example, and some of the nerve meds). 

All of which together is why I say, how can this NOT be funny? It's so completely absurd, its barely believable... and in fact my docs often DON'T believe it until they see it themselves. They don't believe the tests, or the past records because "that can't possibly be right... you'd be dead... you shouldn't be able to walk, or stay conscious, or your heart or brain should have failed already". 

... Yup... 

If that aint frikken hilarious, what the hell is?

The biggest form of theft in this country BY FAR

A friend wrote a post mentioning that the vast majority of theft in the United States, as measured by monetary value, is wage theft.

In fact, it dwarfs all other forms of theft or criminal damage combined.

Some random commenter said effectively "sounds like Marxism to me".

Sure.... if you don't actually  think, and just react emotionally... Thus the term Reactionary.

Yes, really, wage theft is a MASSIVE problem in this country... and most people already know this in the back of their mind, they just never really think about it as theft.. or at all.

Wage theft is employers requiring, and taking, more of employee time, effort, skills, energy, and other resources and considerations; than the employee agreed to provide as part of their employment; in exchange for the agreed compensation and other consideration from the employer; or the employer not tendering the compensation or other consideration agreed on, for such labor, work, or other consideration provided by the employee. 

If they make you work without pay, it's wage theft. If they make you do extra work and don't pay extra, it's wage theft. If they don't pay you for the work you did (to an agreed standard), at their request and on their behalf, it's wage theft.

The concept of wage theft isn't left wing... In fact, its about as individualist as you can possibly get... its about self ownership... who owns your body, your time, your actions and outputs, and who receives the fruits of your labor. 

Ulltimately wage theft boils down to property and contract rights... And unfortunately, most people have too much of a serfdom mentality to try to do something about it on their own, for themselves... Or they just think its hopeless and that they have to put up with it no matter what.... if they even think of it at all.

...And it's INCREDIBLY wide spread... In fact, it's almost everywhere. It's SO common, that most people think it's normal and even acceptable... just because "it's the system" or "it's always been like that", or "they're the boss they make the rules" etc... etc... 

And it's by no means  limited to unscrupulous low wage employers, and illegals or people who can't get other better jobs, oe to retail, hospitality, and food service hourly jobs. It's endemic to entire industries and huge segments of the economy, and to the organizational cultures of many companies across basically every industry.

...The entire IT industry, runs on MASSIVE amounts of wage theft. As currently practiced, IT in this country would literally collapse without it.

...Most commission sales jobs, are RIFE with wage theft.

...Most junior to mid level "white collar" management jobs, run on wage theft.

Mandatory unpaid overtime, outside of any agreement accepting it as a job requirement (or requiring it regularly or routinely, instead of as a temporary short term measure, effectively making what should be overtime simply the expected regular working hours) and without compensatory time or other agreed, or fair value consideration, is wage theft.

Now, do you see how big the problem is?

Think about any business, any job you've had, any job your friends have had, your kids, your family members... You absolutely have heard stories of wage theft, if you haven't seen or experienced it yourself. 

Most employers don't even know they're doing it, because they simply don't think of it that way... or at all. Often an employer won't explicitly require or endorse such things, and may even have explicit policies against it... especially very large employers... But in order to make quotas or meet standards, or not bust metrics etc... lower level managers end up doing so. Not because they're trying to steal for their own gain, but because they feel that theyll lose their jobs if they don't, because the quotas and stand etc... can't be met with the staff hours they legitimately have to allocate to the work. In the worst offenders, an entire organization may develop a culture of wage theft where it is not just normal and expected, but required, and anyone who doesn't "fit in" loses their job. 

Requiring employees to perform tasks or take on duties, or responsibilities, outside their agreed job descriptions defined or customary tasks, duties, and responsibilities; that are normally compensated higher than their agreed comoensation; or requiring them to take on such on, in addition to their normal work, without additional agreed on compensation, or other agreed or fair value consideration; is wage theft.

Requiring hourly employees to work off the clock, is wage theft. 

"Docking" someone's pay, meaning not paying them for time they were working or work they were doing for their employer, because they did not meet required standards for such work may be allowed depending on the state. HOWEVER doing so in excess of any hours or tasks not performed to standard, and requiring that employee to work those additional hours or perform those additional tasks without compensation, IS wage theft.

...Meaning you can't punish someone for screwing up part of their shift, by making them work the rest of their shift and not paying them for it. Or if someone is paid on a per task or per unit basis or on a quota system, you can't not pay them if they don't meet quotas, or not pay them for the work, tasks, or pieces that met standards that they actually did. You can only withold pay for work not performed to standard. Anything else is wage theft. 

Defining some tasks, duties, or responsibilities required for the job as "uncompensated" or "off the clock", ir simply "not work"; such as preparing or cleaning up a workspace before and after business hours or assigned shifts, or travel to and from a work site other than ones primary work site (or if travel is a normal part of the job,  travel requiring greater time and expense than travel to ones normal worksite)... yeah, again, that's wage theft. 

Any time an employer REQUIRES, as a condition of employment, an employee to give more to the employer than they agreed to as part of their job, for their agreed on compensation; without additional agreed compensation or consideration, for that additional consideration given by the employee... that IS wage theft.

...Note... I use the term "fair consideration" in this piece more than a couple times, because it's an important concept in contracts law. Especially when you get into implied contracts, or implied changes outside of what's originally on paper. Essentially, a court can decide that a contract is invalid or unenforceable if one or both parties do not tender the agreed consideration exaxtly as agreed. However if strictly enforced, this would make changing anything within a contract, or any of the expectations, circumstances, or conditions of any contract, functionally inflexible... it would be harmful and destructive to all parties. To deal with messy reality, there is flexibility under contract law, to respond to changing circumstances and requirements, without having to redraft and renegotiate any and every little thing. And that means implied contracts as well as explicit ones... including implied employment contracts. So, it is entirely acceptable to add to or change such contracts provided all parties agree, and provided that reasonable consideration is offered and accepted for these new circumstances terms and conditions by both parties. If no such explicit negotion or agreement occurs, the contract can still be valid, so long as all parties give fair consideration, in exchange for fair consideration given by the other parties. If not, a court or mediator may decide that the implied contract was invalid, and cannot be enforced, or if the consideration from one party has already been tendered and accepted by the other parties, and cannot be returned at no loss of value or cost to the tendering party,  the other party or parties may be required to tender reasonable or fair consideration (different states word things a little differently) for what has already been tendered and accepted.... and in fact may be required to tender additional compensation, or other consideration. They may even be subject to additional compensatory or punitive damages if they acted improperly and caused harms (or other tortuous damage) to another party, or in the case of clear bad faith actions, egregious abuse, or outright fraud or other criminal behavior.

...Meaning that if an employer says to an employee "I need you to work extra hours", and the employee does so, even though the two parties didn't make an explicit contract specifying compensation or other consideration for those extra hours, the employer still has to compensate the employee... offer and tender reasonable or fair consideration... for the labor or other work or consideration provided by the employee. Unless the employee agreed to be paid less than fair market value, or less than customary wage etc... the employer has to pay fair value or customary wage etc... (including overtime pay at a higher rate if that is either agreed on, or customary), or some other consideration of fair value. 

...Unless the employee agrees to it, because they believe they are being given fair value consideration in return; in the experience they gain, and the opportunity for education and advancement they get from doing so. That's a perfectly valid exchange of fair consideration... Everyone has the right to agree to not be compensated directly for their labor or other work or consideration; it's part of our freedom to form contracts and associations, and pursue our own benefit and interest, as we see fit. 

That's how almost all executive compensation works. It's how most junior level salaried medical jobs work. It's how most junior engineering jobs work... It's basically how STEM functions period. It's how lower level financial and legal jobs function... Basically any "professional" salaried job, or "incentive compensated" job requiring extensive education, possibly requiring professional certification, and which takes a good deal of experience to become proficient and sucessful at... thats how you get that experience, at the levels before the bonus compensation tiers kick in, and often its how you get to the higher bonus tiers. And of course, it's how startup companies can even exist at all, and survive to become successful established NOT startup companies.

Employees agree to that uncompensated labor now, in expectation of gaining greater value later... whether it be in direct compensation, or in equity; or because they believe doing so will allow them to get a better job with greater compensation that would make that sacrifice now, worthwhile to them.

...And within reason, that's perfectly OK.... It's how ambitious and entrepreneurial people get ahead... 

It's when an employer abuses that good faith expectation of fair value consideration... because they never intended to allow the employee to even attempt to realize fair consideration in return, or because they took what was supposed to be exceptional effort, and made it the standard, or the required minimum just to keep the job... that's when it becomes wage theft. 

Or for that matter, even if an employer intended in good faith to provide that consideration, if later on they decide they can't afford to do so, or that circumstances have otherwise changed such that they don't tender that consideration... Yeah, unless they get their employees agreement to forgo that consideration (say, because they believe the company will fail and theyll lose their jobs because of it if they don't.. or more pleasantly, they believe helping the company now, will mean they'll receive even greater compensation later when the company is more successsful) that's wage theft. 

If an employer makes their salaried employees work 60, 80, 100 hour weeks, for months on end, to get a major project done, and the employees agree to do so because of promises of stock options and bonuses and advancement... And then once the big project is finished, instead of stock options and bonuses they get laid off?

...That scenario may sound familiar to you if you know IT at all, or development, or especially game development... 

Yeah, that is absolutely wage theft. 

Any time an employer does not give the full agreed upon compensation or other consideration, for all labor or work performed by, or other fair consideration provided by the employee (to an agreed standard); including tendering  fair consideration for any additional consideration provided by the employee to the employer outside of their agreed job requirements... that IS wage theft.

Period, full stop... It's theft. Often theft and fraud, and usually in violation of numerous civil and criminal laws, codes, and regulations. 

And while it's generally pretty small on an individual scale... a few minutes here and there, a few hours every once in a while... there are many entire industries where it is endemic, as well as numerous outrageous and egregious examples, of employers effectively stealing YEARS worth of labor from their entire work force... But, even if it were only just a few dollars here and there, th scale of the entire workforce, it's billions of dollars...MANY billions of dollars.

Damn... This whole "not dying" thing is EXPENSIVE...

 Looks like my remaining pending insurance claims from October, november, and december have been processed, and so I can finally review my totals.

So for medical care, lab services, and other diagnostics, in network, I had a total of 40 claims, for $29,386.09.

For prescription medications covered in network, I had 65 claims, for $18,682.43

I paid just under $8,400 in premiums, and just over $6,000 in copays for in network or otherwise covered services, for $24,000 out of pocket, against total claims paid of $48,068.52

I also had appx. $18,000 in uncovered or out of network services that I had to pay for out of pocket. That was mostly in radiology services... both the FOUR actual CT and PET scans with contrast I had last year, and the services of the diagnostic radiologists reviewing those scans that my insurance did not cover, and some genetic testing costs they didn't cover; all of which I had to pay cash out of pocket for. 

I had about $6,000 in uncovered or out of network pharmaceutical expenses that I also had to pay cash out of pocket. 

Finally, I had  $190,400 in uncovered pharmaceutical expenses, which were covered for me by Mercks patient assistance program for Keytruda... which my insurance will not cover because it is still considered experimental for my type of cancer. Though, because I have a rare and weird kind of cancer, technically all medications are considered experimental for it... but that's another issue entirely.

 So, my total out of pocket medical expenses this past year were  about $48,000, and the theoretical gross cost of keeping me alive was close to $300,0000. 

... All of which I had to pay for out of disability insurance... including the more than two months that they never actually paid me for during my transition from short term to long term disability insurance between February and April. 

Thank GOD that long term disability insurance is not considered taxable income... And thank God, and all of you, because I had a fair few friends donate to help out this past year whEN THINGS WERE CRITICAL... Otherwise I wouldn't have made it, period. 

...And frankly, I'm expecting my out of pocket costs will be similar this year, and I'm going to have to ask for help again.... because this cancer crap is EXPENSIVE.... 

Faux insurrection, feigned outrage, and politics as usual

I am so damn tired of the left lying and pretending that the events of January 6th 2021 were an "Insurrection"... They weren't.... Nothing like it in fact. And most of the people calling it such absolutely do know better, and know they are lying, for political propaganda purposes. 

There ACTUALLY WAS an insurrection in Washington a few months earlier, just not Washington D.C. 

On june 8th of 2020, several organized groups from the far left, and other "social justice" activists, joined together to take over a large section of Seattle's capitol Hill by force. They ejected whatever elements of legitimate authority hadn't voluntarily evacuated the area, barricaded it against that lawful authority, usurped that authority with armed threats of violence, declared themselves to be a new government, of a new independent sovereign entity, separate from the city of Seattle, state of Washington, and the United States itself... And then proceeded to attempt to conduct themselves as such... Included armed parrola "policing" the area and defending the barricades... for the next few weeks, before giving up July 1st.

... And the city, county, and state governments just.. let them... Mostly without resistance or consequences... 

What happened January 6th 2021, was a political protest, that devolved into a riot; much like a few dozen other similar events that leftist mobs had been conducting in various cities around the country for the previous two years.

Whatever else you can say about it, it just was not an insurrection, in any way... Among many other reasons why not, two really stand out though:

1. If there had been an organized attempt at a "far right insurrection" it wouldn't have been a few hundred, mostly unarmed (other than a few hand guns) angry dumbasses randomly and chaotically pushing, shoving, shouting, and throwing things. It would have been  organized groups of several thousand trained men, each one having a rifle and ammunition, and knowing how to use it. 

... AND...

2. It would have succeeded... At least in the short term. 

Pretending otherwise is just pure political propaganda.

An Ignominious Anniversary

As of a few minutes ago, we've hit the 3 year anniversary of the first confirmed cases of COVID 19 outside of China.

In those 3 years, appx. 1.1 million have died in the U. S. with their proximate cause of death attributed primarily or entirely to COVID-19 (and another appx 400,000 where it was a complication but not the primary or proximate cause of death); out of approximately 100 million cases receiving some medical treatment for it, and approximate 410 thousand receiving admission to critical or intensive care and recovering. 

... That's out of the estimated 42-44% of the total U.S population, or approximately 140-146 million total individuals having been infected, according to antibody testing... 

...Also please note, that's the total number of people, not the total number of cases... A lot of folks have already had COVID more than once. Although there are no real firm numbers, it's estimated that over 18 months, approximately 20% of those who have been infected, will suffer reinfection at least once, and across the entire 3 year period, if you experienced your first infection early in the pandemic, there was about a 40% chance of suffering reinfection at least once, and about a 5% chance of reinfection more than once. I've had it twice myself confirmed with testing, and may have had it a third time (it was a presumptive positive, with full symptoms, but milder than those I'd had before. The retest was inconclusive, because my symptoms had already abated, and I'd already had it twice before)... 

That does include about 2/3 of the estimated 60% of infections that result in mild symptoms, or totally asymptomatic presentation... About 40% of those testing positive report themselves as totally asymptomatic, with another 20% reporting symptoms similar to moderate colds, moderate allergy attacks, or a mild case of flu... But that also means the actual total of individuals infected is actually likely to be approximately 178-182 million. 

So, once accounting for estimated rates of multiple infections, and estimated infections going untested and unreported, the total CASE count, is estimated at approximately 224 to 228 million total infections... Let's go with the lower estimate and round down, for appx 220 million. 

Approximately 220 million total infections, of approximately 180 million individuals, with appx. 100 million receiving medical treatment of some kind, appx. 2.9 million receiving hospital treatment, resulting in appx. 1.9 million total hospital admissions with an overnight stay or longer, and approximately 1.5 million receiving critical or intensive care (including out of hospital emergency care), with a final result of approximately 1.1 million total deaths (all these numbers are either from the CDC or calculated based off those CDC numbers). 

That by the way, is out of approximately 10.2 million deaths in the U.S. overall in those 3 years, enough to make COVID 19 the third leading cause of death for the last three years, behind heart disease and cancer, and ahead of accidental deaths and strokes. Which sounds very bad... And it's certainly not good... But it isn't really as bad as it sounds (because of how those deaths are distributed statistically and demographically, which I'll get into more below).

The official estimated mortality rate for cases requiring medical treatment is approximately 1.1%, but the overall rate, including asymptomatic and unreported cases (which obviously did not require medical treatment) is likely approximately 0.5% or approximately 1 in 200 cases. 

A perhaps more interesting set of numbers has a very significant impact on things however... Approximately 80% of all COVID fatalities were over the age of 65, and approximately 80% of those had at least one other major underlying medical issue that contributed to their outcome.

... And even more significant... Nearly 50% of all COVID deaths over the last three years, were of those over the age of 74, 44% were over the age of 77, and about 25% were over the age of 85... And again, almost 80% of those also had at least one major underlying health condition, and 40% at least two major underlying health conditions. Meaning that statistically, nearly all of those people were very likely to have died anyway of some other cause in that 3 year period. 

In epidemiology terms, anyone who died of COVID over the age of 74 with one or more major underlying health condition, was not what is called an "excess death"... Statistically, It was expected they would die in that time period.

Of the 20% of fatalities under age 65, appx 80% had at least one major underlying health issue, and appx. 40% had two or more major underlying health issues. 

When accounting for these factors, only about 40% of total COVID deaths are "excess deaths", over and above what would have been expected without COVID. 

Again, that's still very bad... I'm not saying it isn't... it's just not nearly as bad as the initial estimates, nor is it nearly as bad as most people feel and believe it has been. 

As an otherwise healthy individual under 65, your estimated mortality rate for COVID is approximately 0.02% ... Not 2%, or 2/10ths of a percent... 2/100ths of one percent. 

... Which is absolutely miniscule... Though, it's actually still the sixth leading cause of death for those under 65, over the last 3 years. 

So, counting from the appx. 220 million total infections, about 44,000 of the about 1.1 million total deaths, were of of healthy people under age 65... And that's over three years... Less than 15,000 a year if the deaths were evenly spread (of course they're not... Epidemic are always streaky and peaky).

War... what is it good for? Well... actually... NOT nothing...

 Recently, we dropped our internet service through Cox, and switched to "Quantum" fiber to the home, from century link... and we absolutely love it. It's been infinitely more reliable, and MUCH faster, with much lower latency and jitter, than the service we were receiving from Cox.

There's a number of reasons for that of course... But there's one MAJOR factor, that anyone without either a defense communications background; network engineering or other telecom, or IT; or maybe another heavily data networking dependent business (or government/defense organization); may not be aware of, or understand.

... WAR ... 

Or rather the side impacts of it anyway.

This gets a little complicated... but I personally find it fascinating, and I'm guessing a lot of my friends and readers will at least find it interesting.

In addition to having a MUCH better managed network (still pretty badly managed, but much better than Cox, which is worse than anyone other than Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T), CenturyLink has a major regional peering point (with tier 1 backbone provider Level 3, who have been their majority owner since 2017), with a corresponding major colocated service footprint, about 30 miles away from us, in southeast Phoenix/north Tempe (around McDowell and 52nd street).

The biggest reason that Level 3 ...and many others... have big regional footprints in PHX, is that there is a major interstate fiber backbone hub, with multiple tier 1 peers, physically located immediately adjacent to the Papago Park Military Reservation (also located at McDowell and 52nd street). 

That location, is not a coincidence...

PPMR is about 500 acres (adjacent to the absolutely lovely 1500ish acre Papago Park... thus the name... Which was originally a federal reservation, but was officially sold to the city of Phoenix to be a municipal park, in 1959) smack dab in the middle of the crossroads of the major southwestern transportation and logistics routes... highways and rail lines... crossing east to west, and north to south 

PPMR is less than 5 miles from I-10 and 7 miles from the intersection of I-10 and I-17 (all good 4-8 lane wide routes that can take heavy trucks and armor), which connect relatively nearby to I-8 and I-40, and from there to I-5 and I-15 to the west/north, and I-25 to the east... Thus connecting directly to San Diego, Los Angeles and all of central, coastal, and northern California; Las Vegas and Salt Lake City; Albuquerque, Colorado Springs and Denver, all of Texas etc... etc... 

PPMR is also less than a mile from Union Pacifics Phoenix spur line connection to the UP east-west main line across the southern US (about 30 miles south), and less than five miles from the terminus of BNSFs mainly north-south spur line through central arizona, connecting to the BNSF east-west main line, roughly paralleling I-40 (about 120 miles north).

All of which make it a very good strategic location for a logistics hub. 

In addition to being the headquarter for the Arizona National Guard, and the Arizona Department of Emergency Management; PPMR serves as a regional logistics and communications hub for the DOD, FEMA, and other military and defense agencies. 

Most relevant to this discussion, PPMR is a major backup hub site, for the primary defense communications and intelligence hubs at Fort Huachuca AZ (home of Army NETCOM, and the Army Intelligence center, and "other" organizations), and Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO (home of the Space Systems and Space Operations commands, NORAD... and various "other" major critical clients, of defense communications and intelligence infrastructure and traffic). It's also a secondary backup hub for Creech AFB/Nellis AFB and their major client organizations (for example, most of the nations UAV fleet are controlled out of Creech), and the Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama (including its client facilities for the DOD, and NASA).... and it has been so, since about 1951. 

This means that the FedGov has been laying communications infrastructure through that spot for defense and government use, for about 70 years now. 

In 1973, ARPA decided it needed to have one of those newly developed fiber optic networks... 

...because in addition to greater bandwidth, fiber optics couldn't tapped, monitored, or disrupted as easily as radio links, or copper lines, in event of an invasion, or nuclear war)... 

...eventually contracting with Optelecom (in fact, they helped FOUND Optelecom in 1974, spun out of IBMs federal services business group, specifically to facilitate that project) and GTE (who ended up buying Sprint) to connect critical defense installations across the country. 

In the process, they laid major backbone fiber lines across the whole country... lots and lots of what we call dark fiber... mostly paralleling the major interstate transport arteries, and particularly major rail lines, in between critical defense installations. Again, not a coincidence... GTE contracted with Union Pacific, and what eventually became BNSF... 

...(through what was at the time, the Internal Networking and Telephony (INT) division of Southern Pacific Railways (SPR) wholly owned subsidiary, Southern Pacific Communications (SPC)... it was completely spun off in 1975 to become Sprint... Which most don't know, is actually an acronym for Southern Pacific Railways Internal Networking and Telephony)...

...to lay MASSIVE amounts of both fiber, and copper, communication lines along their existing railway right-of-way networks (a long time standard practice in the telecoms industry, beginning with the original telegraph lines in the 1840s, and continued through the development of the long distance telephone network, all the way up through todays massive data networks).

Even very long haul telecoms lines need major relay and interconnection stations regionally. You can't just run a very long line directly from say, Los Angeles Air Force Base (where, just as an example, the worldwide GPS satellite network is commanded from) to Redstone Arsenal/NASA marshall space flight center, and then another directly from Vandenberg AFB (the USAF space launch center) to NASA Johnston Space Flight center in Houston, and another from LS-AFB to Peterson in Colorado Springs etc... etc...

...(LA-AFB by the way is technically in El Segundo... As it happens, a few hundred yards north from where farthest west spur of Union Pacifics, main east-west rail line, and the farthest west spur of BNSFs main east-west rail line, cross for the final time. In fact, the BNSF spur line actually runs THROUGH the LA-AFB property. 

Literally across the street on one side, is Equinix Los Angeles (and actually physically adjacent, are Northrup Grumman space and missile systems, and Raytheon space and missile systems). Just up the road (and the UP rail line) are Cogent and CoreSite (who are across the street from each other, in between LA-AFB and the railyard at the junction of I-5, I-10, and US-101); three of the largest internet communication exchange peering points, and tier 1 backbone providers serving the region (with three of the largest datacenters in the region). 

A few hundred yards up the other road towards LAX (which is also just a few hundred yards away), and clustered around LAX, are a bunch more datacenters and tier one providers.  

The other top providers facilities in the region... and most have multiple around the area... are mostly either within a few hundred yards of those locations; in a cluster in orange county near John wayne airport where the BNSF southbound spur lines terminate, and meet up with the UP main east west line, and the main spurs down to San Diego etc... ; or about 20 miles south down either that same BNSF spur, or a different UP spur,  terminating in the Port of Long Beach and San Pedro.

The comm lines that run along both sets of right of ways, terminate at a separated annex of Fort Macarthur. Fort MacArthur used to be the headquarters of missile defense and air defense commands for all of southern california, and the major regional hub for the Air Defense Command and Communications System, but has been closed down and turned into a city park, except for a small portion owned and operated by the USAF for "administrative purposes". One major reason the USAF still owns and maintains a facility at Fort MacArthur is because of the communications hub still located there, which acts as a secondary interconnect backup to LA-AFB.

From those two lines, and two interconnect points in SO-CAL (LA-AFB and Fort MacArthur), you then get two redundant paths north... the UP coastal line that runs north along US-101 and US-1 all the way up through the south and east bay; and the BNSF line that runs inland through the imperial valley, all the way up to Antioch and Concord, and back down into the east bay. 

...Oh, and the major federal defense communications hub for northern California is at Moffett Field... the location of NASA Ames research center, and up until 2010 the USAF Space Command facility at Sunnyvale Air Force Station/Onizuka Air Force Station. 

The first Federal Internet Exchange point was established in 1989 at NASA Ames, allowing different Tier 1 networking providers to connect to the ARPAnet.

This is why the area around Moffett field specifically, and through San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Fremont, and Hayward (rather than any other particular location around the Bay Area) became the early areas of highly concentrated commercial datacenters and network peering points, after the restriction of commercial use of the internet was reduced then lifted, from 1991-1993... They're all along the main union pacific right of way both coming up from Los Angeles, and coming down from Sacramento (the BNSF lines terminate in Oakland, and don't go further south. The UP lines continue north and)... and thus, theyre directly on the main tier 1 backbone connection routes, established by ARPA in the 70s. 

Post 2010, the functions of Onizuka AFS have been transferred to Vandenberg AFB... again, not coincidentally, the major Union Pacific rail line between the LA fiber hub, and the Bay Area fiber hub, literally runs directly THROUGH Vandenberg AFB)... 

... So back to Phoenix, and the problem of redundant, resilient connections across the country... 

logically, both for efficiency, and for redundancy and resiliency; as I said before the major digression above, you don't build a star shaped or hub and spoke network, you build a mesh network, with major regional hubs, all interconnected as much as possible, north, south, east, and west; so you're not bouncing back and forth across a continent, multiple times, to get data from say, LA to Colorado. 

If you're trying to connect military, NASA, and other government and defense installations in southern California, to others in NorCal, Colorado Springs, Houston Texas, Huntsville Alabama, and Cocoa Beach Florida; Arizona is the logical interconnection point along the east-west line from coast to coast, to go north, northeast, and east.... And it just so happens the rail line right of ways exist for you to lay redundant routes through two locations, and two passes through the mountains in California... One along the BNSF owned northern route parallel to I-40, and one along the Union Pacific owned route, south through Yuma. 

... And gee, guess what... that east-west UP mainline route happens to pass a score or so miles north of Fort Huachuca, and there's a southbound spur line that heads right by it... How convenient... 

... And gee, guess what... like I said above, the spur lines connecting the northern BNSF route, and the southern UP route, just happen to meet not far from Papago Park Military Reservation. 

Ok... So... it should be clear, how the defense establishment wanted to create a nuclear war resilient and redundant network of both fiber optics and copper... and why they used the railway right of ways to do it.

But there's one other way that the reason why these things are where they are is "war"... the U.S. Civil War specifically. 

A few years before the civil war, In order to give the railroad companies incentive to build rail networks across what was mostly vast empty country without cities or customers...

... east to west in between Kansas City (where the western railheads terminated at the time. Houston and Dallas were only just getting to be real cities then) and the west coast. Then north to south, between the cities on the coast, and between the few cities actually in "the west"... 

...the government passed a series of land grant acts. These act granted the railroads their right of ways, and ownership of the land around them, wherever they could lay track and connect it to a main line... With the provision, that the government could always use those lines and right of ways for defense purposes... These acts were MASSIVELY increased during the civil war, with additional contract incentives for specific strategically important rail lines to be built. 

This kicked off a huge railroad building boom, which didn't end until the late 1890s; during which, the major railroad companies built lines all throughout the still barely populated west, which would not have been profitable to build, if it were not for the land grants and incentives voted in during, and because of, the war. 

So, ever since then, government and defense communications lines, have generally been laid along railroad right of ways.

Oh... and why Papago specifically?

Well, in part it's because, as I said, its very convenient to both the rail lines, and the interstate highways in the region... and it was already a US military facility (it was established as a national guard facility in 1930, and was used as a POW camp in WW2).

But war and defense determined the location in one more, somewhat weirder way.

One of the requirements that ARPA and the rest of the DOD had for these network facilities, was that they be nuclear hardened, or otherwise resistant to a nuclear blast near by. Most of the time, this resulted in huge ugly concrete monolith buildings, but there were exceptions.

PPMR is one of those exceptions. There's a big antennae farm, and some low buildings, but no big concrete block thing.

As it happens, PPMR is situated partway up the side of a 2100 foot high mountain of solid granite... and the communications hub, is buried underneath it. 

That was judged by the defense establishment to be sufficient for any reasonable potential war scenario.

... And together, (along with generally lower cost of land and building here than most other areas) that's why the Phoenix metro area, has more dark fiber, more tier one backbone providers, more peering points, and more datacenter space; than any cities in America other than SF/SJC metro, LA metro, Denver Metro, DC metro, NYC metro, and BOS metro... And for that matter, it's why PHX, DEN, DFW, and HOU are the only cities in between the coasts to even be in the top ten lists.  They're all major backbone hubs, established by the fedgov, for defense purposes, along major rail lines, in between or with defense critical sites.

So, just as with the bay area and Moffet Field, that fiber backbone and peering concentration, is why there are a bunch of HUGE datacenters near Papago Peak Military reservation, or otherwise along the rail lines running nearby; including a couple of the biggest in the country, and what at the time it was built, was the biggest public commercial datacenter in the world...

...(meaning they lease and colo to anyone, rather than being owned and used by the government, or a single corporation like google or facebook. All of the very largest datacenters are either .gov or megacorps)... 

...It's also why you might have noticed there's a bunch of local endpoints for online game services, Content Delivery Networks, VOIP services, VPN services etc... in PHX, even though those companies aren't based in Phoenix, and may not have large userbases here. They're in one of the major peering points, or one of the many datacenters near the peering points.