Permanent stupidity

Stephen Crowder said something like this in one of his clips.  I take no credit for the original thoughts from which I went even moreso.



The left and most of the media (I admit there may be significant redundancy there) seem to be constitutionally (by their constitution, for clarity) unable to get out of their own way.

Trump is not a great person.  This is obvious to anyone that is paying a shred of attention.

The left are, on the other hand, trying like hell to make him look foolish, evil, etc. In doing this, the left forcibly magnify themselves to no good end.  Instead of talking about what Trump may or may not have done or may or may not have said, the annoyance of people with the left just continues unbounded because the left just keep adding fuel to the fire instead of just SHUTTING THE FUCK UP.  But the left just doesn't comprehend it because its members can't (constitutionally unable, remember).  So instead of proper criticism of the president occurring as it should, all the hate is being directed where it should, which is to say media/"journalists"/leftists.

The empty can (the left and their ilk in media/"journalism") rattles the most.  Until said can starts to fill (wisdom/knowledge is a good start) or the can chooses to not rattle, [the rattling can] and not [the attempted message of the rattling can] will get the attention (contempt) and be ignored or hated, rightfully so.

Employment

Let me start with a trick question.

Are there currently enough jobs for everyone to be employed?  (hint: It's a trick question)

If you answer Yes or No, you've fallen for the bait and gotten it wrong.

When government, be that global, national, regional, or local, get out of the way of people to fairly trade goods and services with each other as they see fit, there don't need to be "enough jobs".

If every person expects to have some job provided for them, they are robbed of the freedom and creativity to look around and say, "Hey.  People would be better off if they could use widgets.  Maybe I should make and sell widgets." or, "Hey, that guy's lawn is thick.  Maybe he'd be interested in paying me to trim it for him." etcetera, so on, so forth.

Yes, within this analysis and creativity, there is plenty of room for someone to take the step further and say, "You know, I could hire others to do what I'm doing and we would mutually benefit. They would gain my reputation and I would get some part of the profits from their efforts."  THIS is the essence of what employment is (in the form of jobs).

When government starts "creating jobs" it is only because they are capable of extorting the money for said jobs from people that are actually producing something (a good or service). And you can bet your bottom dollar (and that's always the one the government wants, isn't it?) that the "job" they create will employ the least of the competent to do something that nobody wanted done in the first place.  

Did I recently hear about openings for dangerous furniture inspectors, or did I just nightmare that? 

Ghandi reconsidered

Once, I thought that Ghandi had screwed up the math about how to deal with the tyrannical regime with which he was dealing.

My thinking has shifted slightly and I'm thinking that he may not have been wrong.  

Some "leaders" (managers, "representatives", senators, so on) under whose authority we are currently placed are clearly oblivious to how hated they are.  This is unsurprising when it is considered from the outside and it is obvious that the mindless or misinformed followers of said "leaders" create an echo chamber where the "leaders" only hear what they want and never hear ... truth.  

This is systemic of tyrants...  I could call some out by name, but it would never get through their echo chamber or even cause them even a moment's pause if it did get to them.

In the end, I think that Ghandi's actions had little to no direct effect on the actual leaders he was trying to identify or the evils he was trying to point out.  I think his actions worked more indirectly by assisting others to realize the evils (both policy and persons) that were very wrongfully being permitted to continue.

Unrequested "corrections"

Google is great (and I say that without reservation) at pointing out possible typos or alternate spellings for things that I may have gotten wrong.

But, there are SO MANY times that I have spelled something perfectly where some stupid recommendation comes up for something else, like "to" to "too" or whatever.  But, the recommendation lingers there in spite of the correct results being listed, and there is no link or button or something for, "Yes, I typed it right.  Leave it alone."  type of button or link or whatever.

Yes. Sometimes I type things wrong.  Or things are transcribed wrong (that's also on Google if the transcribing agent is not considering context, in most cases) so the results are off.  And I will choose to click/tap/whatever the correction.  But, especially from non-mobile devices, I am not a twit and I will not type like a twit.  When I type, it is generally purposeful.  If I type and whatever algorithm thinks I made an error, recommend the fix, but also include an option for, "No, I didn't make a mistake. Adapt thyself."

Are you sure you didn't mean "too" instead of "to"?  No.  Google should know me better. (or from prolonged sneaky experience with me with and without my knowledge, Google should)  So, give me an option for "Your recommendation is a failure."

I would hope that enough "idiot links" (as I call them), unclicked would cause said links to expire eventually.  But with the quantity of idiots growing daily, I can't count on that.  I would just hope that Google can distinguish between idiots and not (if Google is not capable to the task, then the task is failed permanently) and at least offer "No. I intended what I typed." links/buttons for people that appear to have some wisdom.