Elon Musk is a bit of a lightning rod. He says and does things that are polarizing, grab headlines, and sometimes are just stupid.
But he's fairly smart, or at least savvy, and he has this Thomas Edison quality about him; he surrounds himself with sharp people and knows how to engage in serious self-promotion.
Recently, he made a comment that he thinks Florida's (douchebag, wanna be dictator) governor would get his endorsement for president.
I was taken aback. It seemingly came "out of nowhere" and is kind of, well, ill conceived and stupid.
Then, I thought about it. Governor dimwitty has made it his made it his current priority to antagonize any and everyone who disagrees with him. And he is especially harsh on companies that say or do anything contrary to his will (see "dictator")...
One of Musks companies sells cars in Florida. One of Musks companies is trying to build tunnels in Florida. One of Musks likely-soon-to-be-acquired companies (twitter) has been in the governors crosshairs for a while. And probably most importantly, one of Musks companies launches spacecraft in Florida and is trying to expand that footprint.
If your goal is to make money, and expand, and you see the governor of the state GIVES YOU shit if you kiss the ring, and gives you SHIT if you are opposed in any way, then this might be an option.
Not one I'd take, but certainly an option.
So like most things musk says that aren't specifically about his companies, I see it is crazy and perhaps a little calculated.
Even if it's about his bottom line, he can stick this comment up his ass.
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Saturday, June 11, 2022
Ginni Thomas pressed 29 lawmakers in bid to overturn Trump loss, emails show | US elections 2020 | The Guardian
What the actual fuck?
That's breaking several federal laws. Why is she not in custody?!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/ginni-thomas-wife-supreme-court-justice-clarence-arizona-republicans-undermining-democracy
That's breaking several federal laws. Why is she not in custody?!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/ginni-thomas-wife-supreme-court-justice-clarence-arizona-republicans-undermining-democracy
As America watched Capitol attack testimony, Fox News gave an alternate reality | Fox News | The Guardian
A. What a pathetic attempt to hide from the truth
B. From what has been shared, text messages between staff & hosts and insurrectionists would implicate fox "news" in all of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/09/us-capitol-attack-hearings-fox-news
B. From what has been shared, text messages between staff & hosts and insurrectionists would implicate fox "news" in all of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/09/us-capitol-attack-hearings-fox-news
Thursday, June 9, 2022
Rubios comments on the Jan 6th public hearings.
He said a lot of "blah blah blah" about the events, the police, and the hearings.
But I did catch a rare moment of perhaps unintentional honesty and wanted to give him credit.
He said "This is a two-hour free documentary sponsored by virtually every major network in America — except for [Fox News] — that's willing to give it airtime,"
A documentary film or documentary is a non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education or maintaining a historical record".
So he was correct! It is a documentary that recounts the historical record of an insurrection that was underway.
I appreciate that he acknowledged that!
But I did catch a rare moment of perhaps unintentional honesty and wanted to give him credit.
He said "This is a two-hour free documentary sponsored by virtually every major network in America — except for [Fox News] — that's willing to give it airtime,"
A documentary film or documentary is a non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education or maintaining a historical record".
So he was correct! It is a documentary that recounts the historical record of an insurrection that was underway.
I appreciate that he acknowledged that!
Tuesday, June 7, 2022
An open letter to my GOP senators about guns and terrorism
Back on 9/11 (2001), nearly 3,000 people were killed in the largest terrorist attack on American soil. We were justifiably outraged. And so our legislature set about finding ways to make sure "this couldn't happen again."
The TSA was established. And though no one batted an eye because of our safety, this bumped right against the 4th amendment and illegal search. Yes, one could argue that you are choosing to fly, but in to do so, we are openly willing to give up a right.
And of course with the domestic surveillance program that was opened, and the ability to monitor free speech, the first amendment was severely curtailed. (And for the record, there was some discussion among those in power that we needed to somehow eliminate the Islamic faith. Although, this didn't happen, it was a broad discussion that further undermined the first amendment; such a discussion should never happen)
The clear implication in all of this is that the foreign "evil doers" must be stopped and we can certainly openly discuss how to curtail our constitutional rights to accomplish it.
Meanwhile, according to the FBI statistics, nearly 2,500 people have died in mass shootings in the time since 9/11. And we can't be bothered to lift a finger.
Some in the GOP will outright tell you that they "don't want to weaken the 2nd amendment."
But many of them, in power then as now, were nonchalant about weakening the 1st and 4th to keep us safe.
Safe from…foreign terrorists. I mean, after all, the department of homeland security was established. It's name makes clear this is about foreign threats.
And meanwhile, crazy (typically white) people who are American citizens with weapons of war are committing acts of domestic terrorism and politicians sit idly by and do nothing.
At what point do you decide that American lives have more value than a simple interpretation of the second amendment? How about if we actually discuss it and what it means? And put some definitions around it? And take the weapons of war out of peoples hands.
Or am I asking too much of you as my elected representative?
The TSA was established. And though no one batted an eye because of our safety, this bumped right against the 4th amendment and illegal search. Yes, one could argue that you are choosing to fly, but in to do so, we are openly willing to give up a right.
And of course with the domestic surveillance program that was opened, and the ability to monitor free speech, the first amendment was severely curtailed. (And for the record, there was some discussion among those in power that we needed to somehow eliminate the Islamic faith. Although, this didn't happen, it was a broad discussion that further undermined the first amendment; such a discussion should never happen)
The clear implication in all of this is that the foreign "evil doers" must be stopped and we can certainly openly discuss how to curtail our constitutional rights to accomplish it.
Meanwhile, according to the FBI statistics, nearly 2,500 people have died in mass shootings in the time since 9/11. And we can't be bothered to lift a finger.
Some in the GOP will outright tell you that they "don't want to weaken the 2nd amendment."
But many of them, in power then as now, were nonchalant about weakening the 1st and 4th to keep us safe.
Safe from…foreign terrorists. I mean, after all, the department of homeland security was established. It's name makes clear this is about foreign threats.
And meanwhile, crazy (typically white) people who are American citizens with weapons of war are committing acts of domestic terrorism and politicians sit idly by and do nothing.
At what point do you decide that American lives have more value than a simple interpretation of the second amendment? How about if we actually discuss it and what it means? And put some definitions around it? And take the weapons of war out of peoples hands.
Or am I asking too much of you as my elected representative?
Saturday, June 4, 2022
North Carolina Bill Targeting Free Charging Could…
Remind me again about capitalism, free enterprise, and small government?
Look. "Free" EV charging is typically level 2, which would mean that in order to get a meaningful charge, you have to remain plugged in for several hours.
So typically, businesses offer this service as a courtesy to customers.
What if businesses, savvy enough to offer charging through one of the services and require you to signup via an app, charge you via the app …. but the charge costs, say, a penny, for however long you stay, but that penny is offered as a promotion? Then it wouldn't be free, right?
And what of private individuals who offer you to charge at their house?
Would that be illegal?
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/06/north-carolina-bill-targeting-free-charging-could-kneecap-evs/
Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone.
Look. "Free" EV charging is typically level 2, which would mean that in order to get a meaningful charge, you have to remain plugged in for several hours.
So typically, businesses offer this service as a courtesy to customers.
What if businesses, savvy enough to offer charging through one of the services and require you to signup via an app, charge you via the app …. but the charge costs, say, a penny, for however long you stay, but that penny is offered as a promotion? Then it wouldn't be free, right?
And what of private individuals who offer you to charge at their house?
Would that be illegal?
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/06/north-carolina-bill-targeting-free-charging-could-kneecap-evs/
Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone.
Florida art dealer arrested after allegedly selli…
Good luck finding an NFT fake…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)