Amos Yee is what happens when you argue about laws without doing the legal reseach.

So I've broken down Amos Yee's advocacy of child molestation, but there was another point I touched on where he clearly had no grasp of the legal concept of consent and the foundation that the concept is based upon.

He goes on and one about "consent", well here's the thing with consent. Consent can be invalid. If the consent is given under duress, then the consent can be invalid. If the consent is not "informed" then it can be invalid. If the person giving the consent does not have capacity to consent, then the consent is invalid. You threaten someone to obtain consent? Invalid. You withhold critical, need to know information from someone to obtain their consent? Invalid. You get someone drunk and have them sign a contract? Invalid.You exert an undue influence on another to obtain consent? Invalid.

Which brings us to the main point that goes completely over Amos's head. The main thing that his argument completely fails to address. Capacity. He goes on to argue that children are able to give consent. He gives examples and says if a child gives consent to a sexual act, then it is ok. Well there are several reasons why he is wrong.

• Children lack capacity. Children lack the capacity to give consent to sexual activity. So even if consent was obtained from the child, the consent is invalid anyway. This is the biggest hole in his argument that he either ignored, or is simply ignorant of the concept. If it is indeed a case of ignorance, then this is one of the most glaring examples of what happens when a layperson tries to make an argument related to law. The miss key legal concepts like this and their argument completely disintegrates.  
• The pedophile may have exerted undue influence on the child to obtain consent. Ok let say that children do have capacity to give consent. The next sword that Amos's argument falls upon is the concept of undue influence. You know how we tell kids not to take candy from strangers? Well we tell them that because it isn't hard to influence a child to do something. So if a peodophile induces a child to consent to sexual acts with promises of candy or pizza, even without and acts of or threats of violence, that would be an undue influence exerted on the child and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Related to the above, is the lack of informed consent. Most if not all children do not understand what sexual activity is. The result of that is that because of that lack of understanding, a child cannot give informed consent, and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Then of course there's duress. There are multiple instances seen on The Steve Wilkos Show involving child predators, where the predator hasn't made an overt acts of violence (other than the actual act of molestation) but has obtained "consent" from the child in the form of verbal threats. Consent in this case? Yup, invalid.

Amos insists that his advocacy is non-violent. That is irrelevant and a non-factor because violence isn't the crux of the issue here, in-fact, consent isn't even the real issue here. The actual issue here is the ability to consent. 

Again Amos might just be trolling, but the fact of the matter is, he might not mean it, but someone out there might his argument and take it seriously. So even if this was entirely a massive troll by a 19 year old kid with a big mouth, writing this isn't an entire waste of time. He presents himself has having built a logical argument to advocate his points, while the structure of his argument is solid where he fails and fails hard is his complete lack of understanding of the legal terms and concepts. Knowing these terms and concepts is key because he's essentially arguing a change in the laws. He presents this advocacy with a complete lack of understanding of why the current laws are the way they are.

You might ask me, does it matter that Amos doesn't understand these concepts? Yes it does. It would be analogous to going into the design room of Boeing or Northrop-Grumman and telling the engineers that a particular modification should be made to a design, while having no knowledge of aeronautical engineering.


Now to start wrapping things up.

"America, land of the free?! Suck my oblong dick!"

Look sugar cookie, no one made you come here, and no one is making you stay here. This isn't some communist country, you're free to leave when ever you want if you don't like it here. There might be some other country in Europe that would be happy to host a child molestation advocate such as yourself. Don't expect to come to a country exposing views that run contrary to the prevailing social values and not expect backlash. Apparently you learned nothing from your troubles in your home country.

The reason you got support for your anti-government views was because you weren't harming anyone with your views, and yet the government cracked down on you anyway. The reason people don't have your back on decriminalizing child molestation because what you advocate harms children. Sure you provide a few isolated anecdotes and examples from non-western cultures, but you hardly prove that your examples are the norm.

The reason why I won't support Amos Yee on this is because the stance he advocates will cause harm to people. Even if he's just trolling, trolling is a fun and good when it stays on the internet, but what he's arguing for has real world implications.

Amos Pang Sang Yee is a Sick Bastard (A response to "Why Pedophilia is Alright")

Holy crap where do I even start with this one...

To get to the point, basically, Amos Yee thinks it's ok to have sex with kids.That's not hyperbole, that's not just me flinging poo like a monkey, he literally believes this.

Amos builds his... "argument"... on the concept of "consent", but the problem is he never really defines or quantifies "consent". He argues that it isn't rape if the child "consents" to the sexual act. Because he wants the laws to change, and given my background we will use the legal definition of consent.

1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. 

Now in law, consent is based upon the concept of capacity. One who lacks capacity (like the mentally ill or disabled) is unable to give consent. The insane or mentally disabled cannot give consent, as they lack the capacity to understand the situation. Minors also do not have capacity. Capacity is essentially the foundation of consent. But before we move on, here is the legal definition of capacity.

Capacity is subject to different meanings, but in the legal sense,it refers to the ability to make a rational decision based upon all relevant facts and considerations. 

In other words, you can only give consent if you know what you are doing. If you do not know what you are doing (lack capacity) then under the law you have not given consent. And there is a reason why children lack capacity. So swinging back around to Amos's main point, children lack capacity therefore cannot give consent, therefore the sexual act with them is rape/sexual assault.

Children, depending on age, do not understand what they are doing, that is why they do not have capacity. Yes 18 is arbitrary, why not 17? Why not 16? From a practical standpoint the bar has to be set somewhere for age of majority. More on that later. The concept of "undue influence" comes into play here. In regular-speak, undue influence is basically manipulation, but, here's the legal explanation.

The use of undue influence by one party over another puts the free will of one of the parties entering the contract into question, and therefore leads to the contract being unenforceable and voidable by the victim party. To prove undue influence, a party must show that one party to the contract is a person with weaknesses which make him likely to be affected by such persuasion, and that the party exercising the persuasion is someone in a special relationship with the victim that makes the victim especially susceptible to such persuasion. 

In other words, children lack the cognitive development and the real world experience, essentially making them a person with weaknesses which makes them likely to be affected by "such persuasion". So with these points we just shot down the claim that Amos makes that children can give consent. Where things get really nasty is that Amos presents the premise that children can benefit from a sexual relation with adults. That in and of itself runs contrary to what contemporary medicine has to say about it.

Amos's arguments pretty much fall on their faces right there. He's delving into the realm of law, without learning the legal definitions (and reasoning behind) of the terms he's using and as a result his arguments fail. However the creeperfest doesn't just stop here, it continues on. Earlier I touched on the age of 18 being somewhat arbitrary. But Amos isn't talking about teenagers, he's not talking about a 16 or a 17 year old. He's taking about sexual activities involving 10 year olds and younger. Where things get really monstrous is when Amos argues that it should be ok to create and to possess child pornography.

And that's just the mental/emotional aspect of it. There is the whole physical aspect, I feel weird citing The Steve Wilkos Show here, but he does a lot of episodes going after child molesters. More often than not, the party making the accusation has a child that has suffered injury from the abuse. Injuries like tearing and lacerations in the affected body parts. 

So like I mentioned earlier, Amos advocates for the decriminalization of creations and possession of child porn. He isn't talking about teenagers, who don't know any better, sexting each other. He's talking about full blown child pornography. Again he builds his advocacy of this on his flawed understanding of consent. If children cannot give consent, then they cannot consent to making a pornographic video. Amos may try to argue that peripheral crimes like kidnapping and human trafficking might be reduced if creation and possession of child porn was decriminalized, comparing it to drugs, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Even without the laws in place, sexual activity with children is seen as completely reprehensible. Given that, professional studios like Vivid or Hustler aren't going to want to have anything to do with it, leaving creation to be done in shady "garage" studios. That's not even getting into the inevitable undue influence from unscrupulous sickos looking to make a buck off another sicko.

Then there's the whole thing about uploading it to the internet. Ever heard the phrase "the internet is forever"? Going back to what we talked about earlier, about children lacking capacity,is a child really going to understand the implications of uploading suck a video (assuming someone even bother to tell them). It's not uncommon for something sexual that an adult did getting on the internet and coming back to haunt them later. With bullies using the internet as yet another tool for them, this could come back ten fold on a child later on. Especially in a culture like those in East Asia where shame and embarrassment are a major thing.


Now to be fair, maybe this is all just Amos's understanding of the situation based upon his non-existent grasp of the legal definition of consent. Namely that he doesn't understand the concept of capacity that consent is based upon, and therefore doesn't understand that children can't give consent due to lack of capacity. Or if this is a case where Amos didn't reach a conclusion but rather already had a conclusion that he's trying to justify. The latter would mean that Amos believes that pedophiles should be allowed to act upon their urges.

Alternately he might be just trolling/trying to be an "edgelord" and doing this just to piss people off, but the thing is, some sicko out there might see his materials, buy his argument, and think "hey this guy is right, there really is nothing wrong with wanting to sleep with kids!" It's like Chuck McGill's comment to Jimmy about someone as irresponsible as him wielding that much influence being like giving a monkey a machine gun. Some people might compare this to famous YouTube'ers who have rabid followers who'll send death threats to an opposition party, but the difference is, those YouTube'ers generally tell their viewers not to engage in bad act. In contrast Amos actively encourages the bad act. Also, sending death threats and online harassment is a huge gulf of distance from acts of child molestation.

Now I'm not advocating acts of violence against Amos Yee, don't go grabbing a Zippo and a can of gasoline and burning him alive, don't do that. Nor do I want him getting de-platformed or having his videos taken down. If his views are genuine, then I fully support revoking his asylum and deporting him back to his native Singapore (Singapore wants to do bad things to him? Not my problem.). I don't want him hurt, I don't want him silenced, I just don't want him in my country. He can say what he wants back in his native Singapore or what ever other country is ok with hosting a child molestation advocate. The whole point of letting people into our country is to further enrich the country in some form or another. Sex with children run completely contrary to our modern western social values. As a result Amos Pang Sang Yee, does not add anything to our society. He does not enrich our country in some form. Therefore he does not belong here and should be sent back to his native Singapore. If he's just trolling then he's treading some dangerous waters here, this isn't a game, real people could get hurt over this, and it doesn't make Amos any less disgusting. Either way Amos is a disgusting and monstrous individual who has no place living in the United States of America.



P.S.
I also find it funny that Amos says he doesn't want to live in a society where pedophiles are discriminated against. Like "Hey asshole, you came here of your own volition. No one's making you stay here." If Amos doesn't like it here then he's free to somewhere else, or to go back home.

P.S.S.
And it's also pretty twisted that Amos compares pedophiles to the LGBT community. Apples and oranges jackass, apples and oranges.

OK so maybe I was wrong.... Conceeding that "White privelege" and "rape culture" do exist, to a certain degree of course.

Ok, well I've reached a point in life where I've matured enough to be able to admit when I'm wrong. Two points in particular where I'm willing to concede some ground are in "White privilege" and in "rape culture". Now hold up, this doesn't mean I'm going to register as a Democrat...

So lets get started.

White privilege. 
So not too long ago there was another mass murder committed with a firearm and once again the usual suspects (well to do White people/Democrats) are talking about how no one needs guns and how we need more gun control. Well thinking about it more... telling an Asian-American, that they don't need to be armed to cover their own asses, that is "White privilege".

How is it "White privilege"? Well there's no denying that there is a lot of racism in this country's history, and that racism also includes racism against Asians. That racism against Asians has reached levels that include violence. Now that said it's certainly reasonable that an Asian-American would want to be armed, you know just in case, a hollow-point loaded .357 magnum tucked away somewhere or a 12ga shotgun loaded with 00 buck shells stashed in the closet, to protect against violent racists who might want to do them harm.

Now in this country, Whites, being the majority, don't really have those experiences that racial minorities have had. They never really had to worry about roving gangs of racists coming and killing them, roving gangs who's activities may or may not have local law enforcement complicit with. In other words, they don't need to worry about something the rest of us do/did and therefore enjoy a privilege in that regard.

Now given that they has less of a concern about racists coming to murder them, they have less of a need to take pro-active measures in their own self-defense. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, I don't begrudge them for that. where it becomes an issue, is that these White people, many of them being well-to-do middle to upper class, don't realize that what applies to them doesn't always apply to others. Not everyone lives in a gated community with private security. Not everyone can just run, hide and call the police in full confidence that the police will arrive in time to save them. Yet they push gun-control on everyone assuming that we can all just live like them. They don't need to take extra steps to protect them, therefore no one does. They don't need a gun, therefore there isn't a single person in the country who would need one. Isn't that a privilege of being White? No fears of White supremacists coming after you?

Often they'll say "only the police should have guns", yeah well I guess they forgot about those times that police turned a blind eye to racist violence if not out right complicit in it.

So what does this all mean, am I going to say that everything is "White privilege?" No. Am I going to say that everything is racist and that we need to point it all out? No. What it means that gun-control, if not out right rooted in racism, is a product of "White privilege". So before you tell me that I don't need a gun, maybe you ought to check your privilege first.YOU, as a middle to upper-class White person might not need a gun, but can you honestly speak for a minority on this issue? Or should you just listen?


Rape culture.
I used to think this one was pure crap. Rape is a felony and there are laws in place to punish it. Barring biased judges like Judge Persky, the system works given how many people have been put away for rape. Given that we even have TV shows about hunting down child rapists.

Then came Harvey Weinstein.

Now I won't say that "rape culture" permeates all of society, even with Judge Aaron Persky's BS ruling and letting a rapist walk with a slap on the wrist, there were still armed people gathering around Brock Turner's house just waiting for a legally justifiable excuse to shoot him. BUT, given how many people knew of Weinstein's escapades, and did nothing about it, said nothing about it. And it isn't just Weinstein's serial harassing/bullying adult women. Word of child rape/molestation aren't exactly unheard of either, with Roman Polanski's name up on the top of the list. Given how many people have gotten away with so much, it can't be denied that there is a portion of society as well as a geographic region where "rape culture" is perpetuated.

That place is leftist Hollywood.

Hollywood is where Harvey Weinstein was able to take advantage of women to his heart's content. Hollywood is where Roman Polanski was able to molest a 10 year old and still have the support of prominent Hollywood figures. Hollywood is where parties are held where child starts like Coreys Feldman and Haim were passed around like the communal hooker.

If we take a look at the definition of "rape culture":

A society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.

Given that so many blind eyes were turned and so many people just accepted that that was how it was in Hollywood, seems like the sexual assaults/harassment and child molestation were normalized and trivialized. Hollywood sure seems to fit that definition to a "T".


Think about that for a moment, the same Hollywood that dogpiled Trump for a tasteless comment about grabbing horny groupie's pussies, is the same Hollywood that kept quite about a known rapists and their continued predation of young women and children entering the industry.

It's almost like that violently homophobic guy who turns out to be a closeted gay, who only acts that way to deflect attention from himself doesn't it...?

Given what's been boiling over in Hollywood, I can't say that there is no rape culture anymore. I don't think it permeates all of society like what radical feminists and con artists like Anita Sarkeesian would say. But I can no longer say it doesn't exist in the West when this kind of evidence is starting me right in the face.



So where does that leave me? 
Well I can no longer completely say that "White privilege" and "rape culture" are pure bullshit, I have to concede that to a certain degree, "White privilege" and "rape culture" exist. However I will say this... the left needs to shine their spotlight elsewhere. Maybe turn those lights around on to themselves.

Funny thing is, by accepting these leftist talking points as having a degree of truth to them, I've noticed more just how far off the mark the contemporary Left has gone since the period where I could call myself a "Liberal" which out having to add the "Classical" modifier in front of it. In other words, after accepting a degree of validity in these talking points, I see the contemporary Left in an even more negative light now. Yes there is a degree of "White privilege" and yes there is a degree of "rape culture" and the Left is complicit in it's perpetuation.The contemporary Left certainly doesn't have clean hands in this regard.

Did CNN also commit fraud? "CNN reserves the RIGHT..." (con't)

Thinking about it more...

CNN is a billion dollar media corporation, so presumably they would have a full time legal department. That said, CNN would have known that they don't have the right to put HanAssholeSolo on blast (as previously discussed), and yet the published the article stating that they did.

Well, lets do what we did before and apply the facts to the law. 

Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation:

• a representation of fact; 

 So here the represented fact is that CNN has the right to release HAS's personal information.

• its falsity; 

Given that it would be the tort of Invasion of Privacy and possibly the crimes of blackmail and coercion, having the right to release HAS's personal information is a falsity.

• its materiality; 

It certainly would be material given that even CNN stated that HAS sounded uncomfortable about his private information being released when they were interviewing him. So CNN representing that they had the right to expose his personal information would certainly be material to all this.

• the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; 

As mention, CNN likely has a full time legal department. That said, CNN would then have lawyers and paralegals to warn about the illegality of this action. Thus, CNN likely knew that it had no such right to being with.

• the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; 

Arguably CNN's intent was to have HAS apologize, demonstrate remorse, and refrain from continued conduct. Otherwise CNN would exercise their "right" to expose HAS's personal information.

• the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; 

It's likely that HAS is not aware of his right or the applicable laws. Most people don't, and I've had more than one law professor lament that fact in class. Especially if the rumors that HAS is a 15 year old minor. Regardless, most people are unfamiliar with their rights and the various causes of actions they're able to sue under. Therefore being ignorant of the falsity of CNN's claim to have the right to expose his personal information.

• the injured party’s reliance on its truth; 

HAS did indeed take down his previous content and released an apology statement. Given that all this happened just after CNN contacted him, this is more than likely in reliance on CNN's representation of "rights" which it reserves. 

• the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and 

Given that CNN is "the most trusted name in news" there's little reason why someone who's a legal layperson like HAS wouldn't believe CNN when it tells him they have the right to release his private information. Opposed to some other random anonymous dickhead on the internet, this is CNN, a multibillion dollar media network. 

• the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.

This would be the sticking point for HAS, HAS would need to demonstrate some kind of pecuniary loss otherwise the cause of action will fail. Right now, the harm is a deprivation of a civil right and not a monetary harm. HAS will need to show some monetary harm as a direct result of the depravation of the civil right, which itself would need to be shown to be the result of CNN's actions.

Conclusion - Fraud:
The whole action would hinge on two things, that CNN was aware that it had no such "right" for it to reserve and whether HAS is able to demonstrate a pecuniary loss.


Negligent Misrepresentation:

• Misrepresentation by the defendant in a business or professional capacity.

So here we have an employee of CNN who goes by "Kfile" who contacted HAS. He didn't do this as an individual, he did this as an employee of CNN as demonstrated by CNN's involvement in this whole thing. Thereby making the misrepresent in a business or professional capacity.

• Breach of duty towards plaintiff.

This would be a general duty by CNN to act as a reasonable, prudent media company in the given situation. A reasonable, prudent media company would check back with it's legal department if such communications with HAS was legal. Whether or not the way the communications were carried out would result in any kind of tort or crime. Because CNN failed to do so, this would constitute a breach.

While it was "Kfile" who contacted HAS, "Kfile" very likely did this as an agent, or on the behalf of, CNN. So while "Kfile" himself may know next to nothing about law beyond what the average lay person would know. So the average reasonable person in "Kfile's" position would float the matter over to the legal department first. As an agent of CNN, CNN would still be on the hook for his actions, and therefore "Kfile's" breach, is CNN's. 

• Causation

The harm here is HAS's internet speech being silenced. Given that it wasn't until the contact was made by CNN did HAS's shit-posting seem to stop. The reasonable inference here to be made is that the misrepresentation made by CNN of having the right to expose his personal information is the causation of the harm.

• Justifiable reliance

Well CNN is "the most trusted name in news" so when they say something it has the weight of authority behind it. In other words, CNN is a long established media network known for information media, so the average person would likely believe that CNN to be some level of authority on certain things. Especially when rights are involved given that CNN, being a large media company, likely has a legal department that "knows all that law shit". Therefore, for the average person, the average legal layperson, would justifiably relay on something CNN would tell them directly as an individual, as opposed to their reporting which Trump has declared to be "fake news".

• Damages

Damages here would be the sticky point for HAS, there appears to be no monetary damages and instead it appears to be a deprivation of a civil right. Same as above, HAS will have to demonstrate some form of monetary loss in direct relation to CNN's misrepresentation.

Conclusion - Negligent Misrepresentation:
Same as fraud, this will hinge on whether HAS is able to prove some kind of monetary loss that is the result of CNN's misrepresentation. Whether he can actually do that, there's not enough publicly known facts to argue that.

HAS would have a stronger cause of action in Invasion of Privacy as previously discussed, as well as potentially pressing charges against CNN for blackmail or coercion.   



Regardless, at the end of the day, if you get an unsolicited call or email from CNN...

"CNN reserves the RIGHT..." But does it have the right...?

CNN claims to reserve the right, but do they actually have the right? Well lets take a look at a couple of torts (torts are the kind of stuff you sue people over rather than the kind of stuff people go to jail for) here and see if that claim of having a "right" to reserve holds any water. If putting "HanAssholeSolo" on blast will resort in a tort, then they don't have the right.


Invasion of Privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts:
Requires the widespread disclosure of private information.
- The public disclosure must be objectionable to the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

- Liability may attach even though the statement is true.

- First Amendment limitations may apply if the matter is a legitimate public interest.

- Newsworthy exception: Example, Donald Trump's medical report may be published because it is a legitimate public interest.

-- Causation: The invasion of the Plaintiff's interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the Defendant's conduct.

-- Damages: Mental anguish and emotional distress damages are sufficient.

Ok so there's our rules for invasion of privacy. Now lets look at the facts of this situation. Basically what happened was we had this guy on Reddit create a meme based upon a segment from Wrestlemania 23's "Battle of the Billionaires" segment, where he superimposed the CNN logo over Vince McMahon's head when he was clotheslined by Donald Trump. CNN traced the creator of the meme, uncovered his identity. CNN agreed not to put him on blast... but... they reserved the right to do so if he reneged on what ever their behind closed doors agreement was.

Now lets go though our rules and see what we get.

Widespread disclosure of private information.
Given that "HanAssholeSolo" is an alias, we can argue that his real name is of private information. Yes the person's name can be looked up, but the link between "HanAssholeSolo" and the guy's actual name, that link is likely to be private information. Like the link between Batman and Bruce Wayne.

The public disclosure must be objectionable to the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
More often than not, you'll find people online using aliases rather than real names. Many people on YouTube use an alias, on social media it's about 50-50 that people use their real names or a pseudonym. Then on PlayStation Network or Xbox Live, people almost exclusively use an alias. Now why would people use an alias, well naturally to protect their privacy. Given the level of commonality in the use of alias, more than likely it would be found that the public disclosure of someone's real name, when they use an alias online, would be objectionable to the reasonable person.

Liability may attach even though the statement is true.
Just because it's his actual name, won't shield CNN from liability. 

Newsworthy exception.
CNN might try to say that because this guy's meme was shared by President Trump that his identity has become newsworthy.

But on the other hand, these kinds of memes are a dime a dozen on the internet. After E3 2013 when the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4 were revealed we saw memes like THESE:


And we didn't see Microsoft bitch up a storm over this and accuse anyone of trying to incite violence against their employees. And these memes are arguable more graphic and violent than the Wrestlemania one. Memes like this are par of the course when it comes to the internet. The only thing that made this particular meme special was that Donald Trump happen to see it, and Tweeted it out on his account. Possibly without even communicating with HAS, so in other words, Tweeting it out without the creator's control.

CNN might have something here, but it would be a weak argument. Mainly because it's a meme that doesn't really have a direct impact on the public. It has no weight on public policy and to any reasonable person, Trump posting it is nothing more than a joke (bad taste or not) and not the establishment of violence against a particular company as a matter of public policy. Regardless of the persecution complex of said particular company.

The invasion of the Plaintiff's interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the Defendant's conduct. 
The invasion of privacy would be HAS's personal information, real name, and likely employment/school attendance, and home address. If CNN did publish it, then their conduct would be the actual and proximate (direct) cause of the interest in privacy.

Damages.
Well nothing's happened... yet... by nothing I mean they have yet to put HAS on blast.

But say it did happen, it has been said that HAS sounded uncomfortable about his personal information being released. Given that then emotional distress and mental anguish would likely be what would result.

Conclusion:
Very likely, releasing his identity would resort in a tort, therefore CNN doesn't have a "right" to reserve.


So what else can happen here?

Defamation:

- Defamatory language: The statement must tend to adversely affect the Plaintiff's reputation, but must be more than name calling. There must be allegation of fact that reflects negatively on a trait or character.

More than likely releasing the link between HAS and the actual person behind the alias would have an adverse affect on his reputation with a very vocal segment of society. The allegation of fact being the linking of the HAS internet persona with the anonymous person behind the alias. It certainly would expose HAS to hate, ridicule and contempt.

Now CNN might point out that the personal information is not a falsehood, but whether that matters, we'll go into that later.


- Of or concerning the Plaintiff: A statement that a reasonable person would understand to refer to the Plaintiff.

It would be pretty clear that the statement would refer to the person behind HAS, so that element is going to be a gimme.


- Publication: Communication of the defamation to someone other than the Plaintiff.

TV viewers and anyone reading their internet articles would be "someone other than the Plaintiff", so that element would also be a gimme.


-Damage to the Plaintiff's reputation:
-- The type of damages to be proven depends on the type of defamation.

• Libel - Written or printed publication. Plaintiff doesn't need to prove special damages (suffering some pecuniary loss), and general damages will be presumed. 

So this would be like internet articles posted by CNN. With special damages not needing to be proved and general damages presumed, HAS wouldn't really need to prove anything other than the libel was created by CNN.

• Slander - Spoken defamation. Plaintiff will need to prove special damages unless it falls under one of these "slander per se" categories. 
• Adversely reflect on one's conduct in business of profession. 
• One has a loathsome disease. 
• Guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. 
• A slut (well ok the term is "unchaste woman") 

Here unlike libel HAS will have to prove some kind of monetary loss, like getting fired and losing his livelihood. Give that we don't know who HAS is... yet... we don't know what kind of problems this guy can get into. But if he's in an industry where political incorrectness can get someone disciplined or fired, then very likely there will be general damages.


- Public or Private figure: This is important since for public figures there are two more elements the Plaintiff is going to have to prove (falsity and fault). Public figures are people like politicians, celebrities, prominent business men, and professional athletes.

HAS is Joe Schmoe, he's not like James Rolf, or maybe the Carl Benjamin who've become very well known because of YouTube. CNN even said he's a "private citizen". I don't think anyone would consider HAS a public figure.


- Defenses:
-- Truth: Truth is a defense in Common Law defamation.

This would be CNN's strongest defense, but it only applies to Common Law, what ever jurisdiction the hypothetical court this lands in might have a defamation statute with different provisions.


Conclusion:
This would hinge on two things, HAS being able to prove that the doxing is defamatory, and whether or not the jurisdiction just uses the Common Law rules. BUT, there probably is at least one jurisdiction where in this particular set of circumstances, truth is not a defense, so there is the possibility that under this, CNN would not have a "right" to reserve.


Now people are calling this Blackmail, well lets take a look at that next.

Blackmail:
When an offender threatens to disclose embarrassing information or information that is potentially damaging to a person’s standing in the community, family or social relationships, or professional career unless the victim surrenders money, property or services.

OK, given that we've already established that CNN does not have the right to "publish his identity should any of that change" we can reasonably construe that statement to be a threat to disclose information that is potentially damaging to that person's standing. Even if they did have a right to publish it, it's foreseeable that putting him on blast would get the anti-Trump hate mob after him and possibly even be in the receiving end of aggravated battery, or even killed by some antifa member. So either way this requirement would likely be met.

CNN isn't demanding money or property from HAS, but that article can be read as to be demanding and apology, display of remorse and removal of "offending" material. Requiring him to do something could be taken as surrendering a service.

Conclusion:
So all the people calling this blackmail, the #cnnblackmail, might actually be right. This could actually be blackmail on the part of CNN.

Now from my understanding there is a statute in New York called Coercion (Penal Law - PEN section 135.60).

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

 9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.


Ok lets unpack this thing. You're guilty of second degree coercion if you make someone do something or not or something that they have a right to do, or not do, by means of instilling fear that if the demands aren't complied with you or someone else will:

• Put them on blast
• Do something that doesn't really benefit you but is instead aimed at harming the person targeted. 

 
Basically we'd follow the same analysis we did on Blackmail. HAS has the right to make memes and just be a general asshole on the internet. CNN won't put him on blast so long as he apologizes, shows remorse, takes down his "offending" posts, and not repeat this "ugly" behavior on social media again. Essentially having him stop doing something that he has a legal right to do.

CNN will dox him if any of that should change. Given that HAS sounded uncomfortable with his private information being exposed, this would meet the requirement of instilling fear in him that if he didn't comply, something was going to happen, that something in this case would be 5, and 9.

Now elements 5 and 9 are met as I mentioned earlier, publishing HAS's personal information would be publicizing an asserted fact that would tend to subject him to hated, contempt or ridicule from the anti-Trump segments of society as well as be calculated to harm materially with respect to his health and safety at the very least given that this segment of society has a violent element to it.

So yes, the elements of this crime would also be met.


So what does this all mean then? It means that in this whole school bus fire if CNN releases his personal information then it's likely a tort (Invasion of Privacy, or, depending on jurisdiction, possibly Defamation) and being a tort, CNN would not have the right to publish his personal information to reserve to being with. Given the way this was carried out, is quite possibly blackmail and/or coercion, so we have a potential tort, and an on-going crime.

My advice to HanAssholeSolo?

Brooklyn hospital shooting: Why gun-control is not working in America

So a few days ago a deranged doctor went to a hospital and opened fire on people with a NY SAFE Act compliant rifle. Among other things the NY SAFE Act, bans "assault weapons", which are defined by the Act as:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

  (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

So basically this:

This is illegal in New York under the NY SAFE Act. Looking at what happened and where it happened what I get out of this is that gun-control doesn't work. It didn't work there and it didn't work in California which has equally strict gun-control, when two jihadists decided to shoot up San Bernadino, when a loser who couldn't get laid decided to shoot up a college town, and when a disgruntled UPS guy showed what brown could do for you.

I have two main points on why gun-control isn't working in America. First, it doesn't work because it's a copy-paste solution from places like Europe and the People's Republic of China. Second, simply put, gun-control proponents in the legislature (usually Democrats in states like California and New York) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both of these points go hand in hand.

A copy-paste solution from a foreign culture:
I've mentioned before, American cultural development is unique to much of the world. One of the ways that makes it unique from old world powers like Great Britain to the West or China to the East, is that the cultural identity of what's "American" didn't exist until after the invention and mass proliferation of the gun. Ancient empires like Rome were built and spread with the sword, but America on the other hand, was established and settled with the gun. Unlike Old World nations like France, the gun has marched though history with America from Day 0, there were no American knights who rode into battle. There were American colonial militia who took up their flintlock rifles. There wasn't a moment in American history where the gun wasn't there. Guns and the United States have a relationship with each other unique to the rest of the world. So in order to find an effect solution to this uniquely American matter, will require a uniquely American solution. America is the New World, as such, her problems will require a New World solution. Old World solutions won't necessarily work here.

The biggest reason why copy-pasting gun-control laws from Australia like what Hillary Clinton hinted at won't work here (and quite possibly played a factor in her losing to wresting heel like Donald Trump) is because Australia doesn't have the cultural relationship with firearms ownership that the United States does. The problem is, many of these politicians either don't understand this (which seems to be the case since they always point to solutions from the Old World), or they're attempting social engineering to remake American culture into something else. Regardless of which it is, they're essentially trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Most politicians don't know what they're talking about:
Before you make rules about something, it makes sense to know about what that something is and what it does and how it does it right? You wouldn't write traffic laws without knowing anything about cars and how they operate. Well that's what's happening here. You might be wondering, these people have access to all sorts of experts that can educate them to make informed decisions, right? Well, that is true, but the operative word here is can, they can educate them, whether or not they actually do, is a whole other matter altogether.  

I can tell they don't know what they're talking about because all these rules and regulations they like to make up have nothing to do with a gun's internal mechanics. But everything to do with cosmetic features. For instance, this is the rifle used by the shooter (no I'm not going to name him, I'm not going to add to his infamy).

So what's the difference between that NY SAFE Act compliant rifle and the other one above that's illegal in New York? Mechanically? Nothing. The guts and internal working parts are identical. Hell you could even swap the parts between the one the shooter used and the one I posted up above.

Well why don't they just do a blanket ban on that kind of mechanism? Because the constitution doesn't let them. Semi-automatic technology, regardless of the method used, has been around since the late 1800s. Being such old technology, it has naturally proliferated though the civilian market, and is in common use. And speaking of "common use"...

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. - United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174)

This ruling has been taken to mean that firearms in common use cannot be banned. The AR-15 is probably the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US. As far as firearms go, it's literally the physical manifestation of "common use". Perhaps that's why politicians try to ban features rather than type or model line? I don't know maybe, or maybe I'm giving them more credit than what is due.

The other problem with this is that it ducks the human element behind the trigger. Like I mentioned, semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old, so what that tells me is that it wasn't the gun that changed, but it was us. Now was it us, in that now everything that happens gets attention/reported, meaning the number of instances has remained the same, we just hear about it more? Was it us, in regards to mental health? Was it us, in regards to society? What ever it is that changed in us, gun-control completely ducks the matter and moves the onus onto an inanimate object. It makes the gun a sacrificial talisman in order to avoid dealing with the real, and difficult, societal problems.

So what's the solution?
The solution is actually pretty easy, the only problem is, it's only as easy as we, as a country, make it out to be. What do I mean by that? Well, both sides are going to have to sit down at the same table and break bread.

As I mentioned, giving the politicians the benefit of the doubt, of just being ignorant as opposed to maliciously trying to remake American culture into what they think it should be, don't know what they're talking about. They don't know the mechanics and technicalities of firearms, nor do they understand the cultural impact and attachment. If they don't know, then who does?

The gun owning community.

They understand the technical details of how these weapons work, but more importantly, they're the ones who understand and appreciate their cultural effect. In other words, they know guns. Because they know guns, they're the ones who would know what works and what doesn't. The problem is though, in places like California and New York, the community is more often than not, left entirely out of the decision making process. That's why they're angry, the laws that get passed have major, direct impact on them, but they don't even get to have a seat at the table.

But, with how polarized American politics has become, thanks to both Hillary's divisive, us-against-them, identity-politics driven campaign and Donald Trump, well... being a WWE heel character, I don't think that'll happen any time soon. Neither side trusts each other, both sides are angry at each other, and both sides are doubling down on their positions. While there is common ground, no one wants people getting murdered, neither side is willing to budge on how that can be addressed. One side thinks recklessly passing knee-jerk emotionally based laws will accomplish something, while the other side thinks any dumbass yahoo should have a gun.

Guns are not f*ing toys! On the accidental youtuber shooting.

Ok so a couple days ago this happened...

A Minnesota woman killed her boyfriend Monday by shooting at a book he was holding over his chest, in an incredibly dumb YouTube stunt gone wrong.

19-year-old aspiring YouTube personality Monalisa Perez faces second-degree manslaughter charges for shooting her boyfriend, 22-year-old Pedro Ruiz, in the chest.

In terms of ridiculous social media stunt videos, you really can't get any more tragic. Ruiz was holding a large book up to his chest, which the couple thought would actually deflect a bullet fired from a monstrously powerful .50 caliber Desert Eagle handgun. The young couple was filming the clip in a desperate bid to gain more views on YouTube.

Ok... let me just get this out... Guns. Are. Not. Toys! A gun is a dangerous weapon that demands respect, the minute you don't respect it, you put someone in the hospital or the morgue with it. Like what happened here, the Desert Eagle .50 caliber Action Express is one of the most powerful handguns on the market. Let me put things into perspective.

On the high end (depends on loading, how heavy the bullet is, how much powder is packed into the case), the 9x19mm used by the military and most law enforcement organizations, hits with 617 joules of energy, that's more or less how much energy it hits with.

Dirty Harry's .44 magnum hits with 2078 joules at the high end. 

Then the .50AE, this thing hits at 2200 joules at the high end. Just to add more perspective, the standard NATO assault rifle round (used by the M-16, FNC, and the Sako) the 5.56x45 hits at 1843 joules at the high end.

The thing that really boggles the mind is that this wasn't some freak range accident, this was planned, planned all for Youtube fame. This is what happens when you blend narcissism with stupidity with a lack of respect for guns. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but with with great power (like 2200 goddamn joules) comes great responsibility. If you're going to wield something that powerful, you need to have the maturity and responsibility that it commands. Otherwise, you're just not ready for it.

As to the girlfriend... I'm going to say she's lucky she didn't get depraved heart murder for this. Thinking a book is going to stop a .50AE? How is that not reckless disregard/depraved heart?

Benoit murder-suicide - an insanity plea

Nancy and Daniel Benoit. RIP

This year is the 10 year anniversary of Benoit's murder-suicide. Way back doing the "Monday Night Wars" when WWF/WWE and WCW were going head-to-head and pushing the bounds, trouncing even Monday Night Football in ratings, I was a huge wrestling fan. I watched both promos, jumping back and fourth, and "The Crippler" Chris Benoit was one of my favorite wrestlers. His skills were amazing and he brought an intensity to the ring that kept you glued to the match. In other words, and unrivaled performer.

When ever something like this happens, people always try to make sense of the matter. Try to figure out why something happened, why someone did what they did, when no one expected it. A lot of people are saying Benoit was out of his mind, that he went crazy, that he was insane. Truth is we'll never know, the only ones who really know why are dead.

But based on what we know, is that insanity explanation going to fly in court? Let me say this first, I'm not excusing what he did. All I'm doing is following the road of 'is Benoit insane' and testing to see if he fits the legal definition of. Why? Just to give some kind of concrete foundation to the term "insane".


Lets start with what we do know.
- According to Chavo Guerrero he sent out a series of bizarre text messages just before his suicide.

- According to Chris Jericho what Benoit did was vastly out of character for him, that no one expected it. Also according to Jericho, Eddie Guerrero's death weighed very heavily on Benoit. Jericho also mentions bizarre behavior from Benoit, such as paranoia.

- According to, Nancy Benoit's sister, Sandra Toffoloni, there was strain on their marriage, and a lot of personal strain after the deaths of Victor Mar (ring name: Black Cat), Ray Traylor (ring name: Big Boss Man), Eddie and others, deeply affected Benoit. Also according to her there was a lot of self-medicating going on between Nancy and Benoit.  Additionally, according to her he didn't display the typical Alzheimer's symptoms. Toffoloni also revealed that Benoit spent two whole days alone in the house with the bodies of his wife and son, as well as a WWE official mentioning to her that Benoit had attempted to book a flight for the show he was scheduled for.

- According to Sean Allen Morley (ring name: Val Venis), at the Benoit home there were open alcohol bottles everywhere.   

- Researchers at the Sports Legacy Institute released findings that demonstrate Benoit as having Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. Having suffered the same sort of brain injury that NFL players have suffered that caused them to sink into depression and hurt themselves or others.

- Benoit's method of suicide was to rig his weight lifting machine to hang himself. A method that took an enormous amount of strength, and therefore, demonstrated to be thought out.

Lets now synthesize all this. Benoit has suffered brain injury consistent with what NFL players have suffered. There was in all probability alcohol and/or drug abuse, brought on by both personal and professional pressures. Benoit himself displaying odd behavior from the paranoia observed by Toffoloni to the bizarre text messages received by Chavo, and the strange behavior observed by Jericho. Behavior that had been observed as on-going during the last year and and a half of Benoit's life. That he had spent several days alone with the corpses of his family, with the thing that occurred to him being trying to get to work. His ultimate method of suicide being one which was difficult and took great strength to do.


So that's what we do know (I'm not even going to entertain bullshit like the Kevin Sullivan conspiracy theory, Kevin gave him a push in WCW even after the Kevin and Nancy divorced, Sullivan was behind Benoit winning the championship, I don't think there's any credence to this). What legally constitutes as "insanity" depends on what state/circuit a given court happens to be in. The important thing to focus on is if the person is "insane" at the time the act was committed. The other thing to consider is that it doesn't have to be any one single factor behind this. We'll go through each of these standards.

McNaughten Rule:
Under this rule, insanity will be found if because of a mental disease/defect the defendant:
- Did not know that his act would be wrong. 
- Did not understand the nature or quality of his actions. 

So based on what we know, regarding Benoit's behavior and the medical report, it is very likely Benoit had a mental illness/defect as a result of brain injury coupled with substance abuse.

We don't know enough to consider whether Benoit knew what he was doing was wrong.

Going by what we know it is possible that Benoit did not understand the nature of quality of his actions at the time he did it, because of the brain injuries he sustained? He did stay in the house alone with the bodies of his family. No calls to the authorities, or any mention of what happened, instead just trying to go back to work. He just killed two people and he's trying to book a flight to make a show? Did he really understand what he was doing when he did it? There is an argument there to be made that Benoit did not understand the nature and quality of what he just did. It might be mostly conjecture, but there is something going on there and a picture can be scratched together from it.

There is an argument that Benoit was insane under this rule.

Irresistible Impulse:
Under this rule insanity will be found if because of a mental disease/defect the defendant is unable to control his actions or conform his action to the law. 

Benoit has been observed by those closest around to him to be displaying strange and bizarre behavior. We don't know enough to be able to tell whether Benoit was unable to control himself, but if his acts of paranoia, such as driving different routes to the gym everyday, taking different cars, if there was some compulsiveness to that behavior, then it may point to him being unable to control his actions at the time he committed the murders.

We just don't know enough to argue whether or not Benoit was insane under this rule.

Durham Test:
Under this rule insanity will be found if the crime was a product of a mental illness. 

As I mentioned, Benoit was displaying strange and bizarre behavior, and the medical reports are consisted with brain injuries. So there is a strong argument that everything combined resulted in some sort of mental illness.

That said, it was very likely, based on what his family and friends have said about him, that the murders were a product of this mental illness. His closest people didn't see it coming, and he was behaving strangely for awhile, so more than likely something was going on in his head.

Under this test, there is an argument there for insanity.

Model Penal Code:
Under this rule insanity will be found if because of a mental disease/defect the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to either"
- Appreciate the criminality of their conduct. 
- Conform their conduct to the requirement of the law.

Based on what we know, this one is hard to tell. Did he understand what he was doing was criminal at the time he did it? Maybe. Maybe not. If he's refocusing on work with two dead people that he's just killed, maybe he was so out of it that he didn't appreciated the criminality of what he did.

From what we know, there's a weak argument, mostly conjecture, but there's still enough there to work with, and things do lean towards insanity.

...

So there it is, had Chris Benoit gone insane when he committed murder, under three of the legal standards of insanity, based on what is known, quite possibly. He was quite likely insane in both the "he's want himself" sense, and in the legal sense. Had he not killed himself, had he gone to trial, it's certainly possible that he's be found Not Guilty by reason of insanity. Does that mean he'd walk for what he did? I doubt it, he's probably be institutionalized.

So what's my take on this as a fan of his ten years after? Do I think he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Hell no! Because of what he did the attention will always be on the double murders, not on his skills as a wrestler. Do I think WWE should continue to pretend that Chris Benoit doesn't exist? No. Because he did exist, I don't think he should be glorified (like don't release any blu-rays focused on him, but have an archive of his matches), but by pretending he didn't exist just fuels the kind of infamy/mystique around him.  People know why he's treated like he doesn't exist and new fans who hear about him are going to get curious and look him up. In fact, it's reached the level of being an internet meme. In other words he'll never be erased.

Ten years ago when it happened, WWE made the right decision. But ten years later today, I don't think they should go out of their way to show him, but also shouldn't go out of their way to pretend he never existed anymore. But also, Benoit is an example of what can happen to someone when the perfect storm of personal and professional pressures, substance abuse and brain injuries all come together. Why it's important to seek help, because that shit will eat you. Was he a monster for what he did? YES. But monsters don't come from nowhere...

The angry rantings of an Asian-American: Why I hate the "Progressive" Left part 1

The main reason why I hate the Pro[re]gressive Left is simple and it really boils down to this, I'm not weak. I'm Asian-American, Filipino to be specific, so that makes me a minority in the US. I'm not sure what chain of logic leads them to think so, but somehow for the Pro[re]gressive, that means I'm weak.

So how did I get to that conclusion?

More often than not, I'll see some young upper-middle class kid saying they're fighting against racism, sexism and bigotry. So on the surface I ought to be friendly towards them right? I mean after all they claim to be fighting for me.

Well here's the thing... I never asked them to. I never needed them, nor wanted them to "fight" for me. Their "help" was never needed, is not needed, and never will be needed. Combined with age and personal experience, I've been around a bit. I've been to my share of crazy parties, seen my share of drug use and their aftermath, and buried my share of friends.

A little bit of background. 

I was born the in early/mid '80s, early enough that I still have memories of the '80s. So I grew up though the '90s, becoming socially aware of things around the mid to late '90s ,and becoming politically aware around the mid '90s and formulating my views in the late '90s and into the early 2000's. Essentially my socio-political views came out of the end of Bill Clinton and into the era of George W Bush's presidency. During all of that I ran with multiple circles of friends, I ran with a circle of video game and anime nerds and at the same time I ran with a circle of crazy party friends. So I had a pretty varied social circle of friends. I'd go from one night hanging out at a 24-hr diner talking to friends about Gundam Wing and how the Tallgeese was the most bad ass of all the Mobile Suits, while the next night I'd be drinking a poorly made cocktail (that was just all alcohol) and spending the night with a wild punk rock chick, who wore black all the time and liked to spin fire on her free time. 

These circles of friends I've ran with came from all strata of society, all races and social classes. In short it was a microcosm of assimilation. We had the kids with parents who had money that would host the parties when the parents were away, and the poorer kids who lived in the shady neighborhoods who had the hook ups. No one gave a shit what you were as long as you were cool. The crazy parties I went to had people in our late teens, some of us had just graduated, while others were about to. Then in college there were frat hangouts I had gone to. No one cared about "privilege" or "oppression".  

On that note, college was also something completely different back the from what I've been hearing that it's turned into. Many moons ago, I took a class at San Francisco State University that was an objective and academic look at the three big Abrahamic religions. One of my classmates was a practicing Muslim. So when we got to the section of Islam, he was having a hard time stepping out of his faith and analyzing the religion from an outside view, and the idea that the Koran wasn't the perfect word of God but yet another religious/cultural text was a concept that seemed to even scare him. It wasn't till the prof conceded that what we were doing would amount to blasphemy. In a polite and articulate way, the proffessor essentially said that his feelings didn't matter.

But this being 2004, and all of us there having some vague memory of the '80s and a time called the Cold War, and of a scary ass country on the other side of the world called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that jailed people who didn't agree with the government and who had over 100 nuclear missiles aimed at us, no one was offended, no one was crying about their feels, no one ran to the nearest safe space, and no one got fired. Perhaps it was because we all had perspective on what oppression really was.

My classmate persevered in the class, and presumably gained new insight into his faith. He didn't lose his shit, he didn't freak out, didn't accuse the professor of anything and tried to get him fired. He didn't go complain to someone that he was being oppressed, nor did he go

Back in my day, "Bonita Tindle" is something that never could happen. Back then people were much more grounded and it took a lot more than some White guy with dreads to set them off.

During this time period, I easily fell into one of the many forms of Liberal. Conservativism at the time was exemplified by then President George W Bush and his first term administration, with people like John Ashcroft. In other words, my personal liberal views were forged in the era where "Compassionate Conservativism" was at it's height. My views were forged with the last fading memories of the Cold War and stories of the oppressiveness of the Soviet regime, and in the era where factions of Protestant Christianity, factions including the apocalyptic, belief in the Book of Revelations faction of Protestant Christianity, were trying mold society into their own ideal image.

So where does that put me in terms of what's going on today? 

Well I see this shit happening all over again. Only this time it's extremist jackasses on the left who are trying to mold society into their own ideal image. I really couldn't say why I didn't turn into a whiny-ass, unable to function in society, crybully. Maybe it was old school parents who didn't buy into the bullshit new-age hippy style of parenting. Maybe it was the fact that for a part of my life I lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation, and shared half the planet with a big brutal oppressor. Maybe those things helped me keep perspective. 

I didn't worry about "microaggression", I didn't worry about a "racist White patriarchy", probably because I saw us come out of the Cold War without glowing green and seen us as a society make it past that knife edge period in history. Now why am I constantly bringing up the Cold War. Well, to put it straight, I don't think these 20 year old millennials know what evil is. They weren't there for the Civil Rights movement, they weren't there for the horrors of Vietnam, and they weren't there for the fear of the Cold War.

Many of these millennials were born after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Though they would be old enough to have memories of 9-11, so maybe that theory is a bit off. 

So that's where I came from, a nerdy kid who befriended some people who would go one to become crazy parties, in the backdrop of a transition of the geopolitical order from the old Cold War era to the new era that came, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.

In other words... I seen a lot of shit! Seen a lot of shit, gone though a lot of shit and I'm still standing. Still standing and still plowing forward.

So that said... How did I get to the conclusion that the Progressive Left sees me as weak? Well, not to toot my own horn, but I've got quite a bit of experience behind me. Compare that to the experience that the typical college SJW has. Now, after doing that, what could possibly make any of these SJW types think that someone like me, needs them to fight for them?

Well there are a few things that got me to that conclusion

First their paternalistic, view of minorities, that we seem to need them to protect us and clear the roads for us. They have it in their heads that we need them to, not make society more fair, but instead to make it harder for White people. Essentially, they want to give White people a handicap, implying that minorities are inferior to Whites and need a handicap bonus to compete with them. This first point also ultimately shows their racism. They're trapped in this weird "White guilt" mindset, that everything is White people's fault. Now I'm not going to say that Colonialism in the early 20th Century didn't cause problems but that's a topic for another day. Here's the funny thing though, if White people have the power to cause all these problems, then the existing inverse is that White people have the power to fix all these problems. Heads, it's White Guilt, tails it's the White Savior Complex (by that I mean this idea that White people have the responsibility to fix the social problems of minority communities, and remove the obstacles that minority individuals face because they have the "power and privilege" to do it), two sides of the same racist coin. How is this racist? It's racist in that the premise is that White people need to fix the problem, as opposed to minorities having the power themselves to overcome obstacles and fix the problem ourselves. Look motherfucker, I can overcome my own damn obstacles without you. You are not needed, you never were needed, and you won't ever be needed.


This is also sexist, in that it becomes sexist when you replace "White" with "men". It's essentially the same argument. That we need to give handicap points to one side so they can compete with the other.

Second, well as the old saying goes "who died and made you king?" I can't even begin to get into the level of arrogance that it takes for them to think that they deserve to be given power, so I'm just not going to. Now the reason I take issue with this, is that given my background, vs the background of your average UC Berkley SJW undergrad, what gives them the right to tell society what's what under my name? Subheading A, what makes them think that I need society changed for me to make it? Subheading B, even if I needed society changed for me to make it through, what makes them think they know what changes I need? Hinde mo alam ako!

Third, what makes them think that I need them to be a voice for me? That I need them to be a voice for me in both volume and content? I mean case in point, Democrat Sally Boynton Brown. Look dumbass, I don't need you to shut people down for my benefit. Are you implying that I am so weak that I need YOU as my advocate? That I am so weak that I need a White person to be an advocate for me (what was I saying a little while about about White Savior Complex)?! This is the paternalistic crap I was talking about earlier, that these people seem to think they need to regulate people's individual conduct. They think that because they have "power and privilege" that they have some kind of warped sense Nobelesse Obilge to use that "power and privilege" to bring down the "racist White patriarchy" so minorities like me can make it in this country. As if we didn't have the knowledge and power to do it ourselves.

Given those three factors, the only logical conclusion that can be reached, is that they think racial/ethnic minorities remain in a position of weakness. Such weakness, that someone as naive and fresh faced as them are in a position where they can help us. Maybe it's just me, but this level of arrogance, or this level of delusion, just burns my ass. It perpetuates this concept that minorities are weak and unable to make their own way in this country, which the example of countless successful minorities in this country prove false. In other words, it attempts to brainwash minorities into thinking they're weak and that they need the "White Savior" to clear the way for them, because they can't make it otherwise.

There are other reasons, why I just out right hate the Progressive Left, usually related to their other deranged unhinged views on things, but I'll save that for later. But I did mention the Cold War several times so I will go into that a bit.

The Cold War ended in 1991, Progressive Leftism arguable blew it up into the mainstream with the Gamergate controversy that started in summer of 2014. So people born the year the Cold War ended were already 23 or so years old. In other words, they don't really have a real reference point for what constitutes "oppression". They don't have any real cognitive memory of the Cold War, nor is there any real kind of connection with historical material to the era. I read stuff on the Cold War and for me, it's childhood, for them, it's something that happened a long time ago.

In other words, they don't know what evil is. The horror stories of Communist regimes is too far in proximity to them, so for them "oppression" is now something that makes them emotionally uncomfortable. Something that hurts their feelings.

When I was a kid, probably into 1993 and 1994, we still heard about and learned about the horrors of Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. I went to a private school and we were introduced to history earlier than the public schools were, so we watched a lot of interviews with Communist defectors, and I recall one movie about a family that fled East Berlin into West Berlin on a hot air balloon, so we got to see a depiction of life in East Germany, with the Stazi watching everyone. We heard stories of oppression from people who actually were oppressed, oppressed by some of the most iron fisted regimes in history. But not just that though, there was also a proximity in time when we were learning all this, it either was still happening, or only happened a few years ago. I remember in 1993 or 1994 we watched VHS recordings of the Berlin Wall getting torn down. Then in 1995 we had the Bosnian genocide, we followed that very closely in school.

Now these college millennials haven't really been exposed to the same kind of thing. The Bosnian genocide was something that happened far away, by a regime that couldn't come here and hurt us. Then in 9-11 and the subsequent War on Terror, we saw the Taliban collapse in a matter of days, we saw Saddam's regime collapse in just as short amount of time. We saw the 2011 surge that saw the end of some of the major insurgency actions like in Falluja, and in the same year we saw the end of Osama bin Laden. The War on Terror is no longer on the forefront of public thought. We don't have regular forces boots on the ground against ISIS, so for the general public, it still remains as something far away.

Having not been exposed to these kinds of things, the reasonable assumption is that they don't have a really concrete reference point for what is "evil". Now I'm sure there are other reasons, but the fact they the equate the most minor slight as "aggression", the constant othering of someone who simply has a different political view as "a Nazi" and therefore evil. I mean shit, even segre-goddamn-gration is making a come back. The reasonable conclusion is that they've never experienced actual evil. Because if they had, then they wouldn't be wasting energy on non-sense like "microagression" and "cultural appropriation". It's that or they're really just that weak due to leftist helicopter parents who moved aside all personal obstacles from them and therefore never really had a chance to grow.



Now has things in the US been harder for me because I'm Asian-American? To tell you the truth... I don't know. I really don't and you want to know why? Because most of my life I've been busting my ass to get by, finishing my BA, getting a job, going to law school and finishing my JD, getting a job again, and prepping for the Bar. I've been too busy working hard to make something of myself to really notice, let alone give a damn. You know what I was told as a kid? To work harder. Oh you didn't succeed? It wasn't because of racism or what ever other -ism, it's because you didn't work hard enough. If you want to change things, then go and get into a position of power and change things from there. Some people have it harder than others and that's just life. You can work hard and carve your way to the top and change it from there yourself. Or you can bitch and cry and wait till someone else does it for you.

So there it is, where I came from and why it is only natural that I would find myself in direct opposition to the Progressive Left who claims to be my "ally".

So apparently taking a Gaullist view of a matter makes you a Nazi...

Recently French presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen stated:

"I don't think France is responsible for the Vel d'Hiv..."

"I think that generally speaking if there are people responsible, it's those who were in power at the time. It's not France..."

"I consider that France and the Republic were in London during the occupation and that the Vichy regime was not France..."

 
This view was ultimately held by the Fourth Republic that replaced the gouvernement provisoire de la République française (GPRF). That Petain's Vichy regime was an illegal government and not the legitimate government of France. The two factions that would come to form the Comité français de Libération nationale (French Committee of National Liberation) were based in London (de Gaulle) and in Algiers (Giraud). That said, did Le Pen say anything wrong here?

Charles de Gaulle's GPRF has been seen as the legitimate government of France after the collapse of the Third Republic. The establishment of the Vichy government has been considered illegal on several grounds.

First issue was the absence and non-voluntary abstentions of a number of  Senators and Deputies as well as coercive manipulations by pro-Nazi Pierre Laval (subsequently executed via firing squad for treason by the GPRF). This puts the vote granting powers to Marshal Philippe Pétain, in question and makes Petain's assumption of power suspect.

The second issue is that parliament couldn't delegate it's powers without control of it's use. In effect, that is what it did when it granted full powers to Marshall Petain. The vote essentially gave Petain dictatorial powers and was the end of the Third Republic if it wasn't already dead.

Third, was that the constitution made it impossible to question the regime's republican form. A form utterly rejected by Petain's French State.

Essentially the Third Republic didn't just collapse under the weight of the Wehrmacht assault and Hitler's demands, it was dissolved under dubious circumstances. Vel d'Hiv happened under the governance of the French State, not the Third Republic, and certainly not the GPRF that the Fourth Republic grew out of.

So if we take the view that the Fifth and Fourth Republics were successors to the GPRF, which carried the torch of republic after the dissolution of the Third Republic, the yes, like Le Pen said, France and the Republic were in London.

Look at this way, in Star Wars, the New Republic founded after the Empire's defeat in Epi. VI was a continuation of the Galactic Republic. Taking the view the Left has on this, is akin to holding the New Republic responsible for the atrocities carried out by the Empire. It's the same as saying the New Republic was responsible for Jedha City's destruction as well as planet Alderaan's.

Where does that put the Fifth Republic though? You ask me, tracing it's linage and republican tradition to the Fourth Republic, to the GPRF, and ultimately to the Third Republic, the Fifth Republic has the responsibility of bringing to justice the criminals of the French State that perpetuated it's wrongs against the citizens of the Third Republic. If the survivors of Vel d'Hiv were French citizens, or Jews that fled to France for safety from the Third Reich, then as successors to the Third Republic, the current Fifth Republic has the responsibility to drag those French State perpetrators to justice. Not because the Fifth Republic had anything to do with the State's atrocities, but because by extension the Fifth Republic is responsible to the people who were under the protection of the Third Republic.

Since the French State doesn't exist, then that responsibility is to pursue the individual perpetrators. Once they are all dead, that's it, they're dead, the French State is dead, the officials of the State that carried out the atrocities are dead, there's no one else to come after. Time to turn the page on that chapter of history.

I find it funny that adopting the view of one of the few of the utterly broken and demoralized Third Republic who wanted to continue the fight against Hitler, makes you a Nazi. Say what you will about Charles De Gaulle, that he was an ego maniac who quite possibly had a messiah complex when it came to France, who compared himself to Jeanne d'Arc. That he was hard headed and got along just barely enough with Roosevelt and Churchill to fight Hitler and Mussolini. The fact remains that he never gave up the fight against the fascists and he was able to ultimately rally the various French colonies, and French nationals who still wanted to fight into a single unified body, the Free French. The fact remains that he, along side General Henri Giraud, formed the Comité français de Libération nationale, and later formed the GPRF when the Free French 2nd Armored Division lead the charge into Paris and liberated the city from the fascist's army, the Wehrmacht.

And now all of a sudden, his views are Nazi views? The man who commanded the French Army's 4e Division cuirassée, one of the few French Army units winning victories against the Wehrmacht, the man who later went on to continue the war against the Nazis when his demoralized country no longer had the stomach for it. The guy who was on the hitlist of actual fascist regimes. His views are now "Nazi" and "fascist" views? Yeah ok...

General Charles de Gaulle, for all his personal flaws, has done more to fight the actual Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei than any of these black block "Antifa" Storm Divisions ever have with their rioting and terrorist acts they carry out against their imaginary Nazis. So excuse me while I laugh my head off when a Leftists cries "Nazi" at someone who voices a Gaullist point of view on an issue. By the time Germany was invaded the GPRF's Armée française de la Libération fielded over 1 million troops and marched right into Germany along side the British and the Americans, and if we include the Normandie-Niemen squadron that de Gaulle created, along side the Soviets. The first of the Western Allies to reach the Rhine and the Danube was the French 1st Armored Division. The French 1st Army also clashed with the Nazi Waffen Schutzstaffel (not the German Wehrmacht regular army, but the Waffen-SS an actual wing of the Nazi Party, you know, actual Nazis) in Operation Nordwind and other engagements. So what have Leftists today done to fight actual Nazis as opposed to their imaginary Nazis.

Yeah excuse me while I laugh my head off at Leftists calling views held by de Gaulle (refusing to associate the French Republic with the atrocities of the French State, declaring that the Vichy regime was "not France") as "being a Nazi".

What ever it's worth, I am getting sick and damn tired of this culture of guilt that the Left likes to push on people who aren't brown on black. Between the purges and trials carried out while the GPRF was in power, and subsequent trials under the Fourth and Fifth Republics many of Vichy authorities who actually carried out the Nazi's policies have been imprisoned or executed. Is it regrettable that some of them escaped judgement well into the 1990s? It most certainly is. But if there's any fault to be found with the Fifth Republic it's in dragging it's feet to bring these collaborationist to justice, not for the actual acts committed by another government.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, "you didn't do it, so you have nothing to feel guilty about." My family comes from the Philippines, should I be resentful at Spain and the United States for what they did to my ancestors? No, that would be stupid, the people that carried out the wrong are all dead (though contemporary Leftists would probably encourage me to still be angry at the "evil White colonialists"). And soon within the next few decades, if it hasn't come to pass already, the Vichy officials who carried out Nazi policies, who haven't already been executed, will be all dead. When that comes to pass, then what? Will the Left continue to hold citizens of the Fifth Republic responsible for the actions of the French State? People with absolutely nothing to do with it? People who very may well be children and grandchildren who fought under the Cross of Lorainne? Sure maybe there would be some argument if the Fourth and subsequent Fifth Republics were continuations of the French State, but they were continuations of the GPRF and by extension the Third Republic.

At least with Japan the argument is there that the current State of Japan is a reformed continuation of the Empire of Japan, given that the Emperor Jimmu's line continues to reign and the current constitution is technically a heavily altered (granted it's been altered beyond recognition) Meiji Constitution. There's some basis there to keep hounding the current Japanese government for apologies and reparations for WWII. But the Fifth Republic doesn't even have that level of ties with the French State.

Should the atrocities of the French State be forgotten about? No, certainly not. But on the same token, there is no need for self-flagellation and assuming the sins of another, Jesus already did that for all of us. Did you round up Jews and put them on a train to the ovens? No? Then stop hitting yourself, feel free to flagellate and hit the guy who actually carried out the deed though.

Do I support Le Pen, no not really, I'm largely neutral towards her the way I was largely neutral towards Donald Trump. I'm sure she's wrong on many issues and might just be pandering to an enraged voting bloc with populist rhetoric. But in this regard, I don't really see anything wrong that she said. I just see more of the Left looking for something to complain about like they've been doing in the US. Though I do also find it funny that the Left is supporting a banker over a woman in this final round of election in France, how many of the same people in the Left in the US who back Macron were the same people that were saying if you didn't back Hillary you hate women?