Add This One to the Growing List of Evidence that Bernard-Henri Is Hallucinating 

Theodore Schleifer, writing for CNN:

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson declared Thursday evening that Donald Trump was likely to be “the best president for Israel ever,” an overwhelming endorsement delivered as a former Republican Vice President sat in the audience.

[…]

Trump has positioned himself as a fierce defender of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Compare this to the clashing of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Obama administration. If actions speak louder than words, then Bernard-Henri’s opinion piece that I won’t stop criticizing has zero merit.

One of my biggest complaints with the left is that it often seems to pay more attention to what people say (with its spin, of course) than what they do. Right now, judging people by their actions, if you ask “Who likes Jews more - Obama or Trump?” then the answer is Trump. Bernard-Henri is hallucinating.

Here’s an Example of Someone with an Actual Jew Problem 

From ABC News:

A preschool teacher in Texas has been fired after a series of anti-Semitic posts on social media, including a tweet that said “kill some Jews.”

KTVT reports The Children’s Courtyard in Arlington said it fired teacher Nancy Salem after thoroughly investigating her tweets. Among those identified by the watchdog group Canary Mission was one in which she said “gassed a Jew. I’m sweating. Heil.”

In another, she asked, “How many Jews died in the holocaust? Not enough, hahaha.”

This is noticeably different from yesterday’s paper-thin claim chowder on Trump’s alleged Jew problem.

Also, Nancy Salem is wearing a hijab. Shocker.

Transgender Rights and Social Conscience

John Gruber, commenting on Wednesday’s transgender rollback by the Trump administration:

Trump’s retrograde stance on transgender rights is heartbreaking, but it’s not going to take us back. Trump’s administration can change how the law is enforced, but it can’t change society. Laws can (and sadly, will) be rolled back. Our collective social conscience cannot.

It’s interesting to see John’s use of conscience here. It’s pretty common to see this in the pro-trans community in general, too. My question is, from what is this conscience derived? Where is its basis? On internal gut? On social norm? These sorts of fluid metrics change from society to society and culture to culture. They change with the passing of time and with what’s considered acceptable. They’re unstable and impossible to control. What then?

This idea that being against transgender rights is going against conscience is interesting, because conscience is the very reason the other side is against it. From Deuteronomy 22:5, we read:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

If I were a liberal I would say that failing to give credence to this verse as a valid viewpoint is anti-Semitic since it’s part of the Jews’ sacred writings, but I’ll forbear. That would be playing liberals at their own game.

If I did play liberals at their game, I’d also say this: why don’t you interview the average immigrants from the seven banned countries and see what their stance is on trans rights? Get back with me on that.

If your conscience is bound to the truth of the Bible then your conscience will tell you that transgender rights are an abomination. There is no way around that. That doesn’t mean that you treat trans people poorly - they deserve your respect as much as any other human being. But you don’t have to go around accommodating their abomination via legislature. That’s the difference between tolerance and acceptance. The government can tolerate trans people but it has no reason to accept their choice. If you choose to pursue a path that is an abomination, then life will be hard for you. Donald Trump makes no apology on God’s behalf on this, nor should he.

We live in a free country, and that freedom includes religious freedom. You have the freedom to say that the Bible is wrong. But if you’re going to do that, you also need to say why your conscience derivatives are superior. A Divine Creator who rules over all saying something is right or wrong is much more persuasive than a group of people who can’t even get the laws to be in their favor saying something is right or wrong. I like and respect Gruber a lot, but he doesn’t have a monopoly on conscience. On this issue, he’s got pretty low market share I’m afraid.

Claim Chowder about Trump’s Jew Problem 

In an op-ed piece that truly lives up to its name, Bernard-Henri Levy writes:

I had no idea how right I was, a month ago, when I wrote in The New York Times that American Jews should be wary of their new President.

I love reading liberal leftist propaganda. Saying that Trump has a Jew problem is the new “Apple is doomed.” It has no bearing on reality, but it’s still entertaining to see people who actually believe the conspiracy theory.

An Easy Way to Change Your RSS Guid Schema without Flooding Readers and Twitter with Old Posts

For a while now, I’ve been advocating having www in domains. I also believe in using HTTPS. Also I’ve fairly recently come to see the importance of having dates in your URLs.

A challenge comes when you’re trying to make such changes to your site’s permalink structure, however. Assuming you have your post’s full URL as the guid in your RSS (and if you’re not then you’re doing it wrong1), it means that scrapers will incorrectly think that all items in your XML feed are new.

A specific example should make this clear. Let’s say you decide to go from HTTP to HTTPS. You update your site URL in your site’s core configuration, and this update perpetuates across the board, including your RSS. Your feed’s guid entries went from this:

<guid isPermaLink="true">http://example.com/2017/02/22/some-post/</guid>

To this:

<guid isPermaLink="true">https://example.com/2017/02/22/some-post/</guid>

Since the guid is the unique identifier for RSS scrapers,2 you can see how the scraper is going to incorrectly think that you’ve published something new when in fact you’ve simply tweaked the URL of something previously published. If you’ve integrated something like dlvr.it as a means of auto-tweeting your new posts, this means you’re going to be sending out promiscuous tweets as well. It’s a real debacle.

Here’s how you fix it. You update your RSS so that any old items just don’t show up. Inside my main for loop of my feed.xml that loops through the most recent posts, here’s what that looks like in Jekyll:

{% capture posttime %}{{post.date | date: '%s' | minus: 1487640396 }}{% endcapture %}
{% if posttime contains '-' %}
  {% continue %}
{% endif %}

Change out the “minus” value to the timestamp cutoff you need. It’ll be a hardcoded value. In my experience this is usually the current timestamp at the time I’m needing the cutoff, and so I just head over to unixtimestamp.com and grab it from there. Once you do this, you’re all set. You can now make changes to your URL schema without having to worry about spamming your readers with a bunch of preexisting content. If you like keeping your code clean, after you’ve published enough new things that your posts prior to this change no longer appear in your XML feed, you can always revert your commit that added this conditional.

I wish I’d known about this “hack” years ago, because I’ve had clients, friends, and acquaintances that needed it. I’ve seen it plague 8-figure businesses.

You can add this to your growing list of things that Jekyll’s way better at than WordPress too, by the way. Editing your RSS feed in Jekyll is a breeze.

  1. To quote again from Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, the entity responsible for the official RSS spec:

    In all cases, it’s recommended that you provide the guid, and if possible make it a permalink.

    I’m a firm believer in following specs unless there’s a very good reason not to. ↩︎

  2. That’s assuming, of course, that the guid is present; otherwise, scrapers look for other means of uniqueness. But you can be very sure that in such situations, these scrapers mumble and grumble about how the feed they’re inspecting doesn’t adhere to the proper syntax specification. ↩︎

Securing Skype 

Nick Heer:

I rarely use Skype, so I was surprised when I was notified upon signing in yesterday that I needed to change my password. I didn’t really think much of it — I was about to jump into a meeting — but I was told today that one of my contacts, who I haven’t contacted over Skype in about a month, received a pretty sketchy link from me recently.

I just went through the consolidation process that Nick linked to. Feeling better already. Thanks Nick.

The Media’s Obsession with Donald Trump 

Farhad Manjoo, writing for the New York Times:

All presidents are omnipresent. But it is likely that no living person in history has ever been as famous as Mr. Trump is right now. It’s possible that not even the most famous or infamous people of the recent or distant past — say, Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Michael Jackson, Muhammad Ali or Adolf Hitler — dominated media as thoroughly at their peak as Mr. Trump does now.

Trump is to politics what Apple is to tech. He’s the one thing everyone wants to talk about. I’m as guilty as anyone in my obsession. I’m following Trump ten times as much as I followed Obama. Farhad’s right — all the major media outlets are a catalyst to this. You just know Trump is loving the attention, too. Sweet man.

Mark Zuckerberg 2020 

Ben Thompson:

It is certainly possible that, as per recent speculation, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is preparing to run for President.

With his usual thoroughness, Ben makes a compelling case that it might not be a good idea having the the world’s #1 website and the world’s #1 most powerful nation ruled by the same person. Still, it’s fascinating to conjecture the possibility. I’d love to watch a debate between Zuckerberg and Trump.

Scott Adams’ Video on Trump and Sweden

Yesterday Scott Adams had some compelling things to say about Trump’s recent comments about Sweden. A few things are worth visiting here.

First, I question whether Trump thought he was telling an untruth. Let’s look at what Trump said:

You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden — Sweden — who would believe this? Sweden, they took in large numbers, they are having problems like they never thought possible.

There are two ways that Trump could have said this without deliberately telling an untruth.

The first explanation is very simple, and I think it’s what actually happened: by “last night”, Trump could have been simply referring to when he viewed the Fox News story, and didn’t even have the timeframe of the events being reported in mind. We talk like this all the time without realizing it. The other night I rewatched the original 1960 Magnificent Seven. It would have been very natural for me the next day to say something like, “Last night when Calvera got shot, did you notice how he flipped backwards?” Do I really mean that Calvera got shot last night? No. What I really mean is “Last night when we saw Calvera get shot…” But we often leave this part out without even thinking about it.

The second way Trump could’ve said this without intent on falsehood is that he literally thought that the events Fox News was reporting occurred that very night. Given that this was a report and not a live broadcast, I find it pretty unlikely that he could’ve made this mistake, but sometimes he gets confused - does anyone doubt he gets frequently sidetracked with his antiquated Android while he’s watching TV? - and I wouldn’t eliminate this possibility.

Regardless, if you remove the words “last night” in Sweden, literally everything Trump said was 100% true in the above quote. There’s plenty of reporting to support the fact that Sweden has a Muhammadan problem. I’m a little bummed that Scott Adams doesn’t address this head on, but I understand that it would cost him followers and it’s a battle he’s not ready to fight (yet).

This brings me to my second point, which is this: if the truth isn’t powerful enough for you that you have to resort to lies, then I question your agenda. Trump shouldn’t have to resort to lies to get his agenda through, if his agenda is legitimate. If Muhammadans really are a problem then the truth should make that abundantly clear. In other words, Scott’s claim that truth has limited usefulness is only true to a politician who does not have the trust of the American people. If a politician strives to always be true, people will learn to trust that politician, even if most other politicians are not truthful. The real story here is that Trump told the truth about Sweden, and the truth served him well. Next time, he should choose the truth again. Truth works. Fiction doesn’t, because people find out you’re wrong and you become irrelevant. You can be somewhat inaccurate and get by with it, but the gist of what you’re saying has to be right on - and for Trump it was absolutely right on. Scott’s got the effectiveness of truth and falsehood backwards here.

That segues into my third point. There’s an important distinction that I’d like to see Scott Adams make: there’s a difference between factual inaccuracy and deliberate lies. It’s impossible to deny that Trump is often factually inaccurate, but I don’t get the vibe that he’s deliberately lying and telling things he knows to be untrue. He just choses to play fast and loose with reality, bypassing the expected step of fact-checking. The end result looks the same on the surface but the motive is different. The good news is that if Trump merely has a proclivity to being factually inaccurate but he really does cares about the truth, then he’ll change his story when the facts are brought before him. What we’re seeing is that he does indeed change his mind when he’s faced with irrefutable facts. The left would violently disagree with me on this, but oh well. I’m writing to the home team on this one.

Fourthly, something obvious: the video and audio quality of this video are truly horrendous. Scott streams something, puts in on the web, links a blog post to it, and moves on. Maybe production quality will be a priority later, but right now you can tell that he’s being very chill about it all. What I find fascinating about this is that his content is so engaging that in one dimension, the production quality doesn’t matter. I really don’t like the design of his blog, his font family, his font size, and the fact that it’s powered by Tumblr. But I still come back to it every time, because his content is engaging. Delivery is important, but engagement is the most important thing. And Scott’s got loads of that.

The Deadly Effects of Political Correctness, as Seen from Sweden 

Paul Joseph Watson, writing at InfoWars:

An unprecedented number of cars that have been set on fire in major cities over recent months, while film makers who attempt to document the problems caused by Sweden’s Islamic no-go ghettos are routinely attacked. Filmmaker Ami Horowitz was viciously assaulted by a gang of Muslim men in Stockholm recently, at one point fearing for his life.

The situation is so dire that even some Somali immigrants are considering returning home, saying that areas of some Swedish cities are more dangerous than their notorious homeland

How’s that political correctness working out for you, Sweden?

Yes, I’m unashamedly linking to InfoWars. Show me the coverage from CNN or New York Times, and I’ll link to that instead.

Sweden’s got a serious Muhammadan problem and instead of talking about it, the media is talking about how Trump’s timeline is off. It’s more fun for leftist media to talk about how Trump’s wrong with his specifics than about the fact that in general, he’s spot on.

NYTimes’ Deleted Tweet 

@nytimes, in an earlier tweet:

We’ve deleted an earlier tweet to this article that was poorly phrased

From web.archive.org, we can see exactly what that deleted tweet said:

It’s rare to see black and Latino students excel in math. These kids are changing that.

How’s that political correctness working out for you, NYTimes?

Inconsolata-g 

At a coworker’s suggestion, I’ve been using the Inconsolata-g font for the past 24 hours in my IDEs and Terminal. It’s a beautiful font and it’s free. I recommend checking it out.

A Textbook Example of Political Correctness from BBC 

An authorless entry from BBC an hour ago:

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” the president wrote on Twitter.

The reaction was swift. “Every president is irritated by the news media. No other president would have described the media as ‘the enemy of the people’”, tweeted David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama.

Here’s what we’re to learn from this article:

  • If a bad guy says something (e.g. Stalin), that automatically makes it wrong. End of discussion.
  • Even if there are conceivably enemies of the American People, we can never ever admit that because it’s not very nice, it’s politically incorrect.
  • When Donald Trump tweets something, analyzing the truth claims in it comes secondary to seeing whether or not people on Twitter don’t like his opinion. After all, since there is no God and therefore no truth, we can only get guidance for right and wrong from the herd, not from any sort of objective reality.

Obviously BBC didn’t like what Trump tweeted, but the way to attack the tweet is by analyzing the truth claims first, and BBC didn’t do that. Instead, BBC failed to admit even the possibility of enemies existing, and even the possibility of calling out those enemies publicly. After all, Stalin did that once, so it can’t possibly be ok.

What Political Correctness and Racism Have in Common

Jacob Clifton has written a thought provking piece at Buzzfeed about the downfall of Felix Kjellber:

First, The Sun isolated audio from a video in which Kjellberg uses a racial slur during a particularly celebratory moment. A few days later, a steadily increasing propensity for referencing Nazis, Hitler, and anti-Semitic topics – the Wall Street Journal counts nine – exploded, in a sketch in which Kjellberg hired a pair of men in India to hoist a banner calling for the death of all Jews (a request that Kjellberg maintains he never thought they would carry out).

Political correctness is failing to say something that’s true, or saying something that’s untrue, to protect a guilty party. A couple of examples of political correctness:

  • You’re statistically just as safe among all racial groups in the United States.
  • Islam is just as good of a civilization and culture as Western civilization and should be as an equal.

Political incorrectness is a willingness to face the truth regardless of the cost and regardless of who it offends. Our nation needs more political incorrectness. Until we are willing to face reality, we’re hallucinating a narrative that has no connection to reality, to borrow a phrase from Scott Adams. You can never fix a problem that you deny exists. A civilization that doesn’t face its problems will not survive; I’d even go so far as to say that it doesn’t deserve to survive.

What Felix Kjellber is exhibiting here is not political incorrectness, however. He’s not boldly facing reality and telling it “like it is.” Instead, he’s being a racist. There’s a very clear line in the sand between willing to face the truth and being a racist. The two things have nothing to do with each other, and anyone who conflates the two is only serving the side of racism.

Political correctness and racism have this in common: they don’t care about what’s right and true. They focus on identity, not on behavior. They deny that something can be disproven by actions and character. They insist that you can rightly come to a conclusion about a group of people based simply on what you think, rather than what reality tells you. The politically correct person says, “No matter how much evidence you give me of the horrid treatment of women in Muslim countries, I will still be a feminist and praise Islam as a great religion.” The racist says, “No matter how much you tell me that this Christian from Syria is a nice person, I reject him for the simple fact that he’s from Syria, and nothing good can come out of Syria.”

When you stop and think about it, political correctness and racism are two sides to the same coin.

Next time you hear someone say or do something racist under the guise of being political incorrect, send them this link. The two things are not one and the same.

What Were You Expecting with a Trump Administration? 

Scott Adams:

I don’t know what you expected when Trump went to Washington, but it isn’t too different from what I imagined. I assumed there would be broken dishes. And I assumed it would take him months to get his systems in place.

The thing that makes Scott so comforting to read is that few things seem to take him by surprise. Amidst the chaos, it’s comforting to know that Trump’s administration is going more or less as expected for someone.

What Happens When You Take Michael Flynn’s Resignation at Face Value?

I’m not here to apologize and make excuses for Trump’s every turn, but let’s look at a couple of things about this Bustle article. First, I’m sure Trump’s really busy getting more accomplished in his first weeks of office than any other president, but even still, he shouldn’t go on the record saying that he’s had more electoral votes than any president since Reagan. That’s sloppy. Trump needs to be more careful with his facts. Still, as cringe-worthy as this is, I don’t think Trump would have made this claim if he’d known the facts. In other words, this isn’t communist propaganda. This is a businessperson turned politician, in a flurry, too busy to even spend the 10 seconds to do a few Google searches on his antiquated Android. Right now Trump is a man too busy to flush toilets. These nit picky journalists have never owned a business in their life and they literally don’t have a clue what it’s like to be this level of busy. I’m not saying Trump’s incorrectness is ok or shouldn’t be called out, I’m just giving you a new filter to view this through.

But the real thing to talk about is the Flynn story, because that one is important. This Bustle article links to a tweet by Sopan Deb:

As I read Trump’s first answer on Flynn, I’m still confused as to why Trump asked for his resignation:

It’s curious that Sopan is completely bypassing the simple act of taking Trump’s answer at face value. Oh, we know Trump’s lying, but since we know he’s lying, his answer doesn’t make any sense, and so now we’re confused. What??

Picture a conceivable universe where Trump’s actually telling the truth. In fact, put yourself in his shoes, assuming that the narrative he’s been telling is true. Here’s the sequence of events:

  1. You’re accused of having ties with Russia that you know are false.
  2. Your National Security Advisor has calls with Russian officials and he misleads your vice president into believing that certain things were not talked about. Those certain things not talked about are 100% legal, by the way. He simply denies that those perfectly ok things were discussed.
  3. Your VP goes on the record to the press with this factually incorrect knowledge.
  4. The incorrect nature of this narrative comes to light.
  5. You’re already under suspicion of having secret ties with Russia. You know they’re not true. You want to keep things squeaky clean, so you ask your National Security Advisor to resign.

What is it about this narrative that is confusing to Sopan? If Sopan were in Trump’s shoes, would Sopan not ask Flynn to resign under these circumstances?

What Trump is saying makes perfect sense if he’s telling the truth and you take him at face value. We have no proof whatsoever that Trump has willfully deceived the American people. Maybe we’ll get proof, and if so, then that changes everything. But only until then, the real babies in this story are the gullible media who are believing in this Russian conspiracy theory. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Rarely Is It This Black and White 

CNN’s Stephen Collinson:

Trump was repeatedly pressed on whether his campaign staff had been in contact with Russia, as a widening drama over his alleged connections with Moscow dominates news coverage.

“Nobody that I know of. How many times do I have to answer this question? Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years,” Trump said.

“I own nothing in Russia, I have no loans in Russia, I don’t have any deals in Russia,” Trump said. “Russia is fake news.”

Either Donald Trump is lying and should be impeached on grounds of treason, or else the majority of the major media has jumped the gun and falsely lead people to be suspicious of something that has zero grounds. There is no middle option here at this point. Rarely do you see things so black and white. I’m on the edge of my seat to see how this plays out. I’m suspending judgement until the matter has seen a conclusion, because I have no way of knowing who’s right and who’s wrong here. I want to believe Trump, but I don’t have any real reason to do so other than the fact that I like the guy. And that’s not a good reason, any more than it’s a good reason to distrust Trump just because you don’t like him.

The Problem with Political Correctness 

Theodor Dalrymple in an interview with FrontPageMagazine.com in 2005:

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

I recommend reading the interview in its entirety. As André Gide said, “Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.”

Are These Complaints about Apple’s Lack of Diversity Warranted? 

Jacob Kastrenakes, writing for The Verge:

[Apple] argues that it already has “much broader” diversity efforts at work and, in the past three years, has made “steady progress in attracting more women and underrepresented minorities.” […]

[…]

The company’s answer isn’t good enough for Maldonado. He says Apple is leaning too heavily on retail stores to improve its diversity figures while doing little at the senior level (82 percent of Apple’s leadership is white, versus only 56 percent of its retail employees). If that practice continues, Maldonado fears it’ll hurt Apple’s business in the years to come.

Maldonado, a Donald Trump supporter, isn’t going to get the board to pass his proposal any time soon. Every time a vote is taken, he’s in the single digits. One of the age-old arguments against such affirmative action is spilled in the comments:

In a world where people of color and women want to be acknowledged and have the same opportunities, hiring women and people of color simply for being women and people of color goes against exactly the principle of fairness to everyone.

And also, from another reader:

So I am all for diversity. It will only help everything. But forcing it or doing it unnaturally is only harmful. To everyone.

Pretty much no informed person wants what Maldonado is proposing. A company ought to be able to hire the right person for the job. If there’s a disproportionate number from one group that is qualified, that’s indicative of something, but it’s not the company’s job to change that. Don’t put a blame or burden on the company. Spend your energy elsewhere.

The Best Article I’ve Read on the Flynn Fiasco 

Lots and lots of things are being written about this story, but what I like about Jon Sopel’s piece from BBC is that it’s short and brings a clarity of understanding to the timeline of what we know transpired. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety, slowly. Don’t skim it. If you comprehend it fully then it’s the only thing you need to read about the Flynn story to know way more than most people in the country at this point.

One lesson learned is this: when something bad occurs and few people know about it yet, and you’re trying to decide how to respond and you’ve come up with a plan, think about how that plan will be perceived if many people know about it. When Pence learned of the true nature of Flynn’s calls, he chose to do nothing. When the nation learned of the nature of Flynn’s calls, Donald Trump asked Flynn to resign. There’s a time and a place for your actions to vary depending on who knows what, but it involves risk. Because of Pence’s choice, there’s an air of fiasco to the administration surrounding Flynn that otherwise might not exist.

Of course, if there’s an investigation - there needs to be one, unquestionably, at this point - and if this investigation finds that the Russian ties go deeper, than my sympathy level for Pence in his predicament goes way down. The jury’s still out on that though.

On Michael Flynn’s Awkward Resignation 

Stephen Collinson, writing at CNN:

But the President and some House Republicans launched a fight back, trying to focus attention on the source of disclosures about Flynn’s contacts with Russia that appear to have emerged from intelligence surveillance of the Russian embassy.

“The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?” Trump tweeted in his first public reaction to Flynn’s departure.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said the focus of any investigation should be how news of Flynn’s calls leaked out.

What I’m hearing here is, “Who cares about what was talked about on these calls. The real issue is how Flynn got caught.” Are these people being serious? If this had been these people’s narrative back when the DNC was getting hacked, that’d be one thing. As it stands, this is sheer hypocrisy.

Also Trump’s tweet quoted above is exactly what you expect from a TV celebrity, from someone who doesn’t feel like they’ve got a lid on the situation. It’s not instilling confidence in me at all. You know that feeling when you’re sitting next to someone who’s terrifying you while they’re driving and you ask, “Sure you got this?” That’s how I feel right now.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but man. Right now I can’t stop thinking about how much more stable things would be if Hillary Clinton had been elected. Her administration would have been corrupt to the bone, but at least it would have been contained. It would have given the appearance of order. Right now we don’t even have that. Washington is a disaster at the moment. We have a maverick in the Oval Office. Will he mature into a stable politician, or can we expect this stuff to be ongoing for the next four years? Today may mark a turning point in where my loyalties lie. It’s still too early to say, but I’m very concerned at this point about a future with Trump as our president.

I was promised that America would be made great. Where’s the greatness in this Flynn scandal?

Polymail’s One-Way Mirror 

From Polymail’s features page:

Know exactly when your messages were read and who read them with real-time notifications and activity feed.

In an email update today:

In our latest update, Polymail now detects and blocks email tracking on your incoming messages to prevent senders from knowing when you’ve opened their emails!

This is a double standard in a way, but I see nothing wrong with it. If you don’t want to “spy” on when others read your email, you don’t have to use this feature. And if you don’t want others spying on you, just use Polymail as your email client and enable this prevention feature.

The Forced Hijabs on the Chess Players of the 2017 Women’s World Championship 

Jovanka Houska, writing for Chess.com:

Originally, the world championship was scheduled to be held at the end of the 2016 but with no bidders in sight and afraid that the event would be cancelled, FIDE made the decision at the Baku Olympiad to award the event to Tehran, Iran.

While Iran is a country rich in chess history, where chess currently enjoys a huge surge in popularity, there are some drawbacks to such a country hosting a female chess event—the glaringly obvious being that countries such as the U.S. had advised their citizens not to travel there and that females are forced to cover their heads.

This posed an unenviable dilemma for the qualifiers: Should they refuse to play and miss out on the chance of a lifetime and perhaps hinder women’s opportunities in Iran? Or choose to play and compromise their own values of gender equality and security?

Notice that: forced to cover their heads. FIDE should not have decided to award the event to Iran. Not to a country that doesn’t treat women as equals. Not to one that forces hijabs.