Recently in the great State of Florida a law was signed by Governor DeSantis. One provision of the bill sparked outrage:

3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

As a parent and grandparent, I am amazed a law was needed to state the obvious. Children’s upbringing is a parental responsibility and any discussions about gender identity or sexual orientation should originate in the home with the parents or guardians of the child. Why is there a need to discuss sexual orientation or gender identity with five to seven year old children in school without the participation of the parents? Although the US population believes almost a quarter of the population is gay, actually polling has indicated the figure is closer to 4.5%.

Using the pejorative “Don’t Say Gay” to rename the bill, the opposition has released statements, held rallies and even had three individuals continually repeat the word ‘gay’ at some awards show. The Disney corporation should be ashamed that it has taken the position:

It’s “goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that.”

Walt Disney is rolling over in his grave. The same month pedophile Disney employees are arrested, the once family safe place wants to ensure five through seven year-old Florida students can be lectured on gender identity and sexual orientation in an uncontrolled environment without parental input.

btw, despite all the negative political attacks, the name of the bill is “Parental Rights in Education” and there is no “Don’t Say Gay” in the bill. The attacks on Gov. DeSantis and the bill just might be due to the upcoming Florida’s Governor Race or the push-back against unconstitutional vaccine mandates.

I am sure everyone has at least seen the notification of ‘misinformation’ on social media posts. Sometimes, the ‘misinformation’ is declared due to slight errors, is satirical, or because someone didn’t like it.

The attack on certain thought is everywhere. Whether the algorithm keeps the audience low or users are placed in Fazebook jail or just removed from the platform, the ‘bad’ ideas are quickly censored.

On the other hand, Wikipedia usually corrects errors quickly due to the plentiful number of editors. Discussions are held and interested parties vote to resolve issues. However, something happened, and it does not look good.

The Wikipedia entry for the “People’s Republic of China” does not exist, or more importantly, redirects to the “China” entry.

Along the right side of the page, the page shows the first entry under “Formation” to be 2070 BCE.

The implication is the ruling Chinese Communist Party claims all the territory they currently control as being ‘Chinese” for the past 4,092 years. Any historian not under the control of the Chinese Communist Party knows this is wrong. The rise of a single monolithic Chinese culture from the Yellow River area is no longer cited in modern histories; but is one of a few cultures that rose in Asia to form what is today called China. This doesn’t even cover two-thirds of the country that until less than 200 years ago were considered ‘barbarians’ and not ‘Chinese.’

I wish this was the only example, but it probably isn’t.

Bad on Wikipedia for letting this happen, but one way to fight back is to confront the wu mao dang (50 cent army) with facts and reverse this travesty.

Since at least 2015, media outlets have been reporting about Klein Ltd. and its transfers of millions of dollars to U.S. environmental groups. (Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company) To quote a small portion of the article:

“Its only publicly documented activities have been transfers of $23 million to U.S. environmentalist groups that push policies that would hamstring surging American oil and gas production, which has hurt Russia’s energy-reliant economy.”

Klein Ltd. is linked to Russian Oil companies in the article above from 2015. Russia’s reliance on energy as the foundation of its economy is the reason. The reduction of oil prices due to fracking in the United States was a huge blow. So, they sent money to the U.S. environmental groups to end fracking. A more recent article (Russian-linked groups donated to anti-frakking Green groups because they love the planet right?) from March 2022, indicates:

The SeaChange Foundation, in San Francisco has apparently given out “about $400 million” between 2007 and 2015 to “environmental groups that have worked to block fracking and pipeline construction that make natural gas development and distribution possible.”

I remember one of the first orders of business for the Biden administration was to end U.S. energy independence.

The ‘green’ folks have lied to us about climate change for years. Their alarming predictions have not come true and now we know who is paying them to keep saying these things to hamstring the U.S economy.

“Go green,” they say, thinking all our energy needs will run on solar or wind generated power.
“Stop all U.S. oil production,” they chant, thinking their green options will keep our country clean and strong when in actuality it is a security concern. One volcano exploding in some remote corner of the world could end the use of solar panels for a year or years and what do we use then? How would all the electric cars be recharged in traffic jams caused by blizzards or evacuations? Imagine ten or twenty miles of electric cars filled with frozen people.
And who would we rely on in case of an energy shortage/emergency? The one country that has not decided to go green, Russia.
And how much will they charge us then?

Watching a grandson’s new AI robot the other day brought some concerns to mind.
I knew the little toy did not have enough memory to be able to use the artificial intelligence features without connecting to wifi. Therefore, the information from the various sensors (audio input and output, camera, distance measurement, etc.) could send an enormous amount of information about its surroundings back to some location. While most people would not be concerned, some folks would not wish for their conversations, or the products they use, or the layout of their house to be available to unknown parties.
While recording the sounds in your home, the AI robot can document the hours people are active in the home or find out when the family is away on vacation.
Imagine while mapping their surroundings, the AI robot notices a can of shoe polish and the next week, the owner’s email gets spammed with offers for shoe polish or shoe polish applicators. Or the AI robot notices a certain brand of television and emails for add-on accessories start arriving in your inbox.
A greater concern would be the mapping of your home – the location of high-ticket items or security features would be recorded somewhere and could be sold or hacked to allow someone to burglarize your home from the information provided by the AI robot.

Do I have any evidence of actual examples? No; however, it is only a matter of time before it starts.

So what can a person do about it?

My thought is to introduce the robot to a closed environment at first, such as a cardboard box. It could be partitioned with cardboard walls, fake windows and doors. Placing pictures of family members inside the environment will help the robot find and identify faces. Let the robot scan and map the entire environment until it gets bored. Randomly, allow the robot to pass through one of the doors to either an add-on environment or loose into your home; however, pay close attention to how the robot reacts when allowed to roam freely. At first, keep all the internal doors in your home closed to restrict movement (and scanning.) When the first outing is complete, return the robot to the original environment for a few days. The next time the escape hatch is opened, open one of the home’s internal doors and see if the robot makes a beeline to check out the new open area to explore or how the robot’s behavior changes (if there is any change from previous ‘escapes’.)

The more complex the environment, the more useless data the robot absorbs before providing real data about your home. Adding a computer monitor behind ‘windows’ can provide scenes of rainfall interrupted by snowy blizzards or underwater scenes replaced by mountains will further confuse the data set captured by the robot. I would also suggest the environment contain a ‘honey pot.’ This could be an image of a pile of gold or stack of $100 bills, appropriately sized, of course. I would not allow the robot to leave the ‘space’ for a week or two with the honey pot in place. If someone is looking at the robot’s data and becomes interested in the ‘easily obtainable loot,’ it will not take long for them to notice and maybe visit. Extra vigilance will be necessary, but at least you will know.

It does represent a lot of work to create the environments; however, the robot’s potentially nefarious behavior will be identified.

According to the website “greatplacetowork.com” in answering the question of “What is the difference between diversity & inclusion?“ provides this answer:

Diversity and inclusion are two interconnected concepts—but they are far from interchangeable. Diversity is about representation or the make-up of an entity. Inclusion is about how well the contributions, presence and perspectives of different groups of people are valued and integrated into an environment.
An environment where many different genders, races, nationalities, and sexual orientations and identities are present but only the perspectives of certain groups are valued or carry any authority or influence, may be diverse, but it is not inclusive.

I have always thought any organization that has a “Great Place to Work” committee means they are desperately seeking to accomplish that goal, but that discussion can be set aside for another day.

The United States of America is a very diverse country and represents folks from all over the world with different backgrounds and ideas. The inclusive part appears to be the point that needs changing, but what perspectives from the not ‘certain groups’ are undervalued or fail to carry any authority or influence? That appears to be quite subjective, depending on the group you represent.

For instance, given a blanket statement that “everyone with white skin are oppressors and everyone else are their victims” castigates an entire race of people, yet we see it in social media and on the news almost every day. This isn’t being inclusive, this sounds like racist ideology and demonizes anyone who has white skin. If it is an attempt to undervalue the perspectives of people with white skin and remove any authority or influence from them, then obviously, it isn’t inclusive.

Another poke in the eye to inclusion is the attack on conservatives. Also parroted on social media and some media outlets is the concept that conservatives ideas are dangerous – all of them – and they are bent on seeking total and complete control under some form of dictatorship. Actually, most conservatives believe in the US constitution and the rights all citizens are accorded. The abolition of slavery was championed by conservatives who believed all citizens should be equal under the law, not like the other party who started a civil war to maintain their slaves. Most conservatives believe in the nuclear family, free speech, equal protection under the law and capitalism. These ideas are condemned by some of the cancel culture folks who believe a nuclear family or free speech is a threat to their absolute control of the American people. Equal protection under the law is also a threat since the people they want in office may have to break the law to further their agenda and everyone knows “the ends justifies the means.” And as far as capitalism, it has raised more people out of poverty than any other system; yet it doesn’t allow ‘them’ to own and control the means of production and force everyone to be dependent on the government for food, shelter and the rest of life’s necessities. This is obviously not inclusive behavior.

One more example of non-inclusiveness is the current vaccine mandate. Either you take the jab or you don’t work. They have permitted submittal of religious and medical exemptions, but we still have to see how many of those exemptions will be allowed, if any, by overzealous corporate operatives. Any mention of vaccines on social media is carefully controlled. Some posts are grounds for being kicked off the platform, others will gain you a ‘time-out’ where you are no longer allowed to post so as to atone for your ‘sins’, but every post containing the word ‘vaccine’ will always provide a link to ‘the Truth’ as passed down by ‘certain folks.’ And so we have circled back around to those ‘certain groups.’ The ‘certain folks’ who, through fearmongering and purposeful ignorance, deny natural immunity or that COVID-19 (China virus) has a very low rate of mortality among most people. People who believe in natural immunity and/or cite the low mortality rate of COVID-19 (China virus) are punished for their perspective because it undercuts the need for mandatory vaccine shots. Therefore, it is not inclusive when some people are sanctioned for having these beliefs.

If everyone is keen on “Diversity and Inclusiveness,” why are some opinions more important than others? All white people are not oppressors, yet when was the last time the host or guest of one of those cable programs attempted to refute the statement? When was the last time someone stood up and pushed back on the idea that Republicans are dangerous to the country or not deserving of existing? And when was the last time someone was not ridiculed or outright censored for ideas counter to GroupThink’s attitude towards COVID-19 (China virus) (where it originated, mortality rate, natural immunity, vaccine mandates)?

Apparently, inclusiveness can be quite subjective and some people believe they have the right to pick and choose what applies. As shown above, there is an unequal standard for inclusiveness which is one of the shortfalls of the concept as it is practiced today.