Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots

You don’t have to vote for Clinton or Trump. The former is a criminal who risks national security and is likely in ill-health. The latter is a tax-dodging scammer. Both of them will promote what is literally the greatest government-created threat to democracy – the NSA – since Adolf Hitler. You will never have any privacy ever again if either of them wins.

Fortunately, there is a viable third choice: Gary Johnson. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he is by far the most sane, most reasonable, and most honest candidate we have. (And, yes, he did know what Aleppo was. Once he realized what they were talking about, he gave a nuanced answer where he suggested that the US and Russia broker a cease-fire. That’s exactly what happened within weeks.)

Don’t let the libertarian title scare you from voting for Gary Johnson. The overwhelming majority of what people will tell you he believes is flat out lies based on nothing more than his political affiliation. In the past 24 hours, I’ve had people either wonder if or outright say that he’s a creationist (no), he rejects global warming (no), and he’s against environmental regulation (no).

Thought of the day

Whenever I see an article telling me I need to vote for Clinton in order to prevent a Trump presidency, all I read is, “If you don’t vote for someone who will continue to strengthen the greatest threat to democracy since Adolf Hitler – that is, the NSA – then someone else who will continue to strengthen the greatest threat to democracy since Adolf Hitler might win.”

Gawker founder files for bankruptcy

This is just so satisfying:

Gawker founder Nick Denton filed for personal bankruptcy Monday in the aftermath of a Florida jury’s awarding $140 million to Hulk Hogan in a privacy case revolving around a sex tape posted on Gawker.com.

As a result of the verdict, which is being appealed, Gawker’s parent company has gone into bankruptcy and is up for sale.

Denton’s bankruptcy filing Monday says he owes $125 million to Hogan, a former professional wrestler. Filing for bankruptcy helps him keep Hogan from collecting.

Overall, Denton’s filing says he has $100 million to $500 million in liabilities and that his assets are worth $10 million to $50 million.

This meat of this story – Gawker losing in court – isn’t exactly breaking news at this point, but there was a part of this story that made me want to write about it:

Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled the lawsuit filed by Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, against Gawker. That raised concerns about the wealthy using their power to bring down media outlets.

“I am consoled by the fact that my colleagues will soon be freed from this tech billionaire’s vendetta,” Denton tweeted. Thiel, who co-founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, was outed as gay by a Gawker-owned website.

Hogan’s attorney David Houston said in a statement that Denton’s bankruptcy “has nothing to do with who paid Mr. Bollea’s legal bills, and everything to do with Denton’s own choices and accountability. If even one person has been spared the humiliation that Mr. Bollea suffered, this is a victory.”

I was previously unaware of anything to do with Thiel, but I’m happy he was involved. I don’t know who he is or what his politics are, but I’m going to guess he doesn’t ideologically match up with the social justice warrior views of Gawker. Often, the regressive left will use this mismatch of views to justify ruining a person’s life. “Why, we’re just pointing out hypocrisy!”, they’ll say. Don’t believe it. That’s bullshit. They’re getting revenge by doing something wrong. Not only are their motivations ill conceived, but their execution is nothing more than an exercise in the belief that two wrongs make a right. They don’t. Ever.

I’m glad Thiel was able to exact ethically-sound revenge. Gawker did something wrong, so when he had the chance to put the screws to them and point out their hypocrisy, he did so without committing a wrong himself. He’s a better person than Nick Denton and all the people who have ever supported that garbage website.

Thought of the day

I can tell you how many times Philando Castile was pulled over in Minnesota since 2002 (52) and I can tell you how much he had been fined in that time ($6,588), and I can tell you that he has a number of driving related misdemeanors, but I still have no idea what the disciplinary or driving records are of the shooting victims in Dallas.

I wonder what the difference could possibly be between Castile and the other victims.

A bad rebuttal

If there’s anything that annoys me more than bad arguments, it’s people circlejerking in support of bad arguments. I was just reading up on a recent (though, as yet, undecided) Supreme Court case where the analysis did just that. (Update: The case has been ruled on. It was 6-2 in favor of the government.) The case itself isn’t overly interesting, but it gained some attention this past winter because Justice Thomas broke his rather lengthy silence to ask a few questions. To give a brief summary of the case itself: Two men were convicted of domestic assault misdemeanors that, by state law, would not preclude them from owning firearms. However, federal law says if those misdemeanors are domestic assault crimes which meet particular, limited criteria, then they can’t own guns. The men are arguing that the state law allows for broad criteria in obtaining a conviction. Essentially, federal law requires the use or attempted use of force. State law allows for recklessly injuring or physically contacting a person. It seems open and shut to me: federal law requires a particular fact, but state law allows for different facts. This means that it is possible that the federally required facts were never established, so the government ought to lose this one. It looks like things aren’t going to go that way, but then I’ve yet to get Obama’s nomination to fill Scalia’s seat.

In reading about the case, I came across this little tidbit about Justice Ginsburg:

One last notable point: anyone who suggests that Justice Ginsburg may be slowing down, should read the last two pages of Villa’s argument. Villa suggested what seemed like a difficult hypothetical: what if she “came up to somebody who I thought was my husband and I patted him on the back and said ‘hi, honey,’” but it wasn’t him? Could that be a reckless offensive touching? But when Justice Sotomayor appeared momentarily slowed by this example, Justice Ginsburg incisively noted that “there isn’t a [domestic] relationship [as] the statute requires.” “That is true,” conceded Villa, and she quickly reserved the remainder of her time.

What a hugely irrelevant rebuttal. It doesn’t matter if the statute requires pigs to fly out of someone’s butt. The issue at hand is what defines “reckless offensive touching”. In this case, it was asked if a mistaken pat on the back would meet the definition. That question went unanswered due to a red herring: Ginsburg insisted on defining “reckless offensive touching” within a particular context despite the phrasing existing independent of said context. Moreover, the question can easily be changed to fit Ginsburg’s illegitimate objection: What if someone accidentally pats their son on the back because he looks so much like her husband? That would satisfy the domestic relationship required of the statute. (I emphasize statute here because no relationship is required of the argument.) Could we answer the question then? According to Ginsburg, the answer is yes, though, how the domestic relationship would play any role in such an answer is unclear.

Thought of the day

Thank goodness we have the NSA actively (and gleefully) violating the Fourth Amendment rights of every single American at all times. We may have suffered from a terrorist attack otherwise.

Wear sunscreen

As a relatively pale person of northern European descent, I find sunscreen to be invaluable. ug-leeI have absolutely no problem being the guy with the light bulb nose. It’s way better than the Rudolph nose later, and undoubtedly superior to developing skin cancer or even just unsightly sunspots.

Now that the weather is getting nicer, sunscreen sales will be increasing, but not everyone is happy about this. There are a number of quacks out there who will peddle false information about vitamin D. Some of them will go the even more egregious route of saying sunscreen doesn’t protect against cancer.

Don’t let these quacks fool you. Sunscreen absolutely protects against the rays of the Sun which can and often do lead to cancer:

Sun protection is essential to skin cancer prevention – about 90 percent of non-melanoma skin cancers and 65 percent of melanomas are associated with exposure to UV radiation from the sun. Furthermore, years of scientific research have provided compelling evidence that the daily use of sunscreen helps lower the risk of non-melanoma skin cancers. Most recently, in a rigorous study of more than 1,600 adults over the course of a decade, researchers determined that subjects applying sunscreen with an SPF of 16 daily reduced their risk of melanoma by 50 percent.

Unlike quack medicine, sunscreen is safe and effective. I foolishly got a sun burn last month, acting on the assumption that “Maine”, “April”, and “sun burn” were three things I would never have to use in the same sentence. I was wrong. I’ve been making it a point to protect my skin every nice day we’ve had since. It can be tedious, and it’s not always convenient, but cancer treatment is often pretty tedious and inconvenient itself.