The Leader of a White Supremacist Group is.... Black? WTF?

 

People named "Enrique" should understand that they are pretty much first in line when the holocaust comes.

I really haven't been following the news too much, particularly these fringe groups.  But this fellow who calls himself "Henry" but is actually named "Enrique" is complaining that the conditions in the DC jail are deplorable and he should be let out early.  Fortunately, the Judge did not agree.

When I saw his photo, I thought to myself, "Gee, the leader of a white supremacist fascist movement is... black?  Or maybe he just needs to shave more?"

But I looked it up online and indeed, he is "Afro-Cuban" which means black.  A black white supremacist - Dave Chappell couldn't make this shit up!  Well, he already did, I guess.

Clayton Bigsby, the black white supremacist!

It also seems that Enrique is also a snitch - and we all know that snitches get stitches.  So maybe that is one reason he wants out of DC jail - for his own safety!  All those dangerous black men in there might mess up a delicate white fellow such as himself.

I kid, but I mentioned before how racism is a worldwide thing.  It is very prevalent in Central and South America, and in Caribbean countries.  The lighter skinned people tend to rise to the top of government, business, and industry, and no one will admit to having native or African blood, unless of course it is quite obvious.  If you read Waiting for Snow in Havana, you realize why so many Cubans supported Castro, even as he destroyed the economy.  For Afro-Cubans, life under Communism was harsh, but still better than life under Capitalism.

So it is odd to me that this fellow seems to think that being part of a far-right fascist organization is going to work for him.  Or maybe this is just part of his snitching operation - he is operating under deep cover!  Or, maybe it is part of a self-loathing he has for himself - hence re-inventing himself as "Henry" instead of proudly calling himself "Enrique" as his parents named him.  Maybe he feels that if he plays nice with the white supremacists, they will let them in their little club.  Maybe, but I doubt they will.

Or maybe this is some sort of long-suppressed homoerotic attraction he has to white guys, as his "Proud Boys" (itself an interesting name - Boys?) is an all-male organization.  Hey, I'm a member of an all-male organization, too!  Maybe they'll let me in their club as well!  What night is orgy night?  I'll bring my toga!

Now, granted, the "Proud Boys" claim not to be white supremacists, but the organization was founded by a white supremacist and only "renounced" white supremacy after "Henry" took charge. Nevertheless, they still support white genocide theories and the lingering stench of white supremacy festers just below the surface.

Or maybe, like I said, Enrique is going under "deep cover" to disrupt and foil the plans of the far-right.  But I doubt it. Oddly enough, many Cuban-Americans are very right-wing and tend to vote Republican. Many are still upset that they, or their parents, or their grandparents, lost huge estates, businesses, casinos, prostitution rings, or just cushy government jobs, as a result of the Castro revolution.  They are not so much right-wing as virulently anti-Communist.  They want all their stuff back!  But that ain't happening.

What is funny to me though, as a bona-fide "white guy" is that such folks latch onto a "white supremacy" movement, not realizing that, among really white people, anyone with roots in a Mediterranean country is very suspect in terms of who gets into the country club. Sorry, but Spanish or even Italian descent is not considered proper Anglo-Saxon, and indeed, prejudice against those groups has been notorious in the past, and even today.  I am not saying that is right, only reporting what happened.

Yes, maybe a light-skinned Cuban can "pass" as "Spanish" and maybe get into the white-man's club on a probationary basis.  But don't think that gets you into the Klan!   And the moment the shit hits the fan, well, the white folks will be quick to throw you under the bus, particularly if it means their own survival, politically, economically, or physically.

And someone with as deep a tan as "Enrique"?   They aren't going to let him into the club at all - other than in the servant's entrance.   Proud Boy?   More like Bus Boy - that is how the people he is sucking up to will treat him.  And don't blame me, the messenger, for telling you this, it is the God's honest truth.  The white supremacists of the world do not consider Hispanics to be "white."

Discrimination is wrong. Racism is wrong. And minority groups trying to join or lead racist white supremacist organizations is not only wrong, it is ridiculous.

However, ridiculousness never seems to have bothered Enrique in the past, or indeed, today.  He is a very ridiculous man.  Or should I say, Boy?

Two Weeks Notice

Do you really have to give two week's notice before you quit a job?  And why is this considered "traditional"?  Turns out, it is a tradition started by, and for the benefit of, employers.

Years ago, I worked at a hydraulics supplier, assembling hose fittings and shipping boxes of parts - and delivering finished hose fittings to quarries, shops, and factories.  It was OK work, but at $4.25 an hour, just barely enough to live on.  I applied for and got a job as a contract employee for Carrier at the princely sum of $8 an hour.  I thought I was rich!  And in a way, I was - $16,000 a year wasn't a bad wage in 1981, and indeed, until recently, some unfortunate folks were making that little at retail jobs.

So I told my boss, on a Thursday, that I was leaving.  "You have to give me two weeks notice!" he said, "I need time to find someone to replace you!"  So I told the folks at Carrier I would start a week from next Thursday.  But my old boss said, "You have to give me two full weeks notice!  You can't leave until the Monday after that!"   I grumbled but said OK, and the folks at Carrier weren't happy - they needed help now and might have gone and hired someone else in my stead.

Turns out, that's what my old boss was hoping for.  The next week, I looked in the paper and there was no job posting.  I waited a few days and then I asked my boss when he was going to "start looking" for my replacement.  "Oh," he said, "I don't know.  Maybe a few weeks after you left!"

That did it.  He screwed around with me just to mess with my head and hope that the job offer from Carrier would evaporate as a result of his "two weeks notice" nonsense.  So I grabbed my coffee cup and toothbrush and walked out.  I spend the next week-and-a-half at my parents' house, water-skiing.  And Carrier was happy to have me come in early.

Recently, there has been something called "the great resignation" going on.  People are quitting their jobs in record numbers - not just hourly employees or fast-food workers, but middle- and upper-management as well.  Many people are retiring - either early or at retirement age.  The age pyramid, which I have written about before, is started to show its distorted shape. The next generation isn't as large as the previous one, or more precisely, isn't larger the way they traditionally are.  As a result, we have a labor shortage.

There are other causes - people are quitting to get better-paying jobs.  Employers are offering more money to new hires - sometimes more than to existing employees.  So the existing employees quit and go over to another company.   There is also the increase in abusive behavior by some anti-maskers and Karens of the world.  Would you want to be a flight attendant right now?  With all the bullshit going on?  People are being abusive to fast-food workers, like the lady who threw hot soup in a cashier's face, even after the cashier offered to replace the soup or give a refund (the only two things she could do, really).

So people are quitting their jobs and surprise, surprise, managers and bosses are asking for "two weeks notice!"   And often it is the same old gag - by holding an employee hostage, they hope the new employer will hire someone else in the interim.

Do you have to give two weeks notice?  Some employers, like my old boss, try to imply that this is the law or something, or a tradition.  Some will imply that they will not give a good recommendation if you don't give two weeks notice - but likely those bosses aren't going to give recommendations anyway - and besides, few companies allow bosses to give recommendations, good or bad, for fear of being sued.

In general employment law, in the USA anyway, I am not aware of any State that legally requires you to give two weeks notice before quitting.  In fact, I doubt such a law would be Constitutional.  We did abolish slavery a long time ago.   If you are working under a contract, however, it might be a different deal.  They can't make you work (again, slavery) but if you violate the terms of the contract, you could be liable for damages.  But contracts like that are usually only applicable to people in the upper echelons - movie stars and whatnot - the sort that have non-compete clauses.  Although, I am hearing noises that some employers are using "labor contracts" with low-wage employees.  Whether those are enforceable or not is a good question.

Many States, particularly Red States, have "at will" employment, or as they used to say at Carrier, "I came here looking a job, I'll leave the same way!"

Should you give notice before quitting?  In general, I would say it depends on the job, the nature of the job, and why you are leaving.  Obviously, if your boss pisses you off and you say, "I quit!" then giving notice is sort of dumb.  Even in other situations, I am not sure the two most awkward weeks of your life are really worthwhile.  Unless your old employer is decent, really appreciates your hard work, and wishes you well in your new job, odds are, it is going to be very, very strained.

My gut reaction is the same I had back in 1980 when I left the hydraulics place.  It is nice to be courteous to your old employer, but when they squander that two weeks you gave them, just to be spiteful, then, well, fuck them.

Recently, I have read online about people being "anti-work" and many of them tell stories of quitting their jobs, where bosses imply they legally have to give two weeks notice.  Some just walk out - no one really cares whether you gave two weeks notice in a retail job.  Others stay on for the two weeks, only to be given the worst shifts possible - doing overnights on holidays, for example.  There are many ways an employer can abuse this.

In other situations, particularly professional jobs, giving notice allows you to tie up loose ends on projects before you leave.  For example, at the Patent Office, there were cases in the pipeline that I had to finish, as well as the reassignment of my existing docket to other Examiners.  The same is true at the first law firm I worked at - I gave them notice so I could wind down my docket.  That was a bit more awkward, as the firm was in the process of dividing in half, and there were a lot of bad feelings flying around. I left in part because I didn't want to be part of that.

Other places, less so.  The big odious firm I briefly worked at had a security guard escort me off the premises, when they found out I was leaving. They were trying to be all Silicon Valley "high tech" and whatnot (doing IPOs and VC funding) and I guess that is how it is done out there - you leave and it is like the Mafia - "your're dead to me!"

But since then, I have been self-employed, and my boss is a total ass.  I did give him well over a years' notice when I quit that job.  And it is OK to say you quit, and OK to give up on a job or a career when it stops bringing you joy.

I wrote before about a friend of mine whose parents forced him to go to music school.  He wanted to be a pilot, but his parents thought that was beneath their stature in life.  Hmm.... Sounds like the same situation Trump's brother had!  Anyway, he spend a boatload of money going to music school, only to realize there were few jobs in the field, most paid very little, and there were 100 qualified applicants for every opening - 20 of whom were extremely well qualified.  He was not one of them.

So he paid his way through Embry-Riddle and became a commercial pilot.  Fast-forward 30 years and he realizes that the fun is no longer there. He also realizes that mandatory retirement age is fast approaching, and he has two years of combined vacation and sick leave coming to him.  So he retires.  And that's OK.  It is the same reason I retired - I was done having fun and it seemed more like stress than the fun it was in the early days, so it is time to move on.  And we were both fortunate to be in a position to do so.

I suspect that the same is true of a lot of people who are in this "great resignation" thing - at least the older ones.

We went through this labor shortage nonsense a couple of decades ago.  I recall quite vividly how hard it was to hire anyone at any wage, back in the late 1990's and early 2000's.  We had a recession right after that happened.  I think the two are connected.  In any business, the last hired is the most expensive and least productive, in many cases.  You hire extra people to get more work done and serve more customers, and you realize that while you are making a profit on the first guy you hired, the last guy is barely breaking even, if not operating at a loss.

That happened to me, so I closed my office and went back to solo practice.  Turns out the "first hire" (me) was the most profitable employee.  Each additional employee I hired was decreasingly profitable until the last one was a loss.  And meanwhile, I had to spend more time managing employees, which meant the output of my most profitable employee (me) decreased.  It was like an algorithm!  And I suspect that many companies see this same effect in a tight labor market.  The guy who has to be bribed with a lot of cash to get him to come to work, is the least effective worker.

There is an old saying in the employment game, that if you offer more money to an employee to get them to stay on (and get them to turn down another job) the chances are, they will leave in six months anyway.  It turns out that the reasons they were leaving were not just about money.  They either wanted career growth, were bored with the work, were bored with the coworkers, or just found the work environment unpleasant.  It is an interesting phenomenon, but I've seen it happen a few times, firsthand.  Something to think about before you offer an employee more money to stay on.

Much of this "anti-work" nonsense is coming from union organizers, of course.  And there is nothing wrong with that, only that, over time, as unions become more powerful, they will do odious things.  But given today's circumstances, it would take the unions a few decades to devolve into the corrupt mess that was the Teamsters back in the day, or the UAW even fairly recently.

Union leaders realize, over time, that they are selling a product called "labor peace" and that employers are willing to pay cash - under the table - for that product.  So they push through a contract that employees might not like, and take cash under the table as a bribe.  I mean, act shocked - that folks affiliated with organized crime would, well, commit crimes.

It seems, however, that the time for labor organizing is coming - we have gone too long with stagnant wages and "the gig economy" - the latter of which was just a bold power-grab to take crappy, minimum-wage manual labor jobs, like driving a cab, delivering a pizza, or working in a warehouse, and then skimming a big piece off the top and handing it to some Silicon Valley company, by calling it "tech" - when it is not tech, just 19th Century Robber Baronism.

People are fed up, and I can't say as I blame them.  You have to set up the system so that people can actually win if they work at it.  That was the system I worked at, when I was a 20-something.  Even at my minimum-wage job,  I could afford an apartment, food on the table, a few beers, and even a little weed.  All that seems to have changed, at least in many urban districts.

That being said, if you are going to quit your job, line up another one first.  And if your boss asks for two weeks notice, well, I am not sure I would give it to him!

The Internet Turns on Elon Musk

Once hailed as Space Jesus, Elon Musk is now reviled as an Evil Billionaire.

In the last few days, it seems there is an orchestrated effort to discredit Elon Musk.  Perhaps it started with this income inequality thing.  With the over-inflated values of Tesla (again, Market Cap is a nonsense number) it made it appear Musk was one of the wealthiest - if not the wealthiest - people on the planet.  But of course, as his recent stock sales illustrate, if you tried to liquidate that wealth, you would not yield full value.  The very act of selling affects the stock price.  And just because some 20-something "Stonk" buyer paid a king's ransom for one lousy share, doesn't mean the rest of the shares are worth that much.

I think the thing accelerated when Musk - never one to mince words - insulted Bernie Sanders, by saying "I didn't know you were still alive!"  The Bernie Bros started a torch-and-pitchfork parade.  Musk was their hero a few months before - he was going to colonize Mars!  But then we realized that such colonization was an expensive fantasy that no government would underwrite or afford - and the private sector would not invest in, as there is nothing on Mars to export back to Earth, even if it was affordable to ship things back.  There is no return on investment in colonizing other planets, period.

What Musk did do was sell seats on his rocket ship - as did Bezos and Branson.   The media had a field day with this - competing Billionaires with their penis-shaped rockets, trying to out-testosterone each other.  It really didn't help mankind, it just helped rich and famous people.  Maybe the Bernie Bros realized then that when Musk talked about colonizing Mars, he wasn't talking about them.

The stuff I am reading on the Internet - over and over again - sounds like something from a Fox News Talking Points Handout.  Musk was the son of a wealthy diamond or emerald mine owner in South Africa (depending on which source you read).  He treats his employees poorly, firing them on a regular basis.  The Tesla cars are junk - poorly made (according to Consumer Reports and they know about cars, right? Wrong).  We are told the folks at the Tesla factory are worked to death, sexually assaulted, and on drugs or drunk most of the time.  CNN reports the Tesla on "autopilot" drives into oncoming traffic.

It goes on an on.  No matter what Musk has touched his hand to, it is now stained and flawed.  He went from doing no wrong to doing no right in ten seconds flat.  And somehow, I suspect - I know - this is orchestrated.

But by whom?   Short-sellers are always a suspect when it comes to Tesla stock.  But I think the union people are also behind this - wanting to unionize the Tesla factory since day 1.  And no doubt, his competitors, oil companies, electric-car haters, and now Bernie Bros, are all against him.  Funny how that worked out.

I think also he is a victim (if one can use that term on a Billionaire) of the general drumbeat against Billionaires as of late.  People are not happy that a Billionaire tax wasn't part of Biden's "Build Back Better" deal - as nixing any tax increases was the pact he had to make with the Devil (Mitch) in order to get his infrastructure deal through (Boo! Hiss!  Republicans hate infrastructure, other than private airports and helipads).  It seems that Billionaires are on everyone's shit list these days.

Of course, Musk could - and probably should - retire from the limelight.  His Tweets are not quite yet as toxic as Trump's were, but he's getting there.  Maybe he should just go swim in his Scrooge McDuck money vault and enjoy life.  Sometimes the best thing you can do as a Billionaire is to keep a low profile!

That is, in short, why most founders of start-up companies are forced out, once the company goes mainstream.  Probably for the best.

Whatever Happened to Craigslist?

Craigslist never adapted to the world of Social Media.

I was surfing the net the other day and thought to myself, "Gee, I haven't looked at Craigslist in ages.  Are they still even around?"  And indeed they are, but only a shadow of its former self.  What happened to Craigslist?  Why did it fade away?  The answers are many and are a valuable lesson for anyone wanting to start a website or e-commerce business - or invest in the stocks of one.  The Internet is not forever and sites that were wildly popular only a few years ago are forgotten about today.  Whatever happened to Vine for example? Or Webshots?  Picasa? MySpace? AOL?  Second Life?  - the list goes on and on.  Sites go from "hot" to "not" in about five years, on average, it seems.

Bear in mind that as recently as a decade ago, Craigslist had over 45 million users a day, and was -back then - the largest job posting site and largest real estate site on the Internet. But even then, it had its share of issues, and one reason we have so many other sites available today - and why Craigslist has faded from view - is because of the inherent weirdness of Craigslist.

Today, well, Craigslist has been in steady decline.  This site, for example, illustrates part of the problem - the number of hits to the site is declining almost linearly - a 60% drop in just the last few years.  And the places where Craigslist is most popular?  Montana?  Bend, Oregon?  Craigslist definitely trends rural!

Of course, this doesn't mean Craigslist will "go out of business" anytime soon.  Since it is privately owned and has a very small staff (50 people by some estimates) it need not make a lot of money to survive.  And with 50 employees and (according to some estimates) $1B in income, well, they can stay in business a long, long time, even as a niche player.  That is something that gets lost on the Internet a lot - that you don't have to be "The Next Facebook!™" in order to make money.  So many good sites which were generating ad revenue for their owners, were shut down or reconfigured in futile attempts to wring more cash from them.  The Webshots debacle, for example, is a case in point.

In autopsying Craigslist, I came across several causes of death:

1.  Facebook Marketplace:  Facebook has become the new AOL - the de facto login for people who don't know how to use the Internet.  To a whole generation of folks, Facebook is the Internet, and they get all their news from there, their messages, e-mails, shopping, and so forth.  Even if they visit another website (and that is all Facebook is, a website) they do it through a Facebook link.

Zuckerberg is using the Microsoft model of business.  Back before it became evil, Goolge's mantra was "Don't be Evil!" because their number one competitor, Microsoft, ended up emulating the monopoly practices of its predecessor in the computer world, IBM.  Microsoft put WordPerfect out of business by coming up with the clunky and incredibly complicated Microsoft Word which they handed out for free with new editions of Windows.  They did this to get it established, and it worked.  Within a few short years, WordPerfect, once the default word processing software of the world, was gone.  Word took over.

Microsoft did the same thing with Explorer - making that Internet Web Browser part of Windows and again, free, which basically put Netscape Navigator out of business.  Of course, since then, Explorer has fallen from favor and Google Chrome has taken a big share of the market.  Windows itself may go by the wayside as Android-based products come to the fore.  Microsoft dropped the ball several times - with Zune, with Explorer, with the Windows Phone.  But then again, maybe they don't care anymore, as they make more money with cloud computing and enterprise software.  It is like what IBM is doing - a mystery to most of us, but apparently incredibly profitable.  And by the way, Bezos is doing the same thing - his computer division makes far more money than his mercantile business.  He stands to double his wealth if they split up Amazon.  Poor fellow!

But getting back to Facebook, they are doing the same thing, except instead of swallowing up operating systems or web browsers, they are taking bits and bobs of various internet sites.  The Facebook Marketplace is just Craigslist for Facebook, only without Craigslist.  And more and more of my friends are using that to buy or sell things online.

Granted, there are also a few other Johnny-come-latlies who have tried to enter Craigslist space, with various levels of success.  And of course, there is eBay, which has tried to become more like Amazon as of late and less of a garage sale.  That being said, I have had better luck selling things like cars on eBay than on Craigslist.  In fact, Craigslist seems to attract the weirdos and time-wasters of the world.

2.  Fraud and Cons: I did an extensive posting on how a con can work on Craigslist.  Put up some photos of a desirable item at a low, low price, and the wackos and weirdos who peruse Craigslist will send you all their money.  Craigslist doesn't do much to curb this fraud.  They rely on people like you and me "flagging" postings as improper, and if enough people flag something, it *might* get removed (paid commercial postings rarely get removed, even if they violate the ToS by text-spamming).

The problem with the flagging system is that legitimate postings can be flagged as improper, particularly by cranks and misanthropes.  So people have legit listings canned while fraud goes on rampant.  Eventually, people get tired of this and leave.

Craigslist is facing the same problem that Facebook has - how do you moderate millions of postings for content, without hiring thousands of people to read and review each posting?  And moderation can backfire on you, as a moderator will kill a posting that is legit and people will cry "censorship" or politcal correctness or cancel culture or whatever.

One way to fix the system is to charge money.  The guy putting up 500 fraudulent advertisements for Casita travel trailers isn't going to pay even a dollar per ad, as it would bankrupt him.  But paid advertising goes against the whole concept of Craigslist, and traditionally, paid ads are far less popular than free ones.

For example, Autotrader has paid ads - I know of few people who have had luck buying or selling a car on there.  People put up "dreamer" prices on cars and the bulk of ads are from used car dealers.  Not a lot of bargains there, if any.

Facebook Marketplace, on the other hand, has ads from "real people" who are not supposed to be using fake accounts.  But given how Facebook works, you can at least click on the seller and see whether their account is ten minutes old or whether they have any sort of background.  Again, Facebook comes out ahead, Craigslist falls further behind.

3.  Tinder, Grindr, and other hookup sites:  Craigslist no longer takes "lonely hearts" ads - the M4M, M4F, F4M, F4F, and so on and so forth.  There was a lot of trolling going on there to be sure. Some folks put up fake ads and tried to get people to send naked pix, either for their own gratification or for blackmail purposes. Others were involved in human trafficking or trying to solicit minors.  It was a huge part of the site at one time, but Craigslist decided the liability wasn't worth it.  All it takes is one person to be victimized though Craigslist and they would end up getting sued.

Of course, this wasn't limited to sex ads.  Every month, the news media would report a "Craigslist Murder!" where someone met someone in shady part of town to buy or sell a laptop, a cell phone, or a car or something.  One party shows up with the item for sale or the money to buy it, and the other party shows up with a gun.  The media would call this a "Craigslist Murder!" with the exclamation point, but never called a similar crime a "Classified Ad Murder!" if someone was victimized through the classified ads in the newspaper.

The message the media was sending was that Craigslist was somehow dangerous and evil - not like the good old fashioned classified ads in the newspaper that the media outlet just happened to own.  Of course, that sort of nonsense has faded away as of late.  I guess they call them Facebook Murders now or something.

4.  Dealer and Manufacturer sites:  When searching for our cars online, we didn't spend much time, if any, on Craigslist.  In our truck search, the only one really advertising on Craigslist was a rural dealer who had trucks all with over 100,000 miles on them.  There were a few local sellers, often with beat-up high-mileage vehicles that were not in good shape.

We found that for new cars, you can search dealer inventory usually from the manufacturer's site, and for new and used cars, from the dealer sites.  Such sites have improved dramatically, usually with a plethora of photos, CarFax information, and even 360-degree views.   They also usually had prices, too, none of this "call for price" nonsense you see a lot on Craigslist, despite their rules about pricing things.

Frankly, manufacturer's websites should give Amazon pause as well.  We bought new sneakers the other day, and I opened up several sites online - eBay, the Merrell site, and Amazon - as well as a google search.  The prices were all about the same across the board, except I found one pair for Mr. See at a 15% discount on eBay.  The Merrell site offered a 10% discount if I signed up for their newsletter.  Amazon only offered full price.  After I bought one pair, Merrell offered 25% off on my next purchase (!!) which severely undercut Amazon's prices.

Note that I did not look to Craigslist for sneakers - it isn't an e-commerce site, but some sort of funky, slightly shady, garage sale.  And no, I am not interested in used sneakers - they do sell them on eBay!  Yuk.

I found the same to be true on the Bissell and the Black and Decker sites - prices as good as, if not better than Amazon or eBay, items in stock more often, and fast, free shipping.  It is a big shift from not-too-long-ago when manufacturers were obsessed with not undercutting their retail partners in price, and as a result offered clunky, hard-to-use websites with "meh!" prices.  Times have changed and I suspect we will see more direct manufacturer-to-consumer sales in the future - but that is a subject for another posting.

5.  Clunky Interface: Craigslist is sort of stuck in the 1990's in terms of website design.  I don't mind that - it loads pretty quickly and doesn't have a lot of unnecessary graphics, animation, or stupid auto-play videos.

But if you want to buy something, it gets tricky - you have to "contact" the seller, which is through an anonymous e-mailing system, I guess because they are worried about security or something.  I am not sure how this anonymous system helps anyone, other than crooks and con-men.  I mean, eventually, you have to deal with someone face-to-face and know their name and location.  Why make this a State Secret?

It really needs some work - and updating to at least 21st Century standards.

6. Weird Secrecy: Craigslist the company, has been critiqued due to its apparent secrecy as to how it operates, how it makes money, and who is really in charge.   The company is wholly owned by its founder, Craig Newmark, and as a result, we have no real idea of how much money they are making, even as some report it as $1 Billion a year.  The problem with a company like this, is that the iconic founder usually has to be booted out, over time, to make room for new ideas, new blood, and more professional operation.

In any start-up, the founder usually has an idea of "how things should be done" and resists any attempts at change.  As a result, founders are usually forced out, once the company goes public.  Even Steve Jobs was fired from Apple.  Others merely step back, much as Bezos is doing.

Craig clings to his clunky old list because he invented it and sees no reason to change it.  As a result, it never will change, even as the Internet changes around him. In 2010, Craigslist may have been the "go to" site for a lot of things, but since then, other sites have cleanly eclipsed it.

Craigslist is weird and will likely stay that way, until either Craig dies, sells the company, or Craigslist goes out of business.  Given the limited overhead involved, the last possibility isn't likely.

So what is the future for Craigslist? Like I said, if they sell the site or when Craig dies, unless he has a successor lined up, it may all go away. Someone will sell the site to investors, who will want a return on their investment, likely fire all the people working there, hire overseas folks to manage it, and then SPAM the crap out of it until they chase all the users away. It's the Silicon Valley Playbook for dying websites!

But until then, Craigslist will muddle on, remaining popular in rural Montana and other areas, where Cletus and Bubba think their 289,000 mile pickup truck is worth $9,000.  If nothing else, Craigslist has its entertainment value as a comedy site!

Standard Of Proof

Under the law, you have to meet a certain standard of proof to win a case - and in criminal cases, this standard is the highest.

A reader wrote to me, somewhat outraged by the Rittenhouse trial.  Not that he was acquitted, but that he was tried at all, since "clearly" he was innocent by dint of self-defense.  My point to him - and to anyone - is not to get riled up by these trials.  The media wants you to get riled up because it gets you to watch.  They really don't care about you.  During some previous trials, the media went so far as to speculate as to the extent and number of riots that would occur when the verdict came down.  It seemed to me that they were hoping for riots as that was good for business - their business - as it would get more outraged people to watch.

Stop being outraged.  It doesn't matter whether you think Rittenhouse was guilty or not - your opinion and mine don't matter.  What matters is the opinions of 12 jury members.  And they decide based on the evidence presented, not on what the news people present.  And yes, often they decide "wrong" and that is the nature of the justice system.  It is run by people and thus by nature, imperfect.

Pining for perfection in the world and getting upset when it doesn't occur is a sure-fire way to end up getting depressed.  The media plays this tune all the time, on a cheap harmonica.  The world is not perfect!  Governments are inefficient!  People get away with crimes!  Bad things happen for no reason! Humanity is doomed!  All of these things are true, but not really alterable.  Perfect governments never existed, and the idea of a dictator "getting things done" has been proven wrong since the dawn of time.

So relax and let it all go and appreciate the world for all its beauty and appreciate the decent people in the world.  The beautiful world is outside your door.  The decent people are all around you.  The beautiful world isn't on television, nor are the decent people.  Think about this for a second - what is the prime meat for television shows?  Crimes and people being boorish and stupid.

So just turn that shit off and be happy.  That's why I call the television the depression box.

I tried to explain to our reader that as a lawyer (well a retired one, anyway) I could see where Rittenhouse would likely be found not guilty, but that this doesn't mean he was exhonerated or that his life will go back to "normal" in any way.  It doens't mean what he did was a smart move, or even morally correct.   When riots break out, the best and only thing to do is to run in the opposite direction and let the police sort things out.  No personal property or used car lot is worth risking a life over.  And it could have gone very differently - with Rittenhouse the dead on the ground, trying to save a lot full of used cars.  Would you be willing to die for a used car dealer?  Quite frankly, they are the scum of the earth.  And likely they were hoping the place would be torched so they could collect insurance money.

But I digress.

In the law, we have what is called "Standard of Proof" and depending on what kind of case it is and what is being proven, the standard varies, from "preponderance of the evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt" - the latter the standard in criminal cases.

It is damn hard to prosecute criminals.  You have to catch them first, collect enough evidence and testimony to show they are guilty and then prove this to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  So long as the defense can raise this reasonable doubt the jury will likely acquit.  And it is not a hard-and-fast standard nor is justice always done.  OJ Simpson, for example,  got away with murder, quite literally.  A jury found "reasonable doubt" only because the police and prosecutors made some gaffes, and the media turned the case into a circus - and the judge let them.  Televising court cases was, is, and will always be, a bad idea.  Our legal system should not be entertainment.  But then again, how many television shows are about court cases?  I guess trials have always been the highest form of theater, and the best lawyers are also great actors.

But even though OJ was acquitted (not "found innocent" please!) he was found liable in the resulting civil suit, where the standard of proof was far lower (and the media circus had largely left town by that point).

So when I heard about this Rittenhouse thing, I didn't get all riled up about it.  A jury would decide and their decision would not be affected by how hard I watched television.  And you could watch television as hard as you can, and it still wouldn't make a rats's ass difference.  I know that is hard to wrap one's head around, but it is the basic truth.  You have to let these things go and not get obsessed about them.

The hard-core political types, the foreign trolls, the useful idiots, and so forth have other ideas.  This is important stuff and you need to make it the centerpiece of your life!  Right now, some of the folks on the far right are laughing and saying, "We owned the libs!  Yee-Haw!" but the reality is, it was a court case, not a referendum on Trump or whatever.  And the case was decided on the facts, not on emotions, and according to the standard of proof required.  The fact the jury deliberated for three days shows that they carefully reviewed the evidence before jumping to conclusions.  And "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" - not in any court in the world.

On the other side of the spectrum are those who claim this is an injustice - and are shocked, shocked, I say, to that injustice exists in the world in any way shape or form.  These folks don't get out much, I think.  So they decry the justice system as "rigged" and the judge as "biased" and the prosecutor as "incompetent" and so on and so forth.  They've been watching too much Perry Mason, I think.   As trials go, it was pretty standard.  No trial is perfect, which is why it is hilarious when someone picks apart a conviction (usually as part of one of these "innocence" projects) for having errors.  Whether the errors were relevant to the outcome is the real key.

And speaking of which there was a fellow on death row in Oklahoma whose sentence was commuted to life without parole the other day.  His lawyer said this was a sign that he was "innocent" of the crime.  Lawyers love to try cases in the court of public opinion - don't let them.

The Rittenhouse case was not an example of outrage for either side.  He should have been put on trial as people were killed.  The outcome was not an outrage as the defense could argue that there was reasonable doubt as to whether it was self-defense or not.  If you go to grab someone's gun, there is a valid argument to be made that they were in "fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" if they let their gun be taken away from them.  See someone with a gun?  Run the other direction as fast as possible.

Sadly, both sides of the political spectrum will use this case to make political points.  And our overseas adversaries who troll social media will stir the pot - and in fact, are already doing so.  They want to divide us from one another and get us so outraged we stop thinking logically and start thinking emotionally.  Getting worked up over these trials is a case in point - it blinds us to reality.

There will be another verdict (or a hung jury) soon in the Aubery case.  Like I said, I know one of the jurors is a rabid Trump fan, so I predict a hung jury is a distinct possibility.  As with the Rittenhouse case, when you go after people, carrying a gun, bad things will happen, and you should be held accountable for manslaughter at least.  Stop chasing after people with guns.  Stop bringing guns to the situation.  It isn't helping and the results are predictable.

That being said, I can see the defense will argue that when Aubery grabbed the shotgun, he pulled back on it, which caused the gun to go off, as the other fellow had his hand on the trigger.  Alternatively, they will argue that the shooter was "in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" if Aubery got ahold of the shotgun.   Again, it doesn't matter whether you or I agree with these arguments, but whether 12 jurors think there "reasonable doubt" that these arguments have merit.  It doesn't take much to meet this standard.  An acquittal is entirely possible.

But again, even if acquitted, I doubt the lives of the men involved will ever get back on track.  Likely they will have to move somewhere to get away from the notoriety.  I am sure their neighbors at Satilla Shores would like it if the whole thing blew over.  I suspect they may rename that housing development as a result.  Would you want to live there?  With protesters and police cars parked out front?  Didn't think so.

The law is not a perfect machine - no endeavor of man is perfect as we are imperfect beings.  We strive to make it better, but the bottom line is, our imperfect behavior is what creates injustice, not the system itself.  Yes, it is sad that a black man gets harassed - and killed - jogging through a white housing development.  It is sad also that I can't go jogging through the housing projects in downtown Brunswick without facing similar harassment and physical danger.  It sucks that some people think rioting is a legitimate response to injustice.  And it sucks that some folks seem to relish the idea of joining the riot and causing even more mayhem.  Maybe if people weren't so shitty to one another, that would put an end to injustice.  Relying on courts and juries is only a backstop, not our first line of defense.

But the main thing is, getting upset when life isn't perfect isn't making your life any better, but in fact, far worse.