OPINION


Opinion: Tariffs on Mexico Could Worsen the Immigration Crisis

Opinion: Tariffs on Mexico Could Worsen the Immigration Crisis

President Donald Trump - Image source located at bottom of article

By BOBBY HARR
6/5/19
Twitter: @TheDailyNoble

President Donald Trump recently threatened a hefty new set of tariffs on all Mexican goods entering the United States in response to Mexico’s lack of cooperation on fighting the immigration crisis at our southern border.

The increase, which is set to begin on June 10th, would start at 5% and increase steadily by increments of 5 until October, ultimately capping out at 25% unless Mexico cooperate in the United States’ effort in stopping the immigration crisis.

In the event that Mexico cooperates, and the crisis lessens, said tariffs would be removed.

Currently, the United States does roughly $557 billion worth of trade with Mexico annually, according to the 2017 U.S Census Bureau, making them our third largest trade partner. By a longshot, the United States is the largest trading partner of Mexico, tying up roughly 76% of their entire foreign trade.

This means that a ballooning tariff would cause both sides of the aisle to feel the blow.

US consumers would likely feel the impact, as roughly $372 billion worth of goods are imported annually into the United States from Mexico. American businesses would be forced to foot the bill, which likely would cause increased prices for consumers.

On the flip side, a potential 25% tariff could be catastrophic to the Mexican economy, considering the overwhelming majority of their trade coming from the United States.

The idea is that, if we pound Mexico with tariffs until they can no longer stay afloat, they are hereby incentivized to assist the United States in taking control of the immigration crisis at the southern border.

This is true that threats of heavy tariffs are incentive for foreign powers to cooperate, however this most likely will go one of two ways.

Either the Mexican government will cower to the threat, and ultimately cooperate with the Trump administration to avoid catastrophe, or the tariffs could indeed cause diminishing economic results for the nation.

The second result leaves the entire tariff operation entirely counterproductive.

If tariffs are indeed implemented at these rates, certain economic downturn will follow for Mexico. Historically, this results in higher levels of illegal immigration to the United States. This result would mean that not only the Mexican government has called Trump’s bluff and denied the request to enforce immigration laws, but also that Mexican citizens are now incentivized even greater to migrate north.

The way to keep Mexican citizens in Mexico is to keep the Mexican economy good, and the way that happens is through trade—trade that is not burdened with unreasonable tariffs.

Our already horribly broken immigration system could become even further challenged with bigger waves of migrants in the event of an economic downturn for the nation. We want to deter migrants from coming here illegally, not chum the waters.

The added cost to US consumers due to these tariffs would far outweigh the cost of the yet to be built wall on our southern border, as well as heightened border security and technology improvements.

This will either be a quick and easy fix if Mexico waves the white flag, or we could see the plan backfire entirely. A wall, heightened border security including technology improvements, and legislation to greater enforce the laws against overstaying of visas would seem to be more of a priority for the White House.

 

Image source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/47873/breaking-trump-takes-major-action-against-mexico-ryan-saavedra


Image source: BBC - Link located at bottom of article

Opinion: The Left Wants Socialism and Gun Control—Venezuela Has Both

By BOBBY HARR
5/2/19
Twitter: @TheDailyNoble

How does a nation that holds the largest oil reserve in the world (300,878 million barrels) have starving citizens resorting to disturbing measures such as eating dogs, and violent rioting in the streets? New violent protests in the streets of Caracas, Venezuela have erupted in dispute over the looming presidency battle between Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaido. This is the inevitable result of an economic doom struck upon the nation that has been touted for years by most all of our democratic presidential candidates.

The answer? Socialism.

In modern day America, when we talk about socialism—most of us think about our longest serving independent screwball in Senate history, Bernie Sanders. In Venezuela, however, they think about vicious authoritarian leaders like Hugo Chavez, and Nicolas Maduro. To understand the impact of socialism and Nicolas Maduro on Venezuela, we must first go to where it started.

Venezuela wasn’t always a starving, politically unstable and violent nation. In fact, for much of the 20th century, the nation remained the wealthiest country in South America while it was still a democracy. Being largely dependent on the price of oil as such an oil-rich nation, some sought to use the overflow of cash in order to “buy” votes from the Venezuelan people. This led to the election of President Hugo Chavez—founder of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

In 1998, Chavez used the overflow of oil money into the country to import mass amounts of food, with the intention of subsidizing it to the people of Venezuela—in apparent efforts to make basic essentials affordable for the poor. This led to overwhelming support and, ultimately—his election in 1999. As a result of this excessive spending, Venezuela’s national debt nearly quadrupled.

Once the economy began to turn and the debt continued to climb, the cornered Chavez doubled-down and moved to the seizure of private Venezuelan companies and farms like a true dictator. As a result of this, Exxon Mobile was one of the major companies to pull out of Venezuela entirely. Countless farms, factories, shops and other private companies were turned over to government hands by force.

Chavez died in 2013, but not without leaving a lasting impact—banning private gun ownership in 2012 for the entire nation. In Venezuela today, only the police, military and criminals have access to guns—leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against a totalitarian government.

Once Chavez expired, Nicolas Maduro—now president of the PSUV, assumed power as president. He was victorious in a “special election” which he narrowly won, coming up with only 50.62% of the total votes. In 2014, with a significant drop in oil prices as well as high risk of default on the debt from Chavez’s decade-and-a-half long shopping spree—Maduro was faced with an obvious dilemma.

His solution? Print more money.

This caused almost immediate hyper-inflation in the socialist nation. The price of one month’s supply of basic groceries became nearly five times the price of the monthly minimum wage, food and medicine became scarce and the government’s oil revenues continued to drop.

The impact? Today in Venezuela, 1/3 of citizens reportedly eat one meal per day—with many eating even less than that. Citizens have reported waiting in bread-lines with hundreds of people at their churches just to get their hands on something to eat. Medicine and food have become growingly scarce, while The Maduro regime has gone further in its oppressive efforts. A recent video from Caracas shows opposition supporters of Guaido being crushed by government vehicles, shot at and hit with tear gas. Venezuela currently has the third highest murder rate in the world since the gun ban in 2012. With gun ownership outlawed, citizens are being killed with hopeless methods of self-defense. To top off this tyranny, both CNN and BBC we’re forcibly removed from air by the government upon airing footage of the protestors being ran over.

We may not have government vehicles running over protestors in the United States currently, but we certainly have Americans that are more than sold on socialism—which is a scary, slippery slope. It’s not just the Bernie Sanders and AOC’s of the world, though. An August 2018 poll by Gallup Polling showed that 57% of democrats have a “positive view of socialism” with only 47% having a “positive view of capitalism.” Scarier yet, the vast majority of this crowd is less than 25 years old.

Free college, abolishment of student loan debt and free healthcare have undoubtedly been the key selling points to this demographic along with legal weed to help ease the pain of the Bern. But wait, don’t forget about guns. Those need banned as well, according to the democrats—the same group that is currently pushing for prison inmates to have the right to vote while behind bars. Disarming and moving to a centralized government? Hard pass.

While we most likely won’t see a socialist America anytime soon, and hopefully never—it is alarming to see the overwhelming support for implementing an economic doom that has plagued so many nations across the world. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it beats the hell out of getting shot by your own government for protesting after spending your entire day waiting in a bread-line to survive.

 

Image source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46970620

Opinion: The Left Wants Socialism and Gun Control—Venezuela Has Both


Julian Assange - Image source located at bottom of article

Julian Assange: Journalist or Cyber-Villain?

By BOBBY HARR
4/22/19
Twitter: @TheDailyNoble

Julian Assange, founder and CEO of the controversial news source WikiLeaks—was arrested on April 11th, 2019 by London Metropolitan Police for failing to appear in court. He was arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy which has housed him under refugee status since 2012, subsequently after the Ecuadorian government terminated his asylum status. Assange is currently being held in custody by the UK—also facing possible extradition to the United States for his alleged involvement in assisting Chelsea Manning, a former U.S Army private—in the theft of “privileged” information that was intended to be published on WikiLeaks.

The story has caught fire globally, as Julian Assange has been a very prominent figure in the media for decades. His organization was designed since inception to be an outlet for those within government, military and private sector to release classified information about the organizations, exposing it to the public. He is famous for his exposure of a slew of juicy, classified documentation over the years ranging from the Collateral Murder video (Apr 2010) released by admitted leaker Chelsea Manning, which showed airstrikes in Baghdad by the US Military killing two journalists, between 12-18 more Iraqi civilians and wounding two children—to the Iraq War logs (Oct 2010) which showed 68,081 civilian deaths out of a collective 109,000 recorded deaths. Manning plead guilty and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. The exposure of the war logs alone led to the birth of the Iraq Body Count Project—marking it as the biggest leak in US Military history.

More prominently, Assange & WikiLeaks had big involvement in the 2016 election. The non-profit exposed over 20,000 DNC emails to the public by May of 2016, adding a searchable database that’s present on their website today. The database gives public access to anyone wanting to search the leaked emails and is the third link on their home page. We can all remember the “Hillary’s emails” issue that president Trump seemed to run his campaign on for nearly it’s entirety, and WikiLeaks assisted bigly in exposing just that.

Despite the seemingly partisan targeting of Hillary Clinton and the DNC, Assange has been harshly critical of both Clinton and Trump. In fact, he compared the choosing between the two to being “like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea.” He may have focused more on Clinton when it came to smear tactics, but he surely wasn’t wearing a MAGA cap either. When asked who his personal choice would be, he said he’d prefer neither.

Needless to say, Assange has angered a lot of people in Washington—though these examples are merely scratching the surface of the full WikiLeaks impact on American politics. According to FiveThirtyEight, a political analysis website—two things can be said about WikiLeaks’s impact on the 2016 election (i) Americans were interested in the WikiLeaks releases, and (ii) the timeline of Clinton’s fall in the polls roughly matches the emails’ publishing schedule.

Over 72 percent of people that searched WikiLeaks in 2016 from June forward, did so during October or the first week of November. This of course was right before the general election. The upset of the 2016 election for the democratic party remains an open wound, an unsolved mystery if you will—and a finger to point is what they so desperately crave.

Since the Russia collusion conspiracy has been officially debunked, that isn’t going to cut it. While many democrats scoffed at the Mueller report and its findings, unsurprisingly pursuing impeachment still on the basis of obstruction—they’ve also been in overwhelming support of the arrest of Julian Assange. I mean, his platform has exposed and humiliated countless democrats and arguably assisted greatly in carrying Donald Trump to the oval office—but so what? Mudslinging is one of the oldest tactics in the book. Many describe Assange as merely a whistleblower, but what happens when the whistle gets too loud?

April 11th: Assange was conveniently dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy on, of which London police were invited into—a few short weeks after Barr’s summary of the Mueller report was released. The summary of course cleared Trump of the two-year long Russian collusion allegations, while coming to no conclusion as to whether the president obstructed justice. Barr’s findings were corroborated by the release of the full, redacted Mueller report exactly one week after the apprehension of Assange. Many are quick to denounce him as a Russian agent, tying this all back to the collusion conspiracy despite the lack of active charges against Assange.

For obvious reasons, most democrats have strong negative feelings towards Assange, but it is important to understand that the crime he is charged with is for failure to appear in court. Regardless of allegations against him in the past, none of his current charges correspond to why he’s sitting in police custody tonight.

Despite this, the arrest of Assange prompted an immediate DOJ indictment—accusing him of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to hack into a government computer (Collateral Murder video). It is important to note that Manning refuses to testify against Assange and again, plead guilty to stealing the footage alone.

The Australian, seemingly “cyber-villain” is widely known as a shady, mystery character for his high-risk journalism and specialty craft of exposure—but what separates him from any other journalist? “Assange is no sleazier than many journalists in Washington—and he’s definitely not more anti-American. He’s written stories than New York Times would’ve won Pulitzers for.” Said Fox’s Tucker Carlson.

Why should Julian Assange face US extradition for merely publishing footage that someone else stole? The man is a journalist that has exposed many—and regardless of your personal interpretation of his line of work, he publishes news that is provided to him. It seems that over time, the line between freedom of the press and criminality of journalism is growing increasingly more defined and partisan. I just can’t help but wonder if the same standards would’ve applied here had Assange targeted Donald Trump in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton.

 

Image source: https://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/exclusive-interview-julian-assange-a-spy-for-the-people.html


President Donald Trump - Image Source: "The Nation" (link at bottom of article)

Trump’s New Trade Deal is Good for America—Here’s Why

By DYLAN HAAS
4/21/19
dylan.haas@icloud.com

Since President Donald Trump’s Election, his administration has been desperately trying to renegotiate the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Ironically, the fact that there wasn’t really free trade in the first place aided Trump in his conquest to put America first with new international trade policy.

And that he did quite literally in his administration's new trade agreement the “United States - Mexico - Canada Agreement” or USMCA. As petty as it may seem, his administration actually insisted on USMCA versus the easier to pronounce “CAMUS” or “MACUS” acronym versions.

Regardless of petty initialisms, the USMCA does have several key differences from the previous NAFTA policy. According to the US Trade Representative, the USMCA will be doing a lot including:

 

1. Cracking down on intellectual property right violations

2. Raising Rules of Origin limitations

3. Raising minimum wages in all three countries for automotive industries

4. Helping the US agricultural industry

5. Putting up environmental safeguards

 

There are many more specifics that I would like to talk about, but if you want to learn about other impacts of the USMCA, go to ustr.gov/usmca and take a look around.

Firstly, when talking about intellectual property rights, one must realize that hundreds of billions of dollars are lost in US circulation from worldwide intellectual property theft. Large portions are lost from many developing nations including China. Mexico isn’t one to shy away from rules in the US though. Tons of money is lost from stolen IP and the USMCA hopes to stop or at least slow the bleeding economy by instituting our IP laws into Mexican law.

Secondly, rules of origin are now made stricter in the US which will mean more manufacturing jobs will have to come from the US to be considered for tax breaks. This primarily helps the US since many companies left for Mexico due to the low restrictions on rules of origin.

To ensure that automotive workers receive a livable wage, the USMCA also ups the wages for 45% up to $16. This shows how Trump’s administration is actually pushing for living wages for Mexican workers as well.

The USMCA will also be helping the US agricultural industry by leveling the playing field across the board. Specifically, the struggling US dairy sector will benefit significantly. Overlooked by NAFTA, our dairy farmers will now have an easier time competing with Canadian farmers who were importing different classes of milk that were undercutting prices through Canadian federal programs in US. This program actually was blowing US dairy farmers out of the market not only in the US, but in other countries as well. The United States heavily subsidize our dairy farmers, and by enabling our farmers to now compete fairly, the US may be able to free up money to be used in other parts of our federal budget.

One last thing is that the USMCA will target and prioritize protecting the environment like the NAFTA never has—enforcing fishery protection to ensure that our shared waters are now safer than before, along with more protection for endangered animals such as whales, sea turtles, and sharks.

While there is a lot more to the USMCA, these are 5 points that I personally would like to focus on due to the fact that it flies in the face of the story spun on the Trump administration. This agreement not only does promote US first, but also looks to help small businesses, farmers, and manufacturing jobs as well. Focusing on the small guys while simultaneously promoting environmental protection.

Personally, I like this renegotiation and I believe that it will help the US. However, I’d be amiss to leave out the possible negatives. There’s a potential to push American companies farther away and to raise prices for US consumers. For example, the reason Ford left the US for Mexico is for lower costs of labor. By forcing such a company to raise prices in Mexico and in the US, this company is left a very limited set of options: Stay in Mexico and incur the higher labor cost, move to the USA and take their higher costs there (but save on tariffs), or move to another country altogether. Regardless of which they choose, the company will have higher costs that will translate as higher prices for primarily American consumers.

 

Image source: https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-nafta-2-0-is-just-more-of-the-same/


Image source located at bottom of article

It's 4/20: How'd the Number Become Tied to Marijuana?

By BOBBY HARR
4/20/19 <------ >
Twitter: @TheDailyNoble

Ahh, 4/20—what a holiday. A day where pot smokers across the globe light up in solidarity as a celebration of the drug and it’s history. An act of resistance & freedom in some areas, as the drug is still widely illegal in many nations globally as well as federally illegal in the United States—despite the presence of both recreational & medical dispensaries in “legal states.”

Needless to say, weed is pretty popular. People love it, and they spend a ton of money on it. According to a study by the Washington Post, an estimated 55 million Americans are considered “current users” of marijuana, meaning they’ve used pot at least once or twice within the past year. To narrow it down to the real tokers, roughly 35 million out of that group are considered “regular users” or, people that use at least once or twice per month.

The number 420 can be recognized in a variety of ways, all of which relating back to weed. Whether it be 4/20 as the date, 4:20 as the time or just plain old 420—there’s little ambiguity as to what the message is. Often catching a grin, and perhaps even a laugh—the number can be seen on T-shirts, wristbands, album covers, in songs of all genre, the list goes on. We all recognize the number, but where did it come from?

Many rumors regarding the origin of the stoner worshipped number include 420 being a police scanner code for “marijuana smoking in progress” going as far as some rumoring it to be related to Adolf Hitler’s birthday being 4/20. Others going as far as to cite some nonsense lyrics from one of Bob Dylan’s songs. None of these are true.

The origin of 420 goes all the way back to 1971 in Marin County, California where five students of San Rafael High School used to meet up at 4:20pm in order to either smoke pot, steal pot from unattended plants, or perhaps both. The real truth isn’t fully clear, but this is the most circulated answer to the frequently rumored truth about the number. Nonetheless, it is strange to think about the idea of anything being schedule at a time like 4:20. Can you name anything relevant that is not scheduled at a time like 5:00, 5:15, 5:30?

I’ve focused on the second theory, the stealing from unattended plants—simply because it’s the most entertaining. I mean, just imagine this—you’re a marijuana farmer. You’ve been working hard for roughly 6 months, because that’s about how long it takes from seed to finished product—only to arrive to your harvest and discover that a pack of teenagers robbed you of your stash. 6 months of hard work and thousands of dollars’ worth of weed down the drain. The worst part—what can you do? Call the cops? Man, if I were only a fly on the wall to witness the reaction of the growers discovering the loss. Boo-hoo I guess, but at least they were part of the birth of the significance of a number that transformed into a holiday celebrated annually by potheads everywhere.

*cues Nirvana music*

 

Image source: https://www.medicalbag.com/home/features/grey-matter/the-origin-of-420/


President Donald Trump - Image Source: POLITICO (link below)

Opinion: Trump Obstructed One Thing: The Democratic Path to 2020

By BOBBY HARR
4/19/19
@TheDailyNoble

Seemingly moments after the full, redacted Mueller report was released to the public on Thursday, many house democrats have scrambled through volume two of the special counsel report—obstruction of justice, in order to obsessively dissect it further.

The full report, which is 448 pages long provides a deep dive into the seemingly endless two-year long investigation into the Trump administration’s involvement with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign—specifically as to whether collusion occurred between the two in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. The report is split up into two volumes; Collusion & obstruction of justice.

Attorney General William Barr, who provided congress with a 4-page summary of the report March 24 gave a press conference early this morning—answering questions regarding the report. This along with the release of the full, redacted report has done little to quell the restlessness of the democratic party.

Many 2020 presidential candidates have responded by denouncing Barr, thus tripling down on the so called “collusion delusion” that has since been debunked.

 

“We want to hear from Director Mueller himself.” Amy Klobuchar tweeted.

“It’s a disgrace to see an Attorney General acting as if he’s the personal attorney and publicist for the President of the United States.” Elizabeth Warren tweeted.

“Congress needs to see the full, unredacted Mueller report and all of the investigations underlying evidence – and special counsel Robert Mueller must testify publicly before congress.” Kamala Harris tweeted.

 

The two-year ongoing fantasy that president Trump colluded with the Russian government is fully dead and buried. It is no more. Despite this, the entire focus of the democratic party has been stagnant on Russian collusion allegations, seeing them as a clear path to remove POTUS from office.

One could see the denial of factual evidence that lie right before there very eyes to be nothing short of delusional, and one would be right. Rather than focusing on winning in 2020, it’s been of great interest for democrats to continue chasing the Russian fantasy that was manufactured to remove Trump from office, thus undoing the 2016 election. A happy ending.

Well, not quite.

If there’s one thing that Trump has not lost, it is his base. His base remains strong and emboldened by all of the turmoil. Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech at his rally in Pittsburgh last week where he urged Trump to “keep a single campaign promise.” Well, maybe not the best jab from Sanders. A few kept promises by Trump…

• Jobs added

• Wall

• Better economy

• Low unemployment

There is, in fact a way to remove Trump from office, and that way is to defeat him in 2020. We can call Trump a Russian agent, we can call him a racist, we can call him a liar, we can call him a sexist but—regardless of how you feel about the man, you cannot deny that despite the barrage of accusations and criticism he has faced over the last few years, he remains the president. He remains the president, his base is happy, and his approval ratings are on the incline. Those tactics have not worked. It’s time for a new game plan, democrats. If you think you’re pissed off now, just think about your reaction if you have to deal with this for four more years.

 

Image source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/trump-boeing-737-max-1274719


Mark Zuckerberg - CEO/Facebook

Opinion: Facebook Wants the Government to Monitor Your Posts—And for The Exact Reason You’d Think

By BOBBY HARR
4/13/19
@TheDailyNoble

Billionaire Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote an op-ed last week in the Washington Post calling for global government to ban together to regulate speech on the internet. This is not the first example of big tech companies reaching out for voluntary government intervention in their business to police online speech, as we have seen Twitter flirt with similar ideas.

The tech giant has faced recent scrutiny over content posted on their platform as well as their current removal process of “harmful” content. In an article published here on The Daily Noble just last week, I reported the following in the article titled “Censoring Big Tech: Facebook & Google Face Tough Crackdown.”

 

A European Union parliamentary committee, the Civil Liberties Committee passed a bill Monday—approved at 35 votes to 1(8 absentees), that would give these tech platforms just one hour to remove content deemed to be “extreme” by the Competent National Authority—or face heavy fines & penalties.

 

It’s understood that this was in Europe, but regardless—could Zuckerberg be cracking under pressure? Well, that’s one theory—though Zuckerberg didn’t seem to crack under pressure even slightly when he appeared in front of congress last year where he was grilled with questions regarding the companies use of data & privacy. After all, Facebook is worth half of a trillion dollars—surely, they have their own content moderators already, right? Yes, they do, and below I’ve provided a list of statistics regarding the lucrative content moderator position for Facebook, according to The Verge.

 

• There are an estimated 15,000 content moderators globally for Facebook.


• These content moderators do not directly work for Facebook—they work for an independent company, Cognizant, that is hired by Facebook for contract labor.


• Content moderators earn an average of $28,800 annually while the average Facebook employee earns $240,000 annually.


• Content moderators allegedly have their bathroom breaks strictly monitored at work.

 

• Many content moderators allegedly have suffered PTSD from the constant disturbing content they are tasked with monitoring.


• Many content moderators are allegedly frequently using drugs & alcohol at work in order to cope with the trauma of the mortifying content they view & harsh working conditions. This allegedly helps “numb the emotions” they feel as they make poverty level income to watch beheadings and read racial slurs all day.

 

These happy-go-lucky moderators, that work in a building where the turnover rate is higher than their manager—spend their days filtering through hate speech, graphic violence, child pornography, rape and other vile content. All of these are disgusting and evil, as well as presumably not pleasing to comb through for a living—but Zuckerberg assures these people hold an important & necessary position. If you can look past the disgraceful treatment of these poor employees, we all can pretty much agree entirely with Zuckerberg’s basic principle. Nobody wants to see that garbage and it should be removed.

But again, if these moderators are so valuable to Facebook, the question is obvious—why the huge gap in income between such an “essential” position for Facebook vs any regular schmuck working at Facebook? It’s simple, contract labor is cheaper. Much cheaper. They do this for the same reason that Uber drivers do not work for Uber—to avoid overhead costs and liability. You don’t need an economics degree to see through the smoke and mirrors. Facebook does not value the labor and skillset of content moderators and it’s clear. They find them to be a total burden, tasked with solving a problem that they wish did not exist. If this was untrue, Facebook would welcome them onboard as employees and pay them accordingly. They can more than afford to do so and keep this in house whilst maintaining American jobs. So, how all does Facebook benefit by outsourcing content moderators rather than adding them to payroll? Here’s a few ways:

 

• They get to pay an average annual cost for each moderator that is roughly 88% cheaper than their average payroll employee. The use of contract labor saves the company roughly $3,180,000,000 annually compared to bringing them on as employees.

• They avoid the cost of providing benefits.

• They avoid the cost of payroll.

• They avoid the liability employees carry.

 

Luckily, Zuckerberg has come up with a brilliant solution to exterminate all of the content moderators once and for all. What exactly is the Harvard graduate’s master plan to control what you post on Facebook?

The Government. More specifically, government regulation of all content.

Ahh, perfect! Besides, that $3.18 billion in savings wasn’t nearly enough to a man worth $66 billion, obviously. Let’s eliminate the entire cost of content moderation and turn every bit of it over to the government. First off, know that a company worth half a trillion dollars that gets in business with the government—is not losing money on that deal. These exorbitantly large companies with quarterly earnings reports that are nothing shy of a shareholder’s wet dream— already do their due diligence to dodge every tax possible, and they certainly are not going to hand over access of their private business to the government unless the pot is rich. On top of this, Zuckerberg washes his hands with any liability going forward. No contract labor, no liability, he’s free and clear—and richer than before. Perhaps he even will jump a few spots on the Forbes billionaire list.

Zuckerberg wasn’t specific in his Washington Post op-ed on what exactly the government’s regulation would entail for the social giant, leaving it at a vague “Harmful content: Holding companies & users accountable for propaganda, hate speech and more.”

Now, take a moment and do me a favor—I would like for you to put every ounce of bias you possess, every isolated personal incident(s) you’ve ever experienced and every last knee-jerk reaction you may have to this question, aside. Take a breath and answer this question truthfully to yourself.

Are you comfortable with the idea of a billionaire CEO giving the government full access & permission to regulate your personal content, while it makes him richer? This would include deleting of posts, suspensions, permanent bans, etc. Full on regulation from Uncle Sam. There have been no specifics given as to what the government would allow to be published on Facebook and what they would remove—deeming it “harmful content” at their standards. Their standards, whatever those are. If we use the trends we have seen recently on Twitter, we can estimate that it would be primarily conservative voices being banned on a government-ran Facebook as the two social media giants are greatly in correlation on their political views, which are undoubtedly liberal biased.

But WAIT, wait—wait—wait—has everybody forgotten about the first amendment. You know, the one granting everyone the right to free speech? Whether online falls into a different category, legally—based on some loophole or not, there is something extremely disturbing about the idea of our government controlling what we say on Facebook whilst claiming to uphold the constitution. 

Look, I understand that these companies are private companies that can do as they please, but government intervention in their business in an unconstitutional way such as this is another total extreme. 

Why should we allow the government, which is comprised of elected officials with extreme political bias—to regulate the content of the people on a social platform that has such a massive impact on the elections which put them into office in the first place? This are the same elected officials that are tasked with upholding the constitution, under any circumstances whilst doing their jobs. Many of us learned early in grade school a very simple lesson on US government. There are things the government can do, there are things the government can’t do. Things that they cannot do are referred to as “unconstitutional” meaning it does not comply with one or more of the amendments of the United States Constitution. This all sounds like a scam to me.

Regardless of the impact, Zuckerberg could certainly care less. He is in full support of government regulation in his business and for obvious reasons. No matter what moral reason Zuckerberg may spew as to why he’s proposing such a bold move, know that his motives are entirely driven by money and accountability.

Anybody that knows a shred about Zuckerberg’s history, namely regarding the founding of Facebook—knows that Mark Zuckerberg is not a man driven by morality and ethics at all.

He certainly did not become worth $66 billion dollars by helping an old lady cross the street, and he certainly is not proposing a government raid on his monopoly social media business out of the goodness of his heart.

 

Image source: https://awesome98.com/for-the-1000th-time-stop-sharing-the-fake-message-about-facebook-charging-people/


Opinion: Sex Crimes in America: The Black & White Reality

By BOBBY HARR
4/7/19

According to a study done by the University of Michigan, African Americans make up the majority of wrongful convictions in the United States.

“African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated.” The study states. “They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in “group exonerations.”

With the rise of the #MeToo movement, we have seen a dramatic spike in the awareness of sex crimes—heinous, vile crimes that unfortunately happen amongst everyday people on a daily basis. Many stories today of this nature get national media coverage and spark outrage on social media. While the immediate outrage and demand for justice is often entirely understandable without question, justice often never gets served.

In the United States, 57% of sexually violent perpetrators are white while only 27% are black.

The question here is rather simple—we have African Americans wrongfully being convicted at an overwhelming rate whilst a rise in awareness of sex crimes: Where do the two intertwine?

Well, this brings me to two very, very different stories.

The first man goes by the name of Albert N Wilson. Albert is a recent graduate from the University of Kansas that was sentenced to over 12 years of prison on April 3rd for rape. In addition to his sentence, he was given a mandatory life of probation & mandated to register as a sex offender. On a night out in September of 2016, the then 20-year-old Wilson met a then 17-year-old-girl at a popular club. Wilson used a friend’s ID to gain entry to the club whilst the girl, along with her friend were not carded. The two danced together and Wilson apparently pulled her skirt up at one point throughout the night. They also allegedly never exchanged information regarding either of their ages. Following this the two went back to Wilson’s apartment where they admit to kissing and “engaging in other sexual acts” however, not intercourse. Let me say that again for emphasis; Albert N Wilson—a black man—did not have sexual intercourse with a, unbeknownst to him, 17 year-old-girl that he met at a 21+ club. He will serve over 12 years in prison.

The second man goes by the name of Brock Turner. Brock was a student at Stanford University where he was a member of the swim team. After 1am on the night of January 18th, 2015, police responded to a report of an unconscious woman in a field near the Kappa Alpha frat house. They found the girl alone and curled up behind a dumpster in the fetal position. She was found unresponsive but breathing—her hair covered in pine needles, dressed pulled up to her waist and underwear on the ground. Nearby, two men had Brock Turner pinned down awaiting law enforcement. The two men told officers they found him on top of the unconscious girl and stopped him in the act. Brock was convicted of rape and sentenced. Brock Turner, a white man, raped an unconscious woman and left her behind a dumpster. Brock was sentenced to serve 6 months in jail; however, Brock would get out in just a short 3 months.

 

• 3 months.

• 12 years.

 

Considering the statistics listed above, in combination with two all-too recent events—it can be extremely difficult for one to not see the evident discrimination that’s occurring within our justice system.

After all, why can one man rape an unconscious woman and serve 3 months, while another has no intercourse whatsoever and serve 12 years for—RAPE? Why does the complete and total absence of evidence of any sexual intercourse occurring alone not negate a rape charge?

Sexual assault could still be on the table depending on the circumstances, but a rape conviction without evidence of penetration sounds like Wilson may have been guilty before he walked into the courtroom that day, unfortunately.

 

By BOBBY HARR
4/7/19

 

Image sources: https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/9/17670322/brock-turner-stanford-judge-persky-sexual-assault

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/public-safety/2019/jan/10/jury-deliberating-case-of-man-charged-with-raping-drunken-teen-he-met-at-lawrence-college-bar/


Opinion: Beto “bong-rip” O’Rourke may be trying to whack old man Biden at the knees

By BOBBY HARR
4/2/19

As many of us have seen, former Vice President & unannounced presidential candidate Joe Biden has recently been under fire over two separate allegations of inappropriate misconduct.

The first allegation came last week when former Nevada state legislator Lucy Flores claimed that Biden made her feel uncomfortable at a campaign event in 2014 during her run for lieutenant governor. According to Flores, the then Vice President came up behind her, placed his hands on her shoulders and kissed her head.

A second woman, Amy Lappos came forward early Tuesday accusing Biden of “inappropriate touching” in 2009. According to Lappos, Biden approached her at a democratic fundraiser in Connecticut which led to him grabbing her head, pulling her face closer to him and “rubbing noses” with him.

It is worth noting that both women have not alleged the incidences as “sexual” in nature. But, despite this, Flores called this incident “disqualifying” for Joe Biden in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper—implying that he should not pursue his run for president.

Flores oddly enough has been seen attending a rally recently for 2020 candidate Beto O’Rourke. As some may remember, Beto & Biden allegedly flirted with the idea in December of teaming up for a 2020 race. It was at this time that the former Vice President questioned whether his ripe age of 76 may be his barrier to entry into the oval office.

Could the long haired, pot-friendly former congressman be taking cheap shots at Biden in order to pass him up heading for the primaries, or will this all go up in smoke?

 

Image source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-beto-orourke-could-be-dems-2020-nominee-against-trump


Opinion: Jussie Smollett inflated the value of the currency in modern victimhood & demonstrated class privilege

By BOBBY HARR
3/31/19

Prosecutors have cleared the former Empire actor Jussie Smollett of sixteen felony counts after he allegedly staged a politicly fueled hate hoax late January in downtown Chicago.

Though Smollett continues to maintain his innocence, both the evidence & lack of consistency in his story leaves few to believe him. Despite all of this, as of Tuesday afternoon, all charges surprisingly had been dropped on the basis that Smollett had completed community service work & the forfeiture of his $10,000 bond to the City of Chicago. Both Mayor Rahm Emanuel & Eddie Johnson referred to it as a “whitewash of justice.” It’d be but a short jump for one to assume that Jussie Smollett may be experiencing privilege within our justice system.

In an interview with CBS 2 TV Chicago, State Attorney Kim Foxx, when asked “Do you think Jussie Smollett was innocent?” quickly deflected the question and replied “I believe that the outcome, him having to forfeit the $10,000, having to do community service based on the allegations, and again, the class 4 felony and no background is an outcome we can expect with this case.” The first problem with this statement is that Jussie Smollett was charged with sixteen felony counts, not one. Also, why deflect the initial question if the outcome was so routine?

According to Illinois General Assembly, each class 4 felony charge shall mandate a prison sentence of not less than one year and not more than three years—each of which can carry a hefty fine of up to $25,000.

Earlier this month, Foxx released a number of text messages & emails between herself and Tina Tchen, the former chief of staff to Michelle Obama as well as a Smollett relative that is unnamed. While Tchen maintains her innocence in the situation, the “coincidental” nature of the messaging exchange—in combination with the controversy of this case, calls for great skepticism.

“I wanted to give you a call on behalf of Jussie Smollett and family who I know. They have concerns about the investigation.” Tchen sent to Foxx in a text message.

President Trump tweeted early Thursday morning promising DOJ & FBI investigation into why Smollett’s charges were dropped, calling it “an embarrassment to our nation.”

We know Smollett staged these allegations in effort to further his career, and apparently was “unhappy” with his current salary, but what exactly did he achieve? Well, while his role as Jamal Lyon on Empire seems to be forever gone, he’s had no issue making headlines—sometimes daily in several other news outlets since the incident.

But after all, why would anyone want to set themselves up as a victim in the first place? Very simple, it pays. The most valuable form of modern-day victimhood seems to come to fruition when the story achieves indefinite media coverage due to a strong political nature of the incident.

We saw a similar scenario only ten days prior to the Smollett incident when video snippets leaked of what appeared to be a large group of MAGA cap-wielding Covington Catholic High School kids “harassing” Omaha Native American, Nathan Phillips in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Phillips confirmed the narrative and even went on to detail the horrors of his confrontation in an interview with TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie just days after it happened.

Later released video footage showing the entire interaction portrayed a different truth, the real truth. The unedited clip showed a group of unrelated black Israelites alongside Phillips & his drum antagonizing the situation, being the ones approaching & taunting the kids themselves.

This was another beautiful example of victimhood, even when entirely false having a societal and monetary value assigned to it. A value that is, in some cases rich enough to have the capacity to influence grown adults to risk their entire reputation, and even freedom in some cases.

Jussie Smollett simply upped the ante here. He allowed us to revisit an unfortunate, yet valuable lesson about our media & justice system—that partisanship is the number one priority in countless major media outlets, and that our justice system is extremely inconsistent and elitist at times.

Bobby Harr
e: thedailynoble@gmail.com

 

Image Source: https://tinylink.net/Vs4lE


Opinion: The Left Wants Socialism and Gun Control—Venezuela Has Both