Why People Should Be Censored on Social Media

That's right, people should be censored, and I will tell you why in one word: Ownership.

Who has ownership of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and any other social media platform that elects to adopt decency policies; however ridiculous and absurd they may be to anyone intelligent enough not to throw a tantrum about every opinion they disagree with? 

Do any of the masses of morons crying like the babies they are own any of the popular social media platforms? 

If not, then they deserve to be nothing but censored because it is not their property. That is how property works and that is how it should work: The person (or entity) that owns the property calls the shots about how it gets used and who else gets to use it. Welcome to the wonderful world of owning property.

Don't like it? Do you want the freedom to say whatever you want on social media? Then go start your own damn platform and see how much freedom the government gives you then. Please, go do it right now, and recognize that time arguing with me will only take away from platform-building time.

That's the thing most morons do not understand; and I say 'moron' with much love for those who can't think for themselves, so it is not a hate thing. 

The problem is not the platform, in my unpopular opinion. The problem is that which controls the platform, and it most likely is not the owners as much as it is government agencies telling the owners how to do business and pressuring them to do things they would rather not do; especially if those businesses want to stay in business in America and be successful, as well as in good graces with American government.

Just a wild, speculative hunch based on the years I spent as a court reporter listening to government agents control businesses and their owners; not to mention the 20+ years I have been working in government-controlled private businesses and experiencing the overreaching control firsthand.

Granted, the owners could have chosen ridiculous decency policies on their own accord without pressure; and if they did, then that is all the more reason to not bother with such a platform. But I digress.

Do you not own a business? Have you never worked in the administrative and management levels of a business? Do you not know how much government controls every single business that it can possibly get its tenacious tentacles wrapped around, which is every licensed business in America? Fuck, do you even have a job or understand anything about how business works?

Well, then, this is a good moment to recognize that that is what all of these social media platforms are -- licensed, registered, regulated, marketable, profitable, money-making businesses which government ultimately controls and manipulates. 

So, censorship is going to happen. So do periods; put in a tampon and fucking deal with it like a woman.

How do you deal with it like a woman? The same way women deal with unwanted menstruation: You get uncomfortable, you go with the flow, and you work around that which you cannot control with creativity.

Does nobody think in code any more except stenographers? Is it only creative writers and fiction writers who know how to get hidden messages across to people with analogies and metaphors and made-up worlds? That very well may be the case.

This leaves me wondering which is worse: censorship, or crybabies crying censorship who are not creative, and possibly not writers. Because when someone censors them on their preferred platform they can't seem to do much except flail for attention like a dying fish, which is exactly what they should do -- flail and die.

If someone's message can't survive beyond a social media platform, then they have no message. All they have is a following they do not want to lose.

Pathetic, totally.

Granted, I am included in this as well, since I utilize social media and everything I do online is through someone else's property, mostly Google's. Therefore, I absolutely run the risk of being censored, especially if a lovable unthinking moron ever reads the things I write and should feel triggered; or even a cruel thinking asshole who gets off on getting people censored just because he can (no one in particular, just recognizing that they do exist is all).

And if I get censored, so the fuck what? I will find a workaround like I always do. That is one of the benefits of being old enough to remember how the world worked before the internet came into it. 

Should Amazon ever ban what I put in my books, even then I will say: So the fuck what? I don't own Amazon, that is their right, and I would find a workaround, because I have a will. 

Some people just have weakness though, and when their way is blocked by an obstacle all they do is whine, as if they are some entitled old person the world revolves around when they aren't even sixty yet. Fucking gag me with Ensure.

Nobody is entitled to another's property, even if that property happens to be social media platforms. And if people think they are entitled to another's property, then they rightfully deserve to be censored. 

That's the point of being creative -- nothing can stop you unless you let it. But if people are not creative enough to work around censors, nor dedicated enough to create a workaround, they should be censored and figuratively culled from the herd. by Eve Penman

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amazon Books


My 10 Choices for Anyone but Trump

Anyone But Trump? This sounds like a fun game. So, here are my choices for anyone but Trump, in no particular order:
1. O.J. Simpson          2. George Bush
3. Dick Cheney          4. Charles Manson
5. David Duke          6. Mel Gibson
7. Ann Coulter          8. Pat Buchanan
9. Sarah Palin         10. Alex Jones

Granted, not all of these people would be eligible to run for president, making the list slightly preposterous; however, the preposterous rhetoric 'Anyone But Trump' begs for a preposterous retort. 

The same applies for the equally preposterous rhetoric 'Anyone But Hillary.'

Is this really what fuels a person's choice for president, who they are not rather than who they are?

If the reason to vote for a person is because they are not the other person, is that logic or is that a reaction?

Reactions do not require thought, but logic does.

So, if people vote for a candidate out of thoughtless reaction, what kind of a vote is that?

If people say that not voting is throwing away a vote, then how is voting for someone without applying thought any better?

In general, voters advocate that they have to vote, that they must vote, because that is their right; and they will vote for anyone no matter how bad the candidate is, because that is their right...to vote for bad candidates...just so long as they are not as bad as the other candidates.

Perhaps that is the problem with the current state of affairs: Everybody's voting and nobody's thinking. 

But all the votes are not getting counted anyway, so what does it matter? 

I mean, can anyone even prove their votes from their own ballots have ever been counted, ever, in their entire lives? Or at least since the year 2000.

Admittedly, I may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to every person that all the votes aren't getting counted; however, does that matter if no one can offer proof that all the votes have been counted?

I mean, if there is no hard, physical proof via documentation that all the votes are being counted, either accurately or at all, wouldn't that only support the argument that the votes are not being counted? 

Now there's a thought to consider.

Happy voting for 1 of 2 choices!

by Eve Penman

Learn more about ballot tampering

* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Questioning the Truth: Why Wake Up When I Can Enjoy the Dream?

Q: What happens when you wake up?

A. You become aware of a monster so enormous, so unwieldy, and so unyielding, that it forces you to accept that nothing can be done about it and you were probably better off having never woken up. 

Because, if something could be done about the monster, wouldn't it have been done by now? 

Therefore, since nothing has been done about the monster to this point, I seriously doubt anything will ever be done about it. 

It's not as if there is any reason for anything to be done about the monster anyway, since people willingly pay to keep the monster fed and they take no stand against the monster sans voting ballot. 

So, if nothing can be done about the monster, except to learn to live with it and the knowledge that you live under an oppressive regime of elite rulers who have more care for world domination than for you as an individual, then why bother learning about it at all?

If I am unable to resolve the problem, then why do I need to know about the problem? 

I mean, why make people aware of problems they can't resolve? What is that supposed to solve? More importantly, what does that create? Anxiety, frustration, hopelessness, and resentment, not to mention sleeplessness, for starters. 

All the more reason to not wake up, but to stay asleep and enjoy the dream. 

Sure, there are the taxes, and the paperwork, and the mandates, and the regulations, and always more of it because that is what keeps the monster alive; but for all that comes the payoff with peace of mind for not knowing the truth. And, since nothing can be done about the truth, isn't it better to not know the truth?  

by Eve Penman

PS ~ Is this satire? Is this reverse psychology? Is this doublespeak? Is this apathy? Is this truth? Is this crazy? Depends on the reader.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Kitten Surprise: It Came From the Wild

This past Caturday evening, I spent about 20 minutes mewing to a little kitten, trying to coax it out of hiding. She had nestled herself between a shed and a patch of vegetation behind the shed; I had gotten worried she was stuck, but thankfully she wasn't. 

After exercising patience and various vocal ranges of mews, the surprise visitor emerged from the wild bramble; just call me the Cat Whisperer. I hope she wasn't bummed that all she found were a couple of humans and a Gozer. 

She is not unfamiliar with humans, but cautious; nor is she exhibiting signs of being totally feral or scared beyond reason, which is good. We've set out cat food and water, and she has taken to it (and us) well; she's a hungry little girl and a joy to watch. 

Tonight I was able to get some decent shots from a distance when I called her out again. Allow me to introduce the wild lioness, Nova:

* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Questioning Feminism: One Man's Utopia is Another Man's Communism

Upon learning the origin of the word 'feminism' I have begun to question what I did not know.

1. The word 'feminism' was created by a man, Charles Fourier, which begs the question: Is feminism a troll on women?

2. Charles Fourier (1772-1837) was a French philosopher who became associated with Utopian socialism. I can't help but wonder: With all the feminism in America, where is the Utopia...or is this it?

3. Since socialism is a less extreme version of communism and feminism came from a socialist thinker, feminism is essentially communism; supported by the fact that in 1848, eleven years after Charles Fourier's passing, Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto the eighth principle: Equal liability of all to work. My point being: Is it just a random coincidence that feminists crying for the so-called 'right' to work falls directly in line with the Communist agenda which advocates everyone be obligated (liable) to work?

4. The obligation of all to work is essential to accomplishing the second principle in the Communist Manifesto: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The reason being: How else could a heavy progressive income tax be most lucrative to the tax collectors other than to have everyone contribute by being taxed for their obligation to work, including women?

5. Considering that the tenth principle of the Communist Manifesto is free education for all children in public schools, and the eighth principle is the obligation of all to work, plus the fact that 76% of public school teachers were female in the year 2011-2012 according to the National Center for Education Statistics: Is it reasonable to hypothesize that feminism is a necessary tool of communism, proven by how many women work as teachers in public schools where young girls are often inspired to be feminists and teachers, thus keeping the communist cycle in motion?

6. Since the word 'feminism' was created by a man and feminism is about women's liberation from men, I chuckle at the thought: Can a man's word truly liberate women from men; and why does it take a man to liberate women; can women not liberate themselves for themselves?

7. Because it is a man's word that is liberating women, I further question: Does man also create the limits on how liberated woman can be; in other words, can woman ever be more liberated than man envisions since man created the concept? 

8. Furthermore, feminism is about empowering women, and yet the word 'feminism' originated from a man; therefore, I question with confusion: How is a man's word supposed to be a word of empowerment for a woman who believes she does not need a man? 

9. However, since the radical concept of feminism came from a man, here is my radical counter concept to consider: What if feminism is supposed to be for men who support women's rights, and feminists are supposed to be men who support women's rights; and women are supposed to create their own movement using their own word?

10. Maybe the word origin of 'feminism' means nothing to people though, except word nerds like me, which leads me to wonder: Would any feminists, non-feminists, women, or men, change their views on feminism if they learned the concept originated from a man?

(Got answers, questions, or thoughts? Share them in my comment box!)

1. Since feminism came from a man, do feminists need feminism? do women need feminism? does anybody need feminism...especially if it leads to communism? 
Feminism is for Communists
Bumper Stickers | Gifts | By Eve Penman

2. If women don't need feminism, what do they need? 

A kiss, for starters. 
I Don't Need Feminism, I Need a Kiss
Graphic Designs | Photography | Gifts | By Eve Penman

Questioning Feminism:
One Man's Utopia is Another Man's Communism
* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Abortion Happens: That's Life

Q: What is the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage?

A: Nothing -- they are the same thing! Well, to be fair, the medical verbiage for miscarriage is 'spontaneous abortion,' yet that only goes to the weight of my argumentative question even more, circumstantially proving that a miscarriage technically is an abortion sans planned medical procedure. 

Considering how many people cannot even say the word 'penis' when penis is the anatomically-correct medical term for that part of the body, it is no wonder that people are clueless to the medical term for 'miscarriage.' But I digress.

Now, when it comes to life inside a woman ending, what I am trying to figure out is this: Does it matter if the life that ended was due to (1) the woman choosing to get an abortion, or (2) nature choosing to give her an abortion by way of a miscarriage, or (3) a random accident such as a car wreck or a fall?

I mean, what matters most: how the life has ended, or that the life has ended? Note the difference in the questions.

I speculate for the people who have never been in the position of experiencing an abortion, spontaneous or otherwise, that it matters most to them how the life ends; possibly because those people misguidedly believe they have control over what others do and they cannot stop clinging to that belief, and therefore they must know how the life ends so that they can stop it from happening again in the future against their beliefs; or possibly some other reason unbeknownst to me. 

However, speaking only for myself, and as a female who experienced a painful and private at-home spontaneous abortion against my will on Thanksgiving Day of 2015, ten weeks into my first (and most likely last) pregnancy, I find the latter to be more significant than the former; in other words, life ending matters more than how life ends.

To put the importance on how the life ends is to say life ending is okay(!), just so long as it doesn't end in a certain way, particularly in an abortion at a human's choosing. So wouldn't that mean, then, that the life that ended via spontaneous abortion or random accident is not as important as the life that ended due to a woman choosing an abortion?

I mean, how is that not what that means when the how of the loss is more important than the loss itself???

And to think, there are people who care more about how the life ends than the life ending. I mean, the audacity of some people, you know?

Pardon my disgusted dissent from the herd of non-thinking automatons who postulate that the how is more important than the loss. I, for one, do not see it that way; maybe I will another day, but not today.

What I do see and hear is a lot of talk without thought, or experience, from people who do not necessarily understand the full depth and breadth of what they are talking about. 

For example, on the topic of punishment: If a woman who gets an abortion procedure should be punished under the law for her actions of ending life, then should I be punished, too, for having a spontaneous abortion even though I never had a say in it? 

Either way, life ended and someone must be punished for such an outrageous act of defiance from the herd; harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

Goodness; should all women who unwillingly have miscarriages be punished?

Just because I did not elect, nor pay, for a medical procedure does not mean a procedure that brought about the same results did not happen on me by unseen forces; nor does it mean there are no feelings of self-condemnation. 

Some (not all) women who pay for abortions take no blame nor punish themselves with guilt over their choice; but at least those women know why they lost their pregnancies, because they chose to lose them. This is where miscarriage differs: choice

I was not given an option and chose the miscarriage; it chose me and I will never ever know why. A spontaneous abortion can leave a woman wondering what made things go wrong, and if it is somehow her fault due to diet, work, stress, environment, or some unknown factor that could persist into the next pregnancy and won't be discovered until another miscarriage. As if I didn't have enough mental demons vying for my attention already.

Not only that, but for those who think a woman should be arbitrarily punished for having an abortion: Isn't an abortion, in and of itself, punishment enough; to have life and growing matter ripped out from your insides, either by planned procedure or natural forces? Obviously not to a man who has never experienced the sensation. Am I right or am I right, ladies? (Gotta keep the levity here, otherwise the 'pro-lifers' win.)

And that leads to another thought: If people care more about how the life ends than the life ending, are they really pro-life or are they just anti-abortion? I would argue that pro-life and anti-abortion are not the same things.

For example: Are any pro-lifers volunteering as grief counselors for women who have lost pregnancies and need reassurance to keep trying to bring life into this fucked-up world...or are the pro-lifers just standing around in front of abortion clinics with signs and spreading their self-righteousness on social media?

In other words: What are pro-lifers doing to promote life and promote people creating life, rather than endlessly working to stop people from doing what they want with their bodies?

And what about that: All the signs and protesters who want everyone to know how evil and wrong abortion is? Not how evil and wrong it is to choose an abortion, but abortion in and of itself being evil and wrong.

I did not have an abortion, it spontaneously had me, but technically it was an abortion, and I am still the one who has to live with it and be reminded of its evilness (not my evilness) when I see the Planned Parenthood protesters in Sequim (which, amusingly, I never would have known there was a PP here if it weren't for the protesters!).

Considering abortion as a thing that happens, rather than a choice a person makes: If abortion is so evil and wrong, then why does nature get to do it spontaneously against a woman's will?

I mean, is abortion evil and wrong when nature does it, or is it only evil and wrong when humans choose it?

As an aside, I am fully aware that miscarriages can result from the body naturally stopping a pregnancy that it knows through its senses could end badly and aborts it before it has a chance to develop further, no matter if the woman is doing everything correct; that's the unending mystery of a miscarriage.

However: If people say that it is okay for nature to be evil and wrong with a spontaneous abortion, then why is it evil and wrong when a human chooses an abortion; because aren't humans nature, too?

I mean, what if abortions are an essential part of life?

Maybe I am looking too deep into the matter, but I have outgrown the shallow end, so into the deep I will go.

Taking one more step with a different approach, I can't help but wonder: Is it evil and wrong to not get pregnant?

I mean, if it is evil and wrong to choose to abort a baby and end life, then it has to be the most super evilest and wrongest thing of all to not even create life, especially to choose not to create life(!); because how can that be pro-life...right?


Or is it?

Does anybody know for sure what is right or wrong here? Because I don't.

So, where was I going with this line of questioning anyway? That life ending matters more than how life ends, and here is the concluding point that one must consider:

When it comes down to it at the end of the day, and you don't have the life of another that you want with you, do you really think the how will matter more than the gut-twisting reality that the life you want is not with you and never ever will be again? Think on that for more than 5 seconds.

Knowing the how never brings back the life. All the hows fade away, and matter less and less, when you are the one left without the life you want to have with you; whether the life is a baby-to-be, a parent, or any loved one. 

Not until you experience loss of life do you learn that the how of the loss, no matter its degree of relative awfulness, is a meaningless speck of nothingness compared to the vast emptiness left behind. I know the pain of crying over the how and it never hurts as much as the pain of crying over the loss. 

Had the miscarriage not happened, I would be days away from becoming a mother; but, whether for good or bad, gods work in mysterious ways and they have other plans in store for me. I guess that's life.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *


A Man Provides: Lessons in Manhood from Breaking Bad

A man provides. And he does it even when he's not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it. Because he's a man.

Gus Fring knew what he was talking about when he said those words to Walter White in Breaking Bad. Granted, Gus is a fictional character, but those writers sure knew what they were writing and Giancarlo Esposito delivered those lines with triumphant conviction.

Fictional meth manufacturing aside, as a woman that is how I view the role of a man: to provide, to grin and bear what he does not like without pitching a fit, and to do what he must to provide for his loved ones and himself.

And why is that the role of the man? Because, he is a man and that is what a man does; period, end of discussion. 

There are no arguments or debating why a man has this lot in life, because for a man to do that would defy the very nature of what a man is as a provider.

A provider does not question his role as a provider; he provides, knowing that that is his role as a man.

A provider does not care what women think of him, nor does he wait for a woman to lead the way; he provides, knowing that that is his role as a man.

A man does not have time to argue, debate, or question his role as a man. 

A man has work to do, and that work is to suck up every annoyance about being a man, including every irritation a woman gives a man, put it aside without complaining, and go provide; because that is what a man does. 

A man provides in spite of that which he must tolerate.

A man does not bitch. A man accepts, or at the very least takes, what he does not like and moves on without bitching about it in front of colleagues, underlings, or women. 

Bitching is for bitches and anyone can be a bitch. It takes a man to stand apart from the bitches.

It is one thing to talk with a partner in private to air grievances, to seek solutions, and then move forward with resolve; it is another thing to whine openly in front of colleagues, underlings, and women, with no intention of resolving an issue. 

There is no bitching in manhood about what goes on in manhood. A man does not bitch about being a man. A man bears up and does what a man does. 

A man provides. 

And if a man isn't providing, is he a man?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *