Tagged: gun control

Law 19: There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti


Old Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge: Interior with stained glass dome


The Female Party

“Nearly two-thirds of all Democrats are women; here we see the much-discussed gender gap as less than half of the Republicans are female.” (Maisel, American Political Parties and Elections, 2016)


From same source: “In a Gallup poll conducted in June 2015, 31 percent [of Americans] identified themselves as Democrats, 25 percent as Republicans, and 41 percent as independents.”

Assuming the ratios for party membership stand also for people who “identify as” (as a matter of fact I see no reason, no explanatory factor why both ratios should be significantly different), we’ve got the highest proportion of males among “independents.” Independent, therefore, sounds a lot like males who cannot identify with party politics.

According to my calculations, the figures are (source says “nearly two third,” and “less than half” [meaning “not significantly less,” I believe, otherwise the source is saying nothing of quantitative value], so these figures are approximations [also because 31+25+41 doesn’t add up to 100 percent]):

20.6 percent of American population are female Dem;
12.5 female Rep;
13.6 female independent;
10.3 male Dem;
12.5 male Rep;
27.3 male independent.

By order of magnitude: male independent (27.3) > female Dem (20.6) > female independent (13.6) > male & female Rep (12.5 twice) > male Dem (10.3).


There are twice as many Democratic women as Democratic men in USA. This imbalance is in dire need of an explanation.

You can check my calculations are right in this quick way: 20.6=2(10.3) “there are twice as many Democratic women as Democratic men,” which is the same as “(Nearly) two-thirds of all Democrats are women,” since if you take 9, two thirds of 9 is 6, one third is 3, and 6=2(3).


There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti

Abstract: The claim that gun manufacturers are treated differently than other manufacturers is unsubstantiated, in contract, consumer protection, and tort law. Arguments for gun control often overlook a general principle of law that may be encapsulated in the words “There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti.”


New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.” Cuomo was elected at the wrong election, in fact he wanted to be a judge. Now he is governor and he thinks he can tell courts what their decisions should be?

There already were trials against arms manufacturers, notably after Sandy Hook. But also there is the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Adoption of the act was obviously intended as a shield against the bad faith of Second Amendment opponents who want to hold arms manufacturers liable not for failing to deliver as stipulated but on the contrary for complying with business regulations and contract stipulations.

Example: “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose. With nearly every American industry and product, civil liability can be used as an important check on irresponsible manufacturers and sellers—but not the gun industry.” (Giffords Law Center: To prevent gun violence)

A gun manufacturer is liable if he sells a defective, hazardous gun, like any other manufacturer. What the opponents want is to make the manufacturers liable for weapons that function as stipulated in contracts and according to reasonable safety expectations, and under the rule of law there can be no such liability in this world.

Opponents talk of “dangerous products” as if the aim of a weapon were not, precisely, to be dangerous (in order to deter aggression and crime). The dangerous products of contract law are products which use is beneficial besides their dangerousness, so the category cannot as such apply to guns, which benefice lies in their very dangerousness, their purposeful dangerousness. Dangerous guns as to contract law are defective guns which use presents a danger to the user mainly; there is no liability regarding the gun’s normal danger to other people (to whom the gun is dangerous on purpose, in case they need to be deterred).

The trials that courts have examined and will continue to examine no matter what governor Cuomo says about it are cases of normal liability. But opponents want to create a new judicial category that cannot exist.


A gun is a deterrent and as such it is dangerous. It is dangerous as such.

You need explosives to drill tunnels. Explosives are “dangerous products” as to tort law because you need them to drill tunnels and at the same time their use is dangerous. Therefore liability might be involved when the danger turns out to cause injury. That is to say, when you use explosives, normally you don’t cause injury, you only open a tunnel.

On the other hand, when you use a gun, basically you harm or kill someone and–mind you–that’s the expected outcome of the lawful use of the gun (self-defense). Generally speaking you don’t need to use the guns you own because owning them is a sufficient deterrent most of the times.

Everyone (except a few “law centers”) thus sees that guns are not the usual dangerous products of tort law, as the danger guns pose is the very aim of their lawful ownership and use.

Since opponents to the right to bear arms wanted to remain blind to such crystal-clear distinctions, the legislator felt compelled to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in order to prevent complacent courts to call guns “dangerous” and hold manufacturers liable as if we were dealing with explosives needed to open tunnels, which would be a devious way to suppress the Second Amendment, emptying it out, without due constitutional amendment process.


Just let me know if you have ever heard of a manufacturer held liable for damages caused by the unlawful use of his products. This is what opponents to the right to bear arms want for gun manufacturers.

They say: ‘’When products cause damages, manufacturers are liable. Guns kill people, so gun manufacturers must be held liable.’’ This is nonsense. It is when their products are used in a lawful expected way and yet causing damage, due to a defect, that manufacturers may be held liable. If on the other hand someone kills another one with say a screwdriver, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the loss of one’s life.

With guns the lawful and the unlawful uses both have the same outcome: injury or death of people (leaving aside such uses as hunting and shooting sports). When people kill others with guns unlawfully, the manufacturer is not liable. And when someone kills another lawfully, in self-defense, then his gun worked as expected. There can be no trial unless someone needed to fire a gun and it did not work as expected.


I’ve heard of pharmaceutical companies being prosecuted for not making it hard enough to open their packages to keep the content from candy-seeking children.

The suits my interlocutor talks about are normal liability cases, what one may expect, not necessarily what one may reasonably expect, it depends on the claims, but what one may expect within the boundaries of the rule of law. What the opponents to the right to bear arms are up to is quite different, it isn’t possible to give them reason without violating the consistency of legal principles.

Manufacturers, like the pharmaceutical companies in the example, are expected to deliver reasonably safe products–gun manufacturers too and guns have safety locks.

In the same way that you cannot sue (win a suit against) a pharmaceutical company when someone uses their medicines to deliberately poison another person to death, you cannot sue gun manufacturers for the unlawful shooting of innocent people. There’s no exception to the principle that I know or can think of.

A product turned tool of crime, a part of corpus delicti, shifts to quite another sphere. There is no “manufacturer” of that “new” object. There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti because crime is in criminal intention (mens rea) and there is nothing a manufacturer could do to prevent people from having criminal intentions. A manufacturer can improve the technicalities of his products as well as consumer information about the products’ potential hazards so that their use is as safe as possible, but his action cannot reach further than his products, that is, he has no control over people’s lives. (The impact of marketing and advertising is an entirely different issue and here we do not examine the prospects of suing manufacturers for their advertisements, only the prospects of suing them for “violence” as in the New York statute.)

Reminder: “The five elements of a crime. (1) Actus reus–The guilty act (2) Mens rea–The guilty mind (3) Concurrence–The coexistence of (i) an act in violation of the law and (ii) a culpable mental state (4) Causation–The concurrence of mind and act must produce (5) Harm.”

That leaves open tort litigation against gun manufacturers if the shooter is declared insane and criminally irresponsible. Perhaps, because then the shooting is not a crime. But then again, a manufacturer has no influence over people’s state of mind; here insanity cannot be distinguished from criminal intent. What could be argued is that gun manufacturers have an influence over the whole nation’s state of mind, making it violent, but this kind of reasoning cannot be used in judicial proceedings, which bear on individual cases, and may be food for the legislator’s thought qua legislator subject to the Constitution. (If such reasoning could be used in a court of law, that would excuse all violent criminals.)


One cannot sue (win a suit against) manufacturers for tort damages when a crime is committed with one of their products. This is what opponents to the right to bear arms push for. They push for their reform not by saying they want all manufacturers to be suable for damages when crimes are committed with their products but by saying they want the general law of torts applied to gun manufacturers as it is to any other manufacturer, but the truth is that gun manufacturers are already within the general law and if we were to give reason to the opponents to the right to bear arms we would make gun manufacturers liable in situations where the other manufacturers are not.

As to someone’s claim that “you can sue anyone for tort damages,” the opponents themselves are not so sure, as shown in the recent news “New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.” A bill–or whatever state or local act–is needed in their eyes.

Another bill is the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) “that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.” There was no need of such a bill because the described protection is a necessary consequence of foundational notions of law, is a general unwritten principle which we encapsulate in the words “There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti.”

As gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible in situations where other manufacturers are not without violating the general principle that there are no manufacturers of corpora delicti, no legislative body or court is granted the constitutional power to make such a move. If guns are to be treated in the overriding fashion that opponents want, it has to be through constitutional amendment, probably not only by removal of the Second Amendment but also by allowing expressly tort suits against manufacturers for the unlawful use of their products, or by forbidding individuals to carry guns.


Ladies and gentlemen, the Bishop of Stockholm. Complete with cassock, mitre and crosier.

Eva Brunne, Bishop of Stockholm (2009-2019)

“Eva Brunne is the first openly lesbian bishop of a mainstream church in the world and the first bishop of the Church of Sweden to be in a registered same-sex partnership.” (Wikipedia) (2009-2019)


Archbishop Antje Jackelén, primate of the Church of Sweden. “The first female archbishop,” since 2014 strongly dedicated to apparel tradition.

Archbishop Antje Jackelén, Primate of the Church of Sweden



They blame Chief Justice Taney (Scott v. Sandford, 1857) for “seeing slavery in the Constitution” but if slavery was not in the Constitution, why did slaveowners and the Southern States ratify it? You had to convince them that slavery was in the Constitution to obtain their ratification, and if you turned out to be convincing then it probably is because it is true that slavery was in the Constitution, even if you did not believe it yourself and thought you were lying to slaveowners.

I disagree with late (conservative failed nominee to the Supreme Court) Robert Bork: A constitutional amendment was indeed necessary to end slavery in the United States, and Taney was a correct interpret of the Constitution.

Picture: Taney statue removed from Maryland state house (Aug 2017).

Credit: Washington Post

(For a discussion of Bork’s views, see Law 8.)


Charged For (Name a Crime)

Former highschool student charged for putting Hitler quote in yearbook. (New York Post, July 13, 2021)

New York Post‘s headline is sheer disinformation, of which their own article gives ample evidence. The kid is charged for “computer crimes for accessing a database used by students to alter two classmates’ entries.”

The so-called “Hitler quote” are the words “It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them,” which the kid “incorrectly attributed” to George Floyd. To detect that these were actually Hitler’s words requires a level of specialization far beyond the average and if, to boot, as the paper seems to say, the kid did not know they were Hitler’s words (obviously, if the kid “incorrectly” attributed the words to George Floyd, it means he did not change the author’s name on purpose, knowingly), you may not talk of a Hitler quote at all.

The second quote is thus described by NYP: “Tryon, 18, also reportedly inserted a quote in a second student’s yearbook entry referencing drugs and Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted in the April 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others.” There’s not a jot of information in that, it could mean anything, the quote could either be apology of terrorism or indictment of terrorism or something entirely different for all we know. Obviously NYP doesn’t care what the content of this quote is, they had their headline with the “Hitler quote” and that was good enough for these muckrakers.

But, again, the case is not at all about a Hitler quote. The headline should not read “charged for putting Hitler quote in yearbook” because under the rule of law you charge people for crimes and a Hitler quote, even in a yearbook, is not a crime.


Libel Law and Political Cartel 2

Trust in US mainstream media hits rock bottom. (Reclaim the Net)

This is why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch’s view that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be reversed must not be heeded to. Libel law must remain favorable to the messenger when the message deals with public officials and public figures. Smear campaigns by disreputable media do little harm. On the other hand giving public officials (read, mainly, politicians) a convenient weapon in libel law woud Canadize U.S.A. (see Law 18: Libel Law and Political Cartel). I go as far as saying that current U.S. libel law is what has made U.S. mainstream media fall into general disrepute, as media felt unbound and that has been their fall because they lack integrity.


Taxes and Irresponsible Police

‘’Defund the police’’ is the logical sequel to Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (SCOTUS 2005). No one needs (as no one should rely on) an irresponsible police. To pay taxes for this is madness plain and simple.

’Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.’’ (Wikipedia)



« On n’est pas en Turquie »

Rappelez-vous. Macron réfute toute dérive autoritaire : « On n’est pas en Turquie. » (Huffington Post, 4/12/20)

Or quel pays figure avec la Turquie parmi les États « sous surveillance » (under watch) en matière de censure internet ? La France, seul État occidental dans cette catégorie avec l’Australie (et la Norvège mais seulement pour les métadonnées transnationales : « only the metadata on traffic that crosses Norwegian borders »). (Wikipédia : Internet Censorship)

A noter que parmi les « ennemis d’internet », donc la catégorie encore en-dessous dans cette classification de Reporters sans frontières, à côté des dictatures auxquelles on s’attend (Chine…), on trouve les U.S. et le Royaume-Uni. Depuis Trump, les U.S. ne cherchent même pas à garantir un principe de « neutralité du Net », donc rien d’étonnant puisque les acteurs privés font alors ce qu’ils veulent.

En résumé, 4 États occidentaux censurent internet : U.S. (libre censure privée), Royaume-Uni, Australie et France. Parmi ces quatre, seul un, la France, est membre de l’Union européenne (UE).

Si la Turquie n’a pas le droit d’entrer dans l’UE, je ne vois pas ce que la France y fait.


On n’est pas en Turquie, on est en Franquie.


Des mots inacceptables

Rappelez-vous. Macron : « On ne peut pas parler de violences policières dans un Etat de droit. » (« Ne parlez pas de “répression” ou de “violences policières”, ces mots sont inacceptables dans un Etat de droit. »)

Non, c’est en dictature qu’on ne peut pas parler de violences policières.

Prolegomena to the Ultimate System of Philosophy (or Tweetantho 10)

The first part presents tweets from Nov-Dec 2017, the second part is older tweets that were omitted in my previous anthologies and that on second thought I want to publish on my blog.

Nov-Dec 2017

Do you think hashtagging mass shooters’ names like #KevinJansonNeal or #StephenPaddock or #ScottOstrem or #DevinPatrickKelley will provoke attention-seeking shootings? Explain why you think so.


1/ I think straight workers suffer more than gay bosses in this world.

2/ X: I’m a worker and I’m gay. Me: Yeah? What are you doing for your fellow workers?


#AddParenthesesRuinAFilm The Sound of (Elevator) Music (Peter Grant, ‘Author of the popular Stinky Stories’)

Thinking about that movie would actually spoil my enjoying the music in the elevator.


My working-class friends and Salvador Dali have one commonality: Contrary to art critics, they are aware today’s painters don’t know their job. (Cf Les Cocus du vieil art moderne)



are trying, while talking, to open that chocolate box I’ve brought and the box ends up in shreds.

always say the most awkward things at parties, dear, but don’t you try my patience too much.


Uncle Zim

1 /Mugabe has his good side. He once called Tony Blair and Britons “gay gangsters,” which sounds very accurate.

2/ Mugabe’s paramilitary were called the Green Bombers and that’s cool. First thing next spring I buy me a green bomber jacket.

3/Defiant Mugabe vows to stay on (BBC)



Uncle Zim
You’re the life of this country
Without you it’s all dust again over the desert extent
Black grandees there will be yes:
Black lustered Chesterfields where multinationals’ goons will be sitting.


A scientist is a specialist. Another name for a specialist is a manic. Manics belong to the loony bin.


I wonder if I am truly insane how I would know that. (Wednesday’s Child)

Besides, the institution’s policy is to not contradict your delusions.


#MyFiveYearPlan Buy a Principality somewhere and then maybe Australia. (Wednesday’s Child)

Australia is not for sale as it is the inviolable property of the Dutch.

That would be news.

History can be news. [See Tweet Anthology 6 here: The Truth About New Holland (A Dialogue)]


#QuestionsForAMan How do you feel about earning less than any woman in my Glorious Revolution? (Wednesday’s Child)

As a Christian convinced there’s a Chosen People of which I’m no part, I am fit for any kind of abject subservience whatsoever.


Silicon Sycophants and Twitter: It was found in labs that compliments, although knowingly made by bots/computers/screens, light on a little light in the reward system of our brains… And now we’re swamped by bot flattery.


More people die from alcohol than from guns in USA. Why do you ask for gun control and not for Prohibition?

Gun control is opposed to Socialism. For all Socialist thinkers that I know, a standing army is a parasitic scourge and Socialism is by definition the armed people.

The first decree of the Commune was the eradication of the standing army and its replacement by the armed people.” (Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, quoted by Lenin in The State and Revolution)

The disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state” (Friedrich Engels, preface to Marx’s The Civil War in France, quoted by Lenin in The State and Revolution) => Bourgeois Gun Control [See also Ernesto Cardenal’s experience in revolutionary Cuba, in Tweetantho 9 here]



The Reason Islam Wins (because Islam prohibits alcohol). Islam will rule over you, wino kafirs. You’ll pay the kafir tax and jumbo heavy boozer taxes.


The reason why it takes some time for driverless cars to pervade our environment right now is not technology but legal matters: In case of accident, who’s legally responsible?

And how does an AI taxi decide who to injure in an unavoidable collision?

Yes, maybe a machine can make such decisions, and the only criterion I can think of is minimizing the body count. As to a human driver, he probably can’t think much before crashing on the right or on the left. On the other hand, if AI is that efficient, the car may choose to hit a group of 5 rather than a group of 2 if it can predict the impact will only injure the 5 but kill the 2.


Yes. Now my Followers outstrip my Following. This is the natural order of things. (Wednesday’s Child)

Let’s say one number shows how popular you are and the other number shows how curious you are. Which one shows you’re an interesting person?


On the so-called Common Era. Are you telling me it’s more respectful of others to call the era starting with the birth of a Galilean “common” (to everyone)? That looks like awful cultural imperialism to me! The so-called Common Era is no more common than the Muslim Era or the Buddhist Era or any other Era. Stop the nonsense.


Children in single-parent families by race (U.S. 2015): Black 66%, American Indian 52%, Latino 42%, White 25% (1 out of 4), Asian 16%.


US President Donald Trump receives Bahrain’s crown prince at the White House; promises a $9bn deal with Arab country. (Press TV)

Is U.S. a free enterprise country? Business deals are made by politicos and diplomats. Not competition but connections is the key word. (Competition persists somewise for the small fry.)

[As was already perceived by Lenin: ‘’Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist methods: the utilization of ‘connections’ for profitable transactions takes the place of competition on the open market.’’ (Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1917) One hundred years later we are still stuck in the highest stage of capitalism…]


You vote for politicos #AddSpanishImproveAnything


Don’t expect too many respectable married women to join the ROSEARMY [actress Rose McGowan’s movement for improving awareness of concealed sexual harassment and sexual crimes]. As their children’s thriving depends not a little on their father’s unblemished reputation, they’ll stand to their man like ferocious she-wolves, no matter what he did.


American casualties in Vietnam War (dead): 58,209. US population in 1961: 183.7M, hence 91.85M males, of which above 19 years old: 56.25M. Makes 1 adult American male out of 1.000 – dead in Vietnam War (a war lost by US).

American casualties in WWII (dead; military and civilian): 419,400. US population in 1941: 133.4M, hence 66.7M males of which (applying same ratio as 1961) 40.92M above 19 yrs old. Makes 1 per cent, 10 per 1.000 American adult males dead in WWII.


Older Tweets

I’m tired of being a hard-working man.


John Bolton… Weird name… for a neocon.


Reality Check: @AJUpFront reveals how Obama’s immigration policies have led to millions of deportations. (Al Jazeera English)

Deporter-in-Chief” ‘s both supporters and detractors think he’s been immigration-friendly. Completely misjudged by both friends and foes.


Except for the clenched fist, Trump’s hand gestures are subtly effete. Most people don’t perceive the dissonnance consciously. His subliminal hermaphroditism has made Donald Trump win.


Everyone commented on whom Trump nominated as ambassador to Israel, but only a few commented on Rex Tillerson as head of the Department of State. Tillerson is the oil lobby. Historically, the oil lobby has been the major, perhaps the sole counterbalance to AIPAC on U.S. foreign policy because the oil lobby doesn’t want U.S. to alienate Arab countries altogether. When the Zionists want to say U.S. foreign policy is biased, they say it is dictated by the oil lobby, meaning that it is not pro-Israel enough, that too much attention is given to Arab demands. But the media kept silent on the meaning of Tillerson’s nomination, so people won’t support him and he can fall any time in the general indifference.

[With Saudi Arabia’s new stand on the Middle East affairs, this comment of mine may already have lost a good deal of relevance.]


These Arab leaders [faced with Zionism] are all talk and no action.

While the Israeli left have been so effectual, haven’t they?


Let it be known from the outset that Mexican immigrants are “just another brick in the Wall.”


Church attendance and mass-media consumption makes you a double sucker.


Nietzsche said a passion for history is a crippling one.


Business mouthpieces –read: the media– are all for cheap-labor immigration and, of course, government assuming the costs.


I stopped listening President Trump’s joint address to Congress at the “unbreakable alliance with the state of Israel.” No state ought to be given blank check. Wrong message to the world! Make Israel a state of the US, if that’s the idea, or treat it like any other state.


Remember the “rooster dance” from Chinese PLA [People’s Liberation Army] soldiers? Here comes the dress rehearsal. (People’s Daily, China)

Why are they doing this? It’s insane. You’ve got some real whackos at PLA command, I tell you. Scary. Take off the guns from these nuts.

[Of course, the aim of this clownish ‘rooster dance’ is to sugarcoat for the feeble-minded the repressive nature of the army.]


Israeli TV Host Denounces Treatment Of Palestinians: ‘Apartheid Has Been Here For Ages’ (Nation of Islam Research Group)

He can say that without being called an antisemite, while you can’t. Your not being a Jew puts you at risk, on some topics, to be called an antisemite –if that’s of any consequence– whereas being a Jew makes the label rather irrelevant.


The problem is that the art world has been a bastion of the left forever. Why should taxpayers fund it? (Kevin McDonald)

How do you account for this? Is it because people on the right have no taste?


Remember Zionist Jonah Goldberg: “Why wasn’t Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?” (Chicago Tribune)


Judge Gorsuch will be sworn in at the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday at 11:00 A.M. (POTUS) (April 2017)

Ah, Rose Garden, Saadi, Gulistan…


Since the American airstrike on Syria I sense the climate in U.S. has considerably warmed for the President… This is appeasement.


Not invade a country [Syria] because Ivanka [Trump’s daughter] cried at some pictures.

I can show her pictures of a few Yemeni children if she likes pictures.


Remember, there’s no shortage of important work that can be done only by humans. (MITSloan Mgmt Review)

Who told you humans wanted to do these jobs?


Black people live in the “ghetto.” But Jewish intellectual Allan Bloom objected to their using the word, because the Jewish ghetto was… cultured.

[I can’t tell whether Allan Bloom said such callous things only in private or not, as my source is the book of memories Ravelstein (2000) written by his friend the Nobel Prize Saul Bellow, who quotes him saying (I must quote in French as I read it in that language): ‘’Les Juifs du ghetto avaient une sensibilité hautement développée, un courage civilisé – des milliers d’années de formation. Ils avaient des communautés et des lois. « Ghetto » est un terme de pisse-copie ignorant. Ce n’est pas d’un ghetto qu’ils viennent, c’est d’un ramdam bruyant, aveugle et nihiliste.’’]


The most beautiful city in the world (Paris)

Blow it: make it a livable, comfy place, not a museum. Signed: A Parisian.


Given that President Evo Morales has banned the Rothschild bank, if Macron is elected will the President of France be able to travel to Bolivia? Think about it.


Remember the Battle of Puebla and Mexico’s anti-slavery roots. On this day in 1862, Mexico struck a blow against white empire. #CincodeMayo

An outrage to every Moulin Rouge and Crazy Horse artiste and champagne supplier.


Schopenhauer has a phrase for Western Civilization, he calls it “foetor judaicus.


Euphemisms for “animals” in research departments: Neurophysiology: preparations Ecology: systems Psychology: Ss Medicine: models Any more? (Richard Dawkins)

How many have you vivisected yourself?


Here’s (More) Evidence Testosterone Makes Men Dumber (NYMag)

As reaching high social status boosts one’s testosterone, then becoming a big man makes one dumber.


If a Pontifex doesn’t have a grim face, then he must be doing naughty things behind closed doors…


Love is real, by John Lennon, sounds very much like Love Israel. I’ve stopped humming it.


The very idea that the British tried to convert worthy Hindus to Anglicanism gives me the shudder. Luckily that was a total failure. Cf Schopenhauer.


I have an ancestor called Sheikh Qadhib, which could mean sword or penis.

My beurette girlfriend calls me Kabir Qadhib.


The president of the EU commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, reminds Donald Trump of the legal technicalities of the Paris Climate Agreement. (June 2017)

“I’m a Transatlanticist, whatever that means. That means nothing but it means everything.” Couldn’t be clearer. Be warned.


Je suis Charlie Qatar. #QatarCrisis

As UAE is expelling Qatari citizens, UAE citizens will be expelled from Qatar, some of them losing a livelihood. What is Emirati authorities’ plan for them? No plan, I guess. The authoritarian decision isn’t supported by Gulf populations, which haven’t been consulted and won’t be allowed to speak out.


Thank God, no terror attack in France today during national election. How could media cover both election’s results and the attack?


When I see gypsies begging with children I am appalled; it’s like my country’s government never heard of robachicos abducting children to exploit them. In backwater France, the government lets gypsy women beg with babies in the street. Who are these babies? They could be abductees, for all we know. So many child abductions and yet the French government lets gipsy women beg with children at the foot of the Eiffel Tower!


How can I be sure my wife’s employer won’t ask her to lift her niqab in the backroom?


Schopenhauer thought whites were “whitened blacks” while Darwin thought blacks were “blackened whites.”


Dentists have a lousy job (that pays well); they turn to politics whenever they can. Spending the whole day on filthy mouths… I’d rather be a bum.

I can be brutally frank because I use English and I think my dentist won’t read it and won’t pull out all my teeth in retaliation.

Films The Dentist (1996) & The Dentist 2 (1998) by Brian Yuzna are good, funny approaches of this sensitive topic.


Congress should enjoy no exemptions in any area differing from an American citizen. (James Woods)

People voting for Congress means people have no power on Congress. See what I mean?


I like Twitter coz they never know it’s u clicking so u can boost ur own private stats clicking like mad on ur own tweets!