Categories
Backstage Right Angle

Right Angle: Backstage [6/4/2019]

tt Ott, Bill Whittle and Stephen Green kick off their weekly pre-production meeting with a haphazard review of President Trump’s remarks near Number 10 Downing Street, before getting down to the serious business of planning this week’s episodes of Right Angle for our Members.

Right Angle: Backstage [6/4/2019]

One Moment Please

Only Members have access to this content. If you’re already a Member, login here.

If you want to see this page, Become a Member today.

To learn more about what Membership means click here.

Members at BillWhittle.com earn…

  • Access to exclusive, Members-only, content.
  • Power to post on the BW Member Blog .
  • Freedom to comment on posts (and on other comments), and to edit those comments.
  • Connection with like-minded folks via the Member Directory.
  • Rapid response to questions from the Bill Whittle studio team.

Click this link, then choose Membership level that fits your budget and follow the simple, secure process to unlock your all-access pass.

21 replies on “Right Angle: Backstage [6/4/2019]”

Bill Whittle, I hope you will consider reading books by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell of GizaDeathStar.com. You would have been interested in the 2014 Secret Space Program in San Mateo, CA when Carol Rosin, Von Braun’s assistant, and Dr. Farrell discussed what Von Braun predicted regarding the need for a Space Force. We seem to have arrived at that point. Plasma, not rockets.

I do somewhat disapprove in a small way about the use of the ‘Learn to Code’ slur, Bill. I understand it is a fine way to infuriate the left. It is also a slur on the professional programmer. I have been a software engineer for almost 40 years and programming is not something you pick up over the weekend. I am a systems engineer. You may find me in your favorite blue screens. Coding needs to be reserved for the thoughtful. Fast and efficient code is my niche. It is simple. Simple is not to be confused with easy. When done right you won’t need updates every day ! I know it was in jest. I am not offended, just making a simple point.

Nice callback to Tom Lehrer! Exactly what I was thinking when Verner von Braun came up in the conversation.

“Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down; that’s not my department, says Verner von Braun.”

Actually, if we’re gonna amend the Constitution for the courts I prefer my idea. Cause it’s mine.

W/ lifespans, ‘specially for the womens, getting into the 90s, I suggest a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges. I think it would have the following beneficial effects.

-Cases of modern tech and the social realities resulting from it, is not being decided by people that still think color TV is a wonder of the ages.
-it does not really effect the purpose of the lifetime appointments.
-The appointment of any particular judge wouldn’t be a death match circus (Kavenaugh) since any particular judge is gonna be gone at 65yr old.
-The higher turnover on the court would be good for both the courts and the nation.

Why 65?

What to do about the backlog of federal bench vacancies? Could we devolve the process to the states when we repeal the 17th Amendment? If we did that, could or should we prevent states from allowing elections to federal judges?

65 is the Social Security retirement date so I just grabbed that as shorthand. Congress can pick any age they want. Though setting mandatory retirement at 95 would kinda defeat the purpose.

Right off the bat, 17th delede est! As to the states, being a states’ rightest, I believe the states can do pretty much anything they want as long as it doesn’t directly conflict w/ the US Constitution. Though I also believe Federal law overrides state law, those laws can and should be challenged on 10th Amendment grounds.

RE: Facebook, that special exemption cut out for Social Media in the DMCA? Loose it. Force Facebook, Twitter, Google and all the other players to choose between being a common carrier, who, like AT&T must carry everyone. Or they can be a publisher and be legally responsible for everything posted on their sites.

I can’t imagine how anyone ever thought that was a good idea in the first place…

‘eh… the internet was this new fangled thing that could have easily been strangled in its crib. Government, who was clueless about the whole thing, was interested in giving this new tech as much of a free hand as possible while it was still emerging.

And I think way back in the 90s, most of Silicon Valley pretty much just wanted to be left alone to invent cool stuff. Unfortunately, once the monies started really rolling in, either authoritarians swooped in and took over or the people already there let their inner authoritarians run wild.

I think it was a “good intentions” kinda thing at the start, as people realized it would be too hard to police the thousands and thousands of comments people would publish. At the start, in the 90s there weren’t as many comments but also fewer people worried about what people were saying. Current day however the big companies want their cake (freedom from responsibility for comments) and to eat it (remove comments and people they don’t, in their evil little hearts, like all that much).

Yep, as Steve pointed out on this week’s Right Angle, the SocMedia companies need that cut out for them removed and decide weather they want to be a publisher or common carrier.

I love it when you guys get off topic. Some out your best episodes result.

Leave a Reply