Dear Lefties –

Here’s the difference between me and you:

I would never demand that the federal government confiscate a big chunk of your income and spend it on me.

I would never tell you what kind of insurance you’re allowed to buy.

If you own a business, I would never tell you what you must pay your employees or what benefits you must provide.

I would never demand that your schools force your kids to read books that promote my political beliefs.

I would never demand that you wear a worthless mask in public, or that you put those worthless masks on your kids. (I also wouldn’t try to stop you from putting masks on your kids, even though I consider it akin to child abuse.)

I would never prevent your doctor from prescribing a drug he or she believes could help you recover from COVID.

I would never prevent your pharmacist from filling that prescription.

If you own a business, I would never presume to tell you whether or not you’re allowed to keep it open.

I would never prevent you from patronizing a business, attending a concert, or getting on an airplane just because you don’t have a vaccine passport.

I would never demand that you risk the nasty side-effects of a COVID vaccine to make me feel a teensy bit safer.

You do all of the above. And yet in an era where pundits are constantly wringing their hands about the deep divisions among Americans, you think I’m the problem – because I won’t give in to your never-ending demands to control my income, my business, my travel, and my medical decisions.

If you’d really like us to get along, it’s simple: leave me the hell alone — as I do you.

Comments 42 Comments »

Given that Wee Goebbels is so threatened by logic and facts that he’ll suspend even those of us with a relatively small number of followers for daring to use logic and facts while arguing against The Narrative officially approved by The Party, I figure I should capture these tweets for posterity just in case.

Putting the text below:

1) Millions of unvaccinated bodies force the virus to select for vaccine-resistant mutations, which then become dominant.

2) Millions of vaccinated bodies force the virus to select for vaccine-resistant mutations, which then become dominant.

Only one makes (bio)logical sense.

#2 is exactly what Geert Vanden Bossche warned would be the result of VACCINATE EVERYONE! — as opposed to vaccinating only those at high risk.

He was, of course, censored by the (ahem) experts at Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Wee Goebbels didn’t approve of his message.

But sure, good little lapdogs for The Party … blame the unvaccinated for a predictable result of the VACCINATE EVERYONE! campaign — because CNN and the other Official Party Media told you that’s what to believe, so it must be true. Don’t hurt your head thinking about it.


UPDATE:  Man, I wish Twitter had an edit feature.  A few people interpreted Only one makes (bio)logical sense to mean I was saying only choice 1) makes biological sense.  ARGH!!  No, I was of course saying only one of these two choices makes biological sense, but I should have made that more clear by phrasing it as Which makes (bio)logical sense?  My bad.


Comments 8 Comments »

In case you’ve wondered how Wee Goebbels justifies labeling verifiable facts as misinformation in order to ban tweets, posts, etc., he doesn’t like, Wee Goebbels at Facebook spelled it out for us.

Actually, by “us,” I mean he explained it to John Stossel. Facebook recently censored a video on climate change produced by Stossel as misleading and partially false. Stossel demanded to know which specific portions of the video were false or misleading – and, being Stossel, he was able to keep pushing until he got an answer from Facebook’s censor:

“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being ‘wrong,’” he said.

Well, there you go! Wee Goebbels doesn’t have to find anything factually incorrect in your tweet, post, video, etc., in order to ban it as misleading, misinformation, partially false, or whatever label Wee Goebbels prefers that day. Nope, all Wee Goebbels has to do is decide you’ve committed the sin of the omission of contextual information.

How’s that for a perfect example of postmodernist gobbledygook? It reminds me of the explanation by the Dumbest Person in Congress that she may be factually wrong, but she’s morally right. The Wee Goebbels version is you may be factually right, but you’re contextually wrong.

And guess what? There’s no way to win that argument – by design, of course. Anyone can decide any tweet, post, video, etc., has omitted contextual information.

When CNN and the other COVID bed-wetters hype THE RISE IN CASES BECAUSE DELTA SOMETHING AND THOSE DIRTY DEFIANT UNVACCINATED PEOPLE SOMETHING SOMETHING!!! every hour of every day, they don’t bother explaining that about only about one person per million people per day is actually dying of COVID.  They don’t explain that the one person is likely around 80 years old with multiple co-morbidities.

So as far as I’m concerned, every COVID story put out by the bed-wetter news media is missing contextual information.

That’s just my opinion – and that’s the point. Wee Goebbels can now decide any message he would prefer the public not see or hear is, in his opinion, missing contextual information … which, like magic, turns verifiable facts into misinformation.

Which in turn means Wee Goebbels is doing exactly we suspected all along: he’s just banning any message he doesn’t like.

Comments No Comments »

I knew appealing Wee Goebbels’ decision to suspend my Twitter account was pointless, but I did it anyway. Here’s the response:

So apparently Wee Goebbels had an entire support team look over my tweet, and (as a group, mind you) they decided that less than one COVID death per million per day is “misinformation,” even though I included the chart showing that the U.S. at the time of the tweet was reporting 0.82 deaths per million per day.

Boy, those must be interesting conversations in the Wee Goebbels meeting room.

“Okay, comrades, next appeal to review.  We suspended this account because the account holder claimed there is less than one COVID death per million per day.”

“Is there any way we can check the veracity of that claim, Lord Goebbels?”

“Well, he included a screen cap of publicly available data showing a 7-day average of 0.82 deaths per million per day.”

“But 0.82 is much larger than 1.0, isn’t it, Lord Goebbels?”

“It is if I say it is.”

“Well then, Lord Goebbels, we agree with you. He’s clearly spreading misinformation.”

And so it goes in Twitter Land, where facts are “misinformation” if Wee Goebbels doesn’t like what the facts say.  Welcome to Amerika.

Comments 9 Comments »

Yeah, I’m suspended from Twitter again. Wee Goebbels once again declared that I’m “spreading misinformation” about COVID. Here’s the tweet, which consists of publicly available facts and screen caps from news articles. That’s what qualifies as “misinformation” to Wee Goebbels.

Someone needs to take Wee Goebbels outside and beat some sense into him.

Comments 15 Comments »

I always enjoyed watching Cole Beasely’s acrobatic catches.  Now I’m officially a fan:

Some quotes:

“I will be outside doing what I do. I’ll be out in public. If you’re scared of me then steer clear, or get vaccinated,” the NFL player wrote on Twitter.

I’m surprised Twitter hasn’t closed his account.  The push to guilt everyone into getting vaccinated — even if you’re young or have already had COVID — clearly isn’t about protecting the public.  If you believe those wunnerful, wunnerful vaccines are effective, then you have no reason to fear being in a room with me or Cole Beasely.

“I’m not going to take meds for a leg that isn’t broken. I’d rather take my chances with Covid and build up my immunity that way. Eat better. Drink water. Exercise and do what I think is necessary to be a healthy individual. That is MY CHOICE based on MY experiences and what I think is best. I’ll play for free this year to live life how I’ve lived it from day one. If I’m forced into retirement, so be it.”

Well said, Cole.

Comments 7 Comments »

If you haven’t been watching Bret Weinstein’s interviews about COVID, the vaccines, and the alternative treatments that are being quashed, I’d urge you to do so. Here’s a video of a doctor explaining that ivermectin has been demonstrated over and over to be highly effective against COVID — both as prevention and treatment, with virtually no nasty side effects.

This is the type of stuff that will get you labeled as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and booted from Big-Tech social media. That’s a ridiculous charge to level against Weinstein, because he’s been a true-blue liberal for his entire career. (If you recognize his name, it’s likely because of the time the woke crowd at Evergreen College threw themselves a spoiled-brat riot and chased him out of his teaching job after Weinstein refused to stay home on “white people stay home day.”)

Weinstein is also a true-blue scientist. He’s been all over the COVID/vaccine issue, and unlike many on the left, he’s far more interested in actual data than in adhering to The Party’s narrative. As he’s pointed out in a few videos, if ivermectin could have ended the (ahem) “pandemic” months ago — and the evidence says it could have done exactly that — then some very powerful people had an interest in keeping the panic going instead of solving the problem.

Big Pharma? Of course. But ask yourself who else has benefited from coronhysteria. It’s a long list.

Update to above: best get watching. Weinstein’s channel is likely to be removed by YouTube soon.

And remember: the Little Goebbels working at Big-Tech social media actually think they’re the good guys. (So did the real Goebbels.)

Aaaand now the video I linked earlier today is disabled.  I wrote quite a few posts about why The Anointed are opposed to free speech on the Fat Head blog. Here’s one example. It’s a shame we’ve come to this, and it won’t end well. You can read your history to learn how people who don’t have a voice eventually respond.

Comments 10 Comments »

(Since this blog is more of a substitute for a Twitter timeline than an actual blog, I’ll often use the date as the post title and update the post throughout the day.)


Only a state run by liberals could regulate the marijuana business into needing a government bailout. Remember when the argument was that if we legalized pot (which I favor, by the way), governments would rake in tax revenue?  California has demonstrated — again — what Ronald Reagan once said about government’s attitude towards business: If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. When it stops moving, subsidize it.


But let’s definitely tell everyone to get their (COVID-immune) teens vaccinated! Because who takes that “first do no harm” stuff seriously anyway? Big Pharma and The Party certainly don’t.


Comments No Comments »

Welcome to my first post in a looooong time. As I explained when I retired the Fat Head blog, I’ve gone into semi-retirement mode (meaning I no longer work the equivalent of two jobs) and have no intention of returning to writing long posts two or three times per week. I was satisfied to make comments on Twitter.

The people I refer to as Little Goebbels on Twitter had other ideas. I’ve been in Twitter jail for more than month.  Little Goebbels informed me I was suspended for “spreading misinformation about COVID-19.” The “misinformation” tweet is below, along with Little Goebbels’ generous offer to appeal or delete the tweet.

My appeal was simple: I made five statements in that tweet. If I’m “spreading misinformation,” tell me which of the five points is false.

Despite assuring me “We’ll take a look and will respond as soon as possible,” more than a month went by. Apparently it takes a long time for Little Goebbels to re-read a tweet and say, Hey, wait a minute! All five statements are clearly true, so this can’t be misinformation!

But of course, all the Little Goebbels working at Big-Tech social media aren’t actually trying to stamp out misinformation. They’re simply acting as obedient lapdogs and silencing anyone who disagrees with The Party. They define “misinformation” as any message The Party doesn’t want people to hear.

Over the past year, they’ve de-platformed people for saying the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, hydroxychloroquine can reduce COVID symptoms, and vitamin D can prevent COVID infection – all of which turned out to be true, yet all were labeled “misinformation” just a few months ago.

The Babylon Bee put it perfectly:

The only acceptable message is that the vaccines are completely wunnerful, wunnerful, they can’t possibly harm anyone, and everyone should get them. That’s what The Party wants, and Little Goebbels is nothing if not loyal to The Party.

The irony is that just a few years ago, I gave a speech explaining how social media was enabling the Wisdom of Crowds effect by bypassing the information gatekeepers and allowing us to share information with each directly. Turns out The Party and Little Goebbels aren’t big fans of The Marketplace of Ideas.

I’ve been hearing for years how awful it is that people who disagree politically are separating into their own worlds and not having discussions. Duh. “Progressives” clearly have no interest in discussions. To them, a “discussion” consists of “shut up and agree with us, or we’ll ban you.”

Since I’ll likely be banned again from Twitter for speaking truths The Ministry of Truth wants stifled, I’m resurrecting this blog as a place where I can speak my mind. They’ll be short posts, which I’ll likely update frequently … like my own little Twitter timeline.

I’ve also joined Gab (@TomDNaughton), but don’t spend much time there yet.  As far as I can tell, Gab is 100% libertarians and conservatives. That’s the predictable result of Little Goebbels running Big-Tech social media: those who are censored for disagreeing with The Party go elsewhere, and we separate into our own echo chambers. History says this won’t end well.

So, Twitter, here’s my appeal: never in history have the people who silence opposing ideas turned out to be the good guys – and you’re not going to be the first. You’re the bad guys. You’re just too @#$%ing stupid and too caught up in the True Believer mentality to realize it.

Comments 25 Comments »

Back in my younger and more foolish days, I was briefly engaged to a woman we’ll call Clarisse.  I thought I’d hit the girlfriend jackpot when we started dating.  She was smart, funny, sexy, and independent. We moved in together within weeks.  It was great … at first.

Over the next several months, I noticed a pattern: in every social situation – jobs, classes, etc. – Clarisse would make a new friend.  She’d go on and on about how awesome the new friend was. But time after time, the awesome friend became an enemy practically overnight.  It was like someone flipped a switch.

It was, of course, always the former friend’s fault.  To hear Clarisse tell it, the once-awesome person had become mean.  (She was fond of using the word “hateful.”)  And it wasn’t just about actual behavior.  Clarisse seemed to believe she had some kind of magical mind-reading powers.  She would decide she knew what the former friend was thinking or intending — and then she’d get angry about it.  In fact, after Clarisse decided a former friend was now a Very Bad Person, she assigned ignoble intentions to anything that person did.  If one of her former friends ever ran into a burning building to save a baby, I’m pretty sure Clarisse would have explained it was just a P.R. stunt.

More than once, I pointed out that these were people who seemed to get along just fine with everyone else, so perhaps Clarisse should ask herself if she was the instigator of the conflicts.

No, no, no, that couldn’t be it.  She was a good person, a fun person, a highly perceptive person.  In fact, she was such a good person, she was always trying to help her friends and co-workers by offering advice on what they ought to do, how they ought to live, etc.  If they ignored the advice, she became ever more insistent on offering it.  And then, wouldn’t you know it, these people she was merely trying to help became mean and nasty.

She couldn’t seem to grasp a simple concept: if you don’t allow people to say No to you nicely, you’ll eventually get a NO! that’s not very nice at all.  Most of us learn this in childhood.  But some people never learn it.  So throughout life, they are shocked – SHOCKED! – when their non-stop efforts to improve someone else’s life ends with that someone telling them to f@#$ off.

Naturally, our relationship didn’t last.  Seeing what happened with her friends, I used to wonder when Clarisse would finally turn on me.  It took just over a year.  She became increasingly persistent in telling me how to live, how to dress, how to eat, etc. — and she never let me say No nicely.  So eventually I wasn’t nice.  She then informed me that I was a cold, rigid, inflexible person.

I was reasonably sure Clarisse’s definition of rigid and inflexible was refuses to give in and do exactly what I demand.  I was also reasonably sure she was in need of therapy.  But just in case I was the crazy one and unaware of it, I called a long-time friend I could trust to be honest.

“Am I rigid and inflexible?”


“It’s okay to tell me if I am.  Am I rigid and inflexible?”

“I can’t imagine anyone applying those words to you, no.”

After concluding that a life with Clarisse wouldn’t be pleasant, I moved out.  At that point, the same long-time friend (who’d wisely kept his mouth shut before the breakup, but admitted he was glad to see it happen) suggested I read a book titled Control Freaks to arm myself against ever choosing the same kind of partner again.

I won’t try to recount the whole book.  After all, I read it more than 20 years ago.  But here are some descriptions of the Control Freak personality I cribbed and condensed from articles online:

They invest a lot of time and energy trying to convince other people to change.

Control freaks believe they know what is best for everyone and try to convince other people to do things differently. Whether they lecture, become aggressive, or manipulate things behind the scenes, they want to make other people act a certain way. When you do not submit to what they are “encouraging” you to do, there is often a display of emotional behavior.

They’re judgmental and lack compassion.

Control freaks hold opinions on everything from how other people should hold their forks to how they should live their entire lives.  They believe they have the correct answer for everything, and often come across as sanctimonious. Since control freaks believe their own success stems solely from their own efforts, they also lack compassion for those who struggle. They view any failures by others as a sign of laziness or stupidity.

They’re uncomfortable with ambiguity.

Control freaks often see things in black-and-white, all-or-nothing terms.  Their way is the correct way, period.  Their ideas are the best ideas, period.  Other people are either good or bad, either with them or against them.

They have trouble maintaining relationships because they don’t respect boundaries.

Control freaks repel people with their demands and unsolicited advice. They offer “constructive criticism” as a veiled attempt to advance their own agendas. They will not take “no” for an answer.  Consequently, they struggle to maintain healthy personal and professional relationships.

The book, of course, went into much more detail, but you get the idea: the only way to avoid conflict with a control freak is to say, in effect, “Yes, I can see that you are a vastly superior person who has the correct answer for everything, so I will agree to adopt all your beliefs, to like whomever and whatever you like, to dislike whomever and whatever you dislike, and to do everything you believe I should do.  Thank you so very much for making me the beneficiary of your awesome insights on how I should go about my life.”

The book described Clarisse to a T.  Unfortunately, it also describes millions of other people in the world. You can’t go through life without bumping into your share of control freaks.  The collisions won’t be pleasant.  But if you learn to spot the control-freak personality, at least you’ll understand what happened when someone who seemed to like and respect you (or perhaps even love you) suddenly decides you’re a Very Bad Person the first time you disagree or don’t go along with his plan.  You’ll also understand behavior that appears to be inconsistent and illogical.

For example, many control freaks consider themselves freedom-loving libertarians.  They certainly don’t want people in a position of authority telling them how to live.  (Neither do I, by the way).  But while true libertarians are content with minding their own business, control freaks believe it’s their job to mind your business as well – for your own good, of course.  A quote from Oscar Wilde sums up the attitude nicely:

Selfishness is not living your life as you wish to live it.  Selfishness is wanting others to live their lives as you wish them to.

Control freaks are the embodiment of that quote.  Some years after my Clarisse experience, a woman I knew through work told me she and her father hadn’t talked in years.  Dear ol’ dad was a fiercely independent guy, she explained.  He came from a long line of doctors, and his parents had made it clear he was going to become a doctor as well.  He refused.  They disowned him.  He worked odd jobs and saved his money.  He used the money to start his own business, worked like a dog, and became a financial success.

When my co-worker friend was planning her own future, dear ol’ dad told her she was going to get a business degree, then run his business with him, then take over when he retired.  She tried majoring in business and hated it.  She changed her major to art, her true passion.  So guess what?  Dear ol’ dad cut her off financially and stopped talking to her.

She worked menial jobs and finished putting herself through college.  She got her art degree.  She got a job.  She traveled.  She and a friend hiked the Appalachian Trail.  She lived the life she wanted to live.  She assumed her father was secretly proud of her – after all, she’d asserted her independence and gone her own way, followed her own dreams, just like him.

But nope.  The old man still wouldn’t talk to her.  She didn’t understand.  She thought she’d earned the respect of an independent soul like himself.

“Your father’s not an independent soul,” I replied.  “He’s a control freak.”

“A what?”

I gave a brief description of the type.  I recounted a typical story from the book: a guy with a reputation for being a maverick who doesn’t follow the rules and doesn’t kowtow to authority is promoted to management in a large company.  His fellow employees rejoice.  With his independent spirit, he’s going to be an awesome boss!  He’s going to listen to their ideas.  Things are finally going to change around here.

Then it turns out he’s the most authoritarian boss they’ve ever had.  It’s his way or the highway.  They don’t understand what the hell happened to him.

Nothing happened to him.  He’s still the same guy.  He was a maverick who defied authority because, as a control freak, he hates living by other people’s rules – after all, they’re idiots who (unlike him) don’t understand how everything should be done.  But once he’s in a position of authority, he tolerates no dissent – after all, he’s the only guy who understands how everything should be done.

Her father didn’t follow the path his parents planned for him because control freaks don’t let other people tell them what to do, and that’s fine.  But then they absolutely, positively expect everyone else to follow their plans and give in to their demands.  That’s not fine.  The behavior seems illogical and inconsistent, but it isn’t.  The control freak has a very consistent need for control … over his own decisions, and also over yours.

She was nodding in agreement as I explained.  Now it all made sense.

When you defy the control freak (which you will eventually do, unless you have no spine), there will be hell to pay.  Enraged that he can’t control you, the control freak will become obsessed with controlling how others see you.  Turning others against you is, after all, the punishment you deserve for refusing to bend to his will.  You can expect the control freak to put a lot of effort into trashing you.

In the era of social media, the trashing may even be public.  In fact, there’s nothing the control freak enjoys more than manipulating you into spending half your life defending yourself against his public attacks – thus proving he still exerts some control over you.  Once you understand the game, you’ll also understand that the smart move is to simply laugh at the ham-handed tactics and move on.

When my wife and I first moved to Los Angeles, we joined a local theater group.  The owner, a wannabee screenwriter named Chris, seemed like a great guy, encouraging members of the group to put on original plays and comedy sketches.

But the “great guy,” while highly intelligent and creative, had a screw loose.  He was like a male version of Clarisse.  For reasons nobody could grasp, he’d suddenly decide a certain actor or actress was a Very Bad Person. Then he’d kick the actor out of the theater group – sometimes within days of the premiere of a play in which the actor had a major role.  Then he’d tell the rest of us, “I don’t want to see any of you hanging around with the Very Bad Person.  He is not allowed to attend any shows here, either.”

The Control Freaks book and various articles on dealing with control freaks all offer pretty much the same basic advice:  maintain your boundaries and your right to say No. If at all possible, get away from the control freak and keep your distance.

So after we grew tired of dealing with the never-ending series of dramas created by Chris (who we now called The Drama Queen), a bunch of us got together and formed our own theater group.  We set up a web site that included a message-board plugin so we could share announcements and keep in touch.

This was before Facebook, and the message board had no logins and no security.  The admin could delete a message after the fact, but there was no way to hold messages for approval and no way to identify who actually left the message.  Anyone who found the message board online could leave an anonymous post.

Sure enough, The Drama Queen found the message board and started leaving insulting messages.  (In one message, he informed us he’d placed spies within our group – a sure indicator of a control freak with an unhealthy obsession.)  One of our members, an actor named James, kept replying to his taunts.  The message board became polluted with their mutual hatred.

I called James and read him the riot act.  He started out attempting to justify his replies.  Why, we can’t just let Chris get away with these insults, someone needs to stand up to him, what if other people are reading what he writes and we don’t respond, blah-blah-blah.

“Let me explain it to you this way,” I said.  “We left Chris to get away from his bat-shit-crazy behavior and all the emotional drama he likes to create.  Now you’re letting him recreate that emotional drama in our own space.  Every time Chris wants to start a fight and you jump in to fight with him, you’re proving to him that he still has the power to control your emotions and your behavior.  That’s exactly what he wants.  Since you can’t stand the guy, why the hell would give exactly him what he wants?”

After a moment of silence, James replied, “Wow.  You’re right.  I’m sorry.”

“Good.  If you really want to get back at Chris, wait for him to put up another insulting message, and then ignore it. Prove to him you don’t give a rat’s ass what he says about us or what he thinks of us.  Prove to him that you don’t consider him important enough to be bothered with a reply.  That will really drive him nuts.”

That’s how you have to handle control freaks.  Maintain your boundaries.  Don’t give in just because the control freak tries over and over to wear you down.  You can explain why you’re not giving in, but don’t expect the control freak to take No for an answer.  They almost never do.

And when your failure to give in prompts the control freak to decide you’re a Very Bad Person and begin trashing you publicly, don’t get sucked into the battle.  Goading you into a battle is just another attempt to control you.

Smile, walk away from The Drama Queen, keep your distance, refuse to engage, and spend your time on what actually matters.  Yes, refusing to engage will probably cause the control freak to become even nuttier.  But that’s his problem, not yours.

Comments 22 Comments »