Follow-Up Videos On Ri and Cam

See how strong they are? The latter three videos were recorded on the day after their teeth-cleaning surgery. Incidentally, another part of why Reilly needs a "Poppa" is that a "Poppa" for Reilly could probably help "Momma" keep things nice and clean for Reilly, since "Momma" has a little bit of a hard time doing that partly due to Cerebral Palsy. 

Frustration With the Lack Of Webcam-Upload Restoration Technology On YouTube

Also see my previous blog entries on this subject.

Update On Reilly And Camille After Coming Home From Teeth-Cleaning Surgery

Reilly and Camille were definitely back to their normal selves in many ways—for example, they ran out of the back door like I knew that they would when I opened the back door and told them to stay (which is part of why Reilly needs a "Poppa"—he'd have to be strong enough to catch her quickly). To be fair, at least Mom sees that when Reilly and Camille burst out the back door to go eat mulch and dropped bird food is not my fault—even with recovering from anesthesia and being right in front of Mom (as Ri was, and with Cam in her bed), Camille Compadre actually led Reilly Ringleader to run to the mulch and birdfeeder area!

Both Reilly and Camille were sleepy, though, and did feel unstable, whimper, and not eat as much as they normally would eat. Still, Ri did eat some "num nums" and lick her bowl to indicate that she wanted "num nums" in the first place, want belly rubs and to come spend time with her "Momma", give kisses (including a wet-nosed kiss at first), jump up on a chair to snuggle with "Mom-Mom" (and she's not supposed to jump, run, play rough, or climb stairs yet), and growl when she heard noises. As for Cam, she jumped from the car when she first came home, was more relaxed when she heard Mimi's voice on the phone, waited by the gate for "Auntie Nicole" to come downstairs, and followed "Mom-Mom" inside the house when "Mom-Mom" was going to get dinner.

Incidentally, Reilly did listen better and did not bark, given that she's still a little sedated. Meanwhile, Camille can't wait for "Mimi" to come home from a trip up north. 

Put Two Mischevious Puppies Around Laundry Piles, And...

The videos, the uploads of which will follow [as of July 21, 2016; and were uploaded on July 25, 2016], are even funnier.

Imagine If You Will...

The board of directors and shareholders in a given company go to elect a new CEO. The head of the board has his candidate in mind and helps his candidate to override the will of the majority of the board and of the shareholders, and he is complicit with the candidate in unethically and illegally getting the candidate elected to be the CEO. 

Among the unethical and illegal means that he employs and/or encourages are intimidation of board members and shareholders—as well as of any employees whom are not on the board and still have a say, changes in the board-election rules, and forcibly giving all of the votes to his candidate in spite of the protests from those whose votes were forcibly given to a candidate for whom they not vote. The intimidation, by the way, includes violations of the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity Employment Act—and those violations include death threats.

If only you only imagined that—that is, after all, akin to what happened with the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. In this case, the CEO and the Head Of the Board Of Directors are, respectively, Donald Trump and Reince Priebus. As for the company in this case, it is the Republican Party—its board members, shareholders, and employees are the delegates at the GOP Convention, donors, and the voters. 

Just as the FBI, DOJ, and others would investigate a company such as the one which was described above, the FBI, DOJ, and others will have to investigate Donald Trump and Reince Priebus, among others. By the way, I have received quite a few of the threats, and one fellow Twitter user even admitted to voting for Donald Trump in three states.

My Basic Twitter Philosophy

1. If you unfollow me and I am following you, I will unfollow you in turn if I become aware that you have unfollowed me². Since I hold the philosophy that people online are a reflection of whom they are offline (including, as Curt Schilling pointed out, whom they would be offline if they could be that way offline), I have no time for you if you have no time for me, I have, as far as I recall, broken my unfollow-for-unfollow rule only twice, and that includes that I refollowed one person whom'd unfollowed me only because his work in his field is influential enough to merit for him a follow. I will also unfollow you if I recall that you followed me and then unfollowed me after I followed you, whether or not my recollection is correct.
2. If you abuse me in any way on Twitter—for example, if you twist my words (or similarly libel me) and/or engage in Anti-Semitic attacks—I will report and/or block you. ³
3. If you abuse others on Twitter, I will report and/or block you. ³
4. RTs are not endorsements unless the original tweet is favorited and/or the RTs are noted as endorsements of the original tweets. What RTs often are is FOIP (for only informational purposes).
5. While I do "unfollow for unfollow", I do not do "follow for follow"—I follow whom I want to follow, and I will follow those whom follow me if I find them worth following.
6. While and since I won't, and I really even can't, report every abusive instance and/or block every person whom's engaging in abuse, I will call out someone whom's being abusive if I feel (or at least hope) that I can reason with them. ³
7. I get Twitter notifications via text messages—and I don't have a smartphone¹, unlike some of these rich kids and others whom can afford smartphones. As soon as I get a chance to respond to and/or RT tweets, I'll respond to them; and be aware that I can see on my phone what abusive tweets you deleted and/or thought that you blocked from my view—and I will report and/or block you, and/or call you out. ³

Addendum [April 9, 2019/Aviv 3, 5779 (Before sunset)]: 

1. The Democrats & others who want to think that the Modern Right & the Alt Right are the same as well as try to demonize the Modern Right, ignore the #NeverTrump movement are only going to make the #NeverTrump movement fight harder against Trump's trying to destroy the GOP. In other words, their attempts to throw out revisionist tropes and thus give Trump what he wants haven't worked in the way that they wanted it to do so. If you're one of those revisionists and you're thinking about parroting out your revisionism as a response to my tweets, then, please keep away from me. On the flip side, if you're a Trumpite or one who dreads Clinton more than fears Yehovah, also please keep away from me if you're thinking about troping out your own revisionism in response to my tweets. 
2. On that note and a general note, common sense holds that one doesn't have to unnecessarily respond to something that he or she doesn't like. So, please, just don't respond to my tweets if you don't like them and have no reason to respond to them.

Addendum [November 4, 2019/Cheshvan 6, 5779 (Before sunset)]:

If you need a template to write to your Representative about indicting Trump instead of impeaching him:

"Rep. [Whomever]:

"By impeaching Trump, Congress would be handing him 25th Amendment rights and presidential legitimacy. The law (based on the law-from-the-bench principle regarding sitting presidents and indictment) says that one cannot indict a sitting president, but it doesn't say that one can't indict an illegitimate president. The assumption was always that and is that the sitting president had and has to be a legitimate one, since there is the principle behind the law as well as the law itself. Thus, please push for Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the House to acknowledge that Trump is not a legitimate president and thus should not be given impeachment rights, let alone 25th Amendment rights or presidential legitimacy.

"Thank you for your time and consideration of my request."

¹ Addendum: July 2, 2020/10 Tammuz 5780: I do have a smartphone now. It was a gift for Hanukkah, Christmas, and my 30th birthday; and I honestly resisted letting one anyone get me one and using one for a long time. What's not changed: I still block and/or report abusive tweeters.

²Addendum, same date: I realize that part of my problem is that I don't enforce my own unfollow-for-unfollow rule enough (sometimes because I'm unsure right away if someone followed me in the first place). To me, how one interacts with me online tells me how he or she would interact with me offline. In other words, I need to start meaning that I don't have time for anyone whom doesn't have time for me or wants me to have time for him or her. I will thus be enforcing my own rule more.

³ All of that fits my motto, "If you don't stand up to evil, evil will stand you down—and that is evil."

Originally On LinkedIn: Re Sexual Harassment In the Workplace As Manifested By Roger Ailes

Let's face that Roger Ailes sexually harassed Gretchen Carlson, and even an intellectually-honest layperson—including an intellectually-honest aspiring professional—can see that—and at least aspiring professionals can learn from this tragedy while they look to enter the workforce, which may sadly hold incidents of harassment in their futures.

Everyone needs to note, for example, that:

1. Gretchen Carlson filed the lawsuit after she was terminated, and she finally felt free to speak up.
2. Roger Ailes has not pressed criminal-libel and fraud charges. He, however, did try to get the case moved from a New Jersey state court—neutral territory—to federal court—and he, having worked for Richard Nixon, has connections in the federal government.
3. Given that Gretchen Carlson wrote those notes asking for more airtime, one can bet that her contract was breached against her multiple times—e.g., that she was not getting the airtime that her contract stipulated.
4. One can also bet that praise for Ailes that she wrote in her 2015 book was blackmailed out of her.
5. Not only has Gretchen Carlson reached a point—so have six colleagues whom spoke to "The Blaze", with two publicly identifying themselves.
6. Only three ex colleagues have vocally spoken in favor of Roger Ailes and against Gretchen Carlson.
7. One has to now wonder why Alisyn Camerota really left Fox News—what did "more opportunity" really mean?

The victim shaming that Gretchen Carlson has endured, by the way, goes to prove that sexual harassment and other abuse against women is indeed still rampant in the workplace, and inexcusably rampant. In other words, is abuse against women in the workplace excusable since "it happens all the time"?

Good luck to the likes of Roger Ailes, though—Roger Ailes and his ilk will need luck when their careers are ended because of their mistreatments of women and their subsequent inabilities to recruit women as employees.