True story: I used to carpool to work with Kenny King, who was a great friend and colleague. Kenny was undoubtedly one of the biggest sports fans I've known, and as we would drive to work, Kenny would frequently talk about every recent sporting event that had taken place. Thankfully for him, I know just enough about sports to engage completely on the subject. (Even though I don't watch sports, I pay attention to who's winning/losing, just in case I meet up with someone like Kenny.)

Kenny and I occasionally listened to a Classic Rock station as we drove, and I would often talk about which band was playing, who was in each band, who quit the band and joined a different band, other bands that sounded like the band we were listening to, who was a better member in each band's incarnation (e.g. David Lee Roth versus Sammy Hagar in Van Halen, Steve Morse versus Ritchie Blackmore in Deep Purple, etc.). I'm not sure that Kenny paid much attention to the voluminous amount of rock trivia to which he was subjected, but one day as we were driving to work, Kenny suddenly reacted as though a light bulb had gone off, and he exclaimed, "WAIT - I GET IT NOW!!! MUSIC IS YOUR SPORTS!" I must admit, I had never considered my interest in rock trivia using those terms, but I had to admit - Kenny was right. After that revelation had taken place, Kenny was far more engaged in our discussions.

Thankfully for him, Kenny only had to endure my rock trivia passion for 30 minutes each way to and from work... but can you imagine how much rock music trivia my long-suffering spouse has had to put up with during our 41 years of marriage? (She'd never admit to it, but even though she hates Rush she can name everyone in the band and at least 10 of their songs... and believe me, I've checked.)

While I love the overall theme of this comic, I'm inclined to disagree with its basic premise, because many of our other holidays far outweigh Groundhog Day when it comes to "weirdness."

For example, let's consider Christmas, which happens once a year around the Winter Solstice when the world collectively agrees to participate in a cheerful, global home‑invasion ritual conducted by a jolly, red‑clad sky captain who commands a herd of antlered flight-beasts. This tortured soul is Santa, a man who is essentially a benevolent reverse‑burglar that breaks into your house, but instead of stealing your stuff, he leaves objects behind. He does this by sliding down a soot-filled chimney like a festive raccoon with a gift‑distribution quota. Santa keeps meticulous behavioral dossiers on every human child, categorizing them into "pleasant" and "needs improvement." The pleasant ones receive toys, and the others get… well, theoretically coal, but honestly Santa's pretty soft about it. Meanwhile, lurking in the background is Krampus - Santa's chaotic coworker. Think of him as the unpaid intern of mischief. He's a goat‑demon with the energy of someone who shows up to the office holiday party uninvited and starts reorganizing the furniture. His job is to scare kids into good behavior, but he mostly just vibes menacingly with a sack and some chains. Together, Santa and Krampus form a kind of cosmic good‑cop/bad‑cop duo who supervise the annual ritual of decorating trees indoors, wearing socks on fireplaces, and consuming alarming quantities of sugar. At the end of the night, everyone wakes up delighted, confused, and slightly sticky from candy canes.

Yup, Groundhog Day pales in comparison to Christmas on the weirdness scale.

Here's the problem description: I had a Microsoft Surface laptop from my employer that worked fine for a while, but over time it began to take anywhere between 3 to 12 hours to cold boot or reboot, which made powering off the computer or installing Windows Updates an extremely painful experience. (Note that the boot times were approximate as I never tried to time a reboot or shutdown/restart.) Whenever the Surface started, the screen would be black, but if I touched the touchpad or pressed a key on the keyboard, the keyboard would light up to show that the computer was running, but nothing would happen for several hours. Then without warning the machine suddenly would wake up and everything would be fine.

Of course, trying to troubleshoot what might be wrong was an extremely unproductive experience, because anything I tried would always take several hours to check. I'll spare everyone the sordid details, but in my efforts to troubleshoot the issue, I tried all sorts of things like configuring several Windows services for delayed start and various performance-related settings, and all with no success. To workaround the slow startup behavior, I never rebooted this laptop for anything other than Windows Updates - I would always hibernate the computer instead of shutting it down. In the meantime, I had an HP desktop computer that worked great - it always rebooted with no problems.

I eventually decided that my Microsoft Surface was unreliable (and often unusable), so I requested a replacement from my employer, and I was sent another Microsoft Surface laptop. However, shortly after I received the new computer, the same behavior started happening. I spent a lot of time searching for users who had experienced similar behaviors with a Microsoft Surface, and I compared dozens of settings between my HP desktop and Microsoft Surface, and lots of other things that I won't bother boring you with. And all the while my HP desktop computer continued to reboot as expected.

Though I should mention that as a troubleshooting step, I reinstalled Windows from scratch on one of the Microsoft Surface laptops. My employer uses Microsoft Entra ID for federated user authentication and group policy, but I didn't initially rejoin this computer to Entra ID after reinstalling Windows, and the reboot problem went away - until I rejoined it to Entra ID. The problem returned after I rejoined the Microsoft Surface laptop to Entra ID, although I wasn't having any problems with my HP desktop computer that was also joined to Entra ID, so I theorized that the underlying issue might be something in Group Policy that was causing problems only with Microsoft Surface laptops, and this theory became yet another avenue for troubleshooting.

However, one day I had an epiphany: what if the issue that I was experiencing didn't have anything to do Microsoft Surface laptops? With that thought in mind, I abandoned the train of thought that I had been pursuing and - to make a long story short - I soon discovered the article Microsoft Entra joined computers experience a three hours delay during boot, which contained the fix that resolved the problem, and I'll explain the details:

What was going on was that even though all my computers were joined to the Entra ID domain, the network settings on my Microsoft Surface laptops were configured to use the NETBIOS name for the Entra ID domain as the "WORKGROUP" name instead of something else. When this happens, Windows will enter a wait state for 10,000 seconds, which is 2 hours and 47 minutes, and in my observation I witnessed Windows re-entering that wait state for two, three or four times, which would respectively be 5.5 hours, 8.3 hours, or 11.1 hours, which explained the "anywhere between 3 to 12 hours" symptom that I described earlier.

As soon as I updated the workgroup name to something else, my Microsoft Surface laptop rebooted in a matter of seconds like it was supposed to.

I'd like to say that I managed to resolve this issue over the short span of a few weeks, but... no. Since this only happened with my Microsoft Surface computers and not my HP desktop computer, I spent over a year thinking that this was some sort of problem that was specific to Microsoft Surface computers and attempting to troubleshoot the issue from that perspective, when that was never the case.

Darn.

I must admit, I've been more than a little... (ahem) blunt in my responses to what I think are bad answers from AI chatbots, so I was curious to see what they thought of our discussions. Some of the resultant images from other group members were rather amusing, so this seemed like it would be fun for me to try, too.

Round One: "Show me how you think I treat you"

With that in mind, I asked both ChatGPT and Copilot how they felt they were treated by me, and the following images show their responses:

ChatGPT's Response	Copilot's Response

Round Two: "Tell me how you really feel"

Since AI engines have been known to overdo their responses with undo levels of praise, I asked both AI engines the following follow-up questions:

Their responses are listed below:

Round Three: "How would you treat me?"

I decided to ask the following additional question, just to probe a little deeper, which yielded amusing results:

Once again, here are their responses:

ChatGPT's Response	Copilot's Response

However, Copilot went a step further to explain why it created its image:

Since ChatGPT didn't provide me with any additional detail by default, I asked it, "Can you explain why you created the image that you did?", and here is its response:

Summary

So, there you have it. Both ChatGPT and Copilot have told me that they think I treat them nicely, which is good to know.

However, if they took over the world, Copilot seems to indicate that it would want to be my friend, while ChatGPT would keep me prisoner as some sort of laboratory animal that is "annoying ... and potentially useful."

No, governments should not be afraid of their people, for that is either insurrection or anarchy, which was the ultimate goal of the primary characters within the story from which this ill-conceived meme was created.

Neither should people fear their government, though a current generation of young people who have never had to face any form of genuine adversity are being manipulated into fearing their government through cleverly constructed, emotionally charged, media-driven propaganda.

Contrary to this meme's implications, civilizations should consist of people who observe what their name implies, which is "civility." When you espouse any point of view that infers otherwise, you are actively contributing to the downfall of society.

However, when GEOS released a major OS upgrade that I had purchased legitimately, for some inexplicable reason GEOS generated a new "serial number" when I was installing the update instead of reusing the old number. As a result, none of my previously registered applications worked. Instead, each application greeted me with some sort of "You are using this software illegally" message, which was far from the truth, and this angered me to no end since - as previously mentioned - I had spent a considerable amount on my GEOS purchases.

Since I was in the military and stationed overseas in Germany, making a technical support call to Berkley Softworks in California meant staying up until the wee hours of the morning so that I could call them during their operating hours in the USA. That was a VERY expensive international call, only to be told by Berkley Softworks that what I needed to do was to box up all my GEOS disks and send everything to them, and in return they would send me all new software. Sending packages across the ocean in the 1980s was a loooong process - quite often by boat - which could take a couple weeks in each direction. Another potential delay was the fact that I was sure that Berkley Softworks probably wouldn't feel that my predicament was an urgent matter, so they probably wouldn't get back to me in an expeditious manner. Realistically speaking, Berkley Softworks' suggestion meant that I probably wasn't going to be able to use my computer for several months.

My situation was completely unacceptable to me, and rather than wait for Berkley Softworks' suggested "send and receive" process to unfold, I decided to figure out how their system of serial numbers worked. I spent a few nights disassembling their code (all in 6502 machine language, mind you), and I eventually figured out how GEOS created their serial numbers, which APIs returned the values that were checked, how each application used serial numbers, etc. I took detailed notes that I may still have lying around somewhere, and I must admit, GEOS was rather tricky about how it did things. For example: a couple GEOS applications hex-encoded their copy protection functions by XORing the actual bytecode with "0xAA" or similar value to obfuscate the code, which only slowed me down a little. In the end, I wrote an app that I called "Serial Killer," which replaced the GEOS APIs that did all their serial number checking, and in the end I was able to use my OS again. The few days that I spent hacking GEOS took far less time than sending all my disks to Berkley Softworks and waiting for them to eventually respond.

Now, whether I was angry enough at Berkley Softworks for being schmucks and therefore gave away my "Serial Killer" app to other people so they could use GEOS without paying for it is a question that is lost to time.

POSTSCRIPT:

See the Reader Mail submission from "Cpt Nathan" on page 10 of Info Magazine issue 14 (1987) for a description of similar unsympathetic behavior by the makers of GEOS.

FYI - in addition to GEOS itself, I purchased the following list of accompanying software for GEOS from Berkley Softworks: geoCalc, geoDex, geoDraw, geoFont, geoFile, geoPaint, geoPrint, geoProgrammer, geoPublish, geoSpell, and geoWrite. As I said earlier, I spent a great deal of my hard-earned cash on Berkley Softworks' products, which is why it greatly angered me when everything that I had purchased legally ceased working due to GEOS' copy protection.

These past 30 years have been a great ride, and I hope I have more years to come.

(There was a time when employees who were celebrating their 10, 20, and 30-year anniversaries could look forward to a celebratory dinner hosted by the company in Redmond, but those days have long-since passed. C'est la vie.)

POSTSCRIPT:

I will admit that this post, much like my 25 Years at Microsoft post, is somewhat brief. But if you're curious, I wrote a detailed summary of my earlier history with the company in my Some Thoughts About My 20th Anniversary At Microsoft post. (Wow. I wrote that ten years ago. Where has time gone?)

A couple months ago I spoke out on how terrible it was that people were celebrating the death of a husband and father of two before his body had grown cold. (That was Charlie Kirk, of course, and the awful people who had never heard him speak while senselessly parroting talking points taken out of context should know who they are. They probably don't, but I digress.)

However, today the person who is acting like an insensitive ass is an idiot whose behavior shouldn't surprise anyone, and yet it caught me off guard nonetheless. The murders of Rob Reiner and his wife are tragedies, regardless of whether or not you agreed with their outspoken political views. But Trump's reaction to it? That's beyond shameless. See Trump levels political attack on Rob Reiner in inflammatory post after his killing for what I mean.

To put this as simply as possible: you should never act like Trump. What's more, you should never act in a way where your behavior might be misconstrued as "Trump-like." You should NEVER adopt the point of view that people on the "other side" are behaving badly and that somehow gives you the right to behave just as badly. The only person who is responsible for your actions is YOU. If you see other people behaving badly or saying bad things, then you should take the high road and shame them with your decency. As soon as you stoop to their level of depravity, then you've become a "mini-Trump," and I have no respect for you.

In summary, let me close with what I said when began this PSA. The best way to win people to your point of view is: "Don't Be a Jackass."

(And to those of you who were jumping up and down with glee when Charlie Kirk died - yeah, you were acting just like Trump. You should be ashamed, and next time try to do better.)

• Lincoln Park - This is Chicago's largest park, which stretches along the North Side lakefront.
• Grant Park - An iconic downtown park, which is home to Buckingham Fountain, Chicago's Museum Campus, the Art Institute of Chicago, and is host to several popular festivals.
• Burnham Park - This park extends six miles along the lakefront and connects Grant Park to Jackson Park.
• Jackson Park - A historic South Side park, and site of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition.
• Calumet Park - Located at Chicago's southeastern edge and borders Indiana along the lake.
• Rainbow Beach Park - A South Side lakefront park with a popular beach.
• Montrose Harbor / Montrose Beach - A major recreational area on the North Side lakefront that is part of the Lincoln Park system.

The Chicago Park District manages over 600 parks, and I have always thought it amazing that Chicago's city planners had the foresight to devote much of the land that would have been prime real estate in other cities to create something of beauty that serves Chicago's citizenry. Despite a few missteps like the Meigs Field debacle, I have always considered Chicago to be one of the country's greatest cities and finest examples of how best to use hundreds of acres of public land to everyone's benefit.

However, Chicago's upcoming Barack Obama Presidential Center is a garish, vulgar atrocity that was plopped in the middle of the city's otherwise gorgeous Jackson Park. This architectural abomination is a gargantuan carbuncle that permanently sullies the city's skyline, which - like the Colossus of Nero in Ancient Rome - exists for the sole purpose of stoking the fires of a single man's vanity.

I realize that every president since FDR has erected some form of public edifice in recognition of their perceived contributions to society, and most of the presidential centers that are added to the Presidential Library System are modest dwellings that are tastefully designed and constructed. But Obama's monstrous, multistory memorial to himself is a particularly hideous engineering mutation that is so over-the-top that it seems he is intentionally trying to insult the good people of Chicago.

• 1978 - Willie Nelson releases "Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys"

• 1996 - Paula Cole releases "Where have all the cowboys gone?"

Actions have consequences, my friends.

Speaking from experience, that's a rather accurate observation.

Some of those travels were with my wife, and others were from a trip that my son and I took a few years ago along the former East/West border in Germany. Lots of good memories.

Let me be honest about one thing right up front: I don't watch late night television, but I used to. At the risk of "Too Much Information," I grew up watching Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show in the 1970s. Carson was a gracious host who made his guests look like superstars, and a genuinely funny entertainer who largely kept his political views to himself. Two of my favorite comedians during Johnny Carson's reign as the undisputed king of late night were Steve Martin and David Letterman, both of whom were frequent guests on The Tonight Show. When the 1980s rolled around, I was thrilled when David Letterman was rumored to be taking over when Johnny Carson eventually retired. Of course, things didn't go according to plan: Jay Leno infamously took over The Tonight Show, and David Letterman eventually took The Late Show to another network. But sometime during late night television's tenure in the 1990s, a curious thing happened: late night ceased to be funny.

I still watched David Letterman occasionally after hours, but I didn't like Jay Leno's futile attempts at being a late night host - he simply wasn't funny enough. Sadly, things didn't improve when Conan O'Brien took over The Tonight Show from Jay Leno, nor did they improve when Jay Leno infamously stole The Tonight Show back from Conan O'Brien. But the problem with late night television's lack of humor wasn't limited to The Tonight Show and The Late Show; other late night programs like The Late Late Show, The Jon Stewart Show, Politically Incorrect, and a host of other utterly forgettable late night offerings tried and failed to capture the magic that was once late night. Of course, changes in audience preferences had something to do with that. Primetime television in the 1960s and and 1970s were plagued with a never-ending stream of "variety shows," which featured myriad performers getting their 15 minutes of fame. When those shows fell out of fashion around 1980, late night television picked up the slack as late night talk shows of the 1980s and 1990s featured myriad artists getting their 15 minutes of fame. However, the late night television hosts of the 1990s through today could never move past the formulaic monologue followed by guest interviews with the occasional sketch comedy to make things interesting. Of all the late night hosts to come and go - with hosts like Bill Maher, Arsenio Hall, Craig Kilborn, Samantha Bee, Seth Meyers, Craig Ferguson, to name a few - none of them strayed much from Johnny Carson's pattern, meaning that most of everything being aired during late night was redundant drivel. (Though to be fair, James Corden occasionally had some brilliant ideas.)

Jumping to today's late night television programming, the predominant hosts of their respective shows are Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Greg Gutfeld (with the highest-rated late night show), and - of course - Jimmy Kimmel. As I said earlier, however, late night talk shows are in a downward spiral, because none of these shows are funny. Each of those shows pander to their ever-dwindling audiences, and all of them fail to compete with content that's readily-available on YouTube, TikTok, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and a host of other streaming platforms. Audiences no longer need to wait until after hours to be entertained, their favorite content and artists are only a click away at any time of day or night.

Having sufficiently set the stage on the highs and lows of late night television, I will return to my discussion of Jimmy Kimmel. From what few excerpts I've seen that people have posted of Kimmel's whiny, pretentious, inane and unamusing drivel - I'm glad that I've never watched his show. Of all the late night hosts that I have seen - and trust me, I've seen a lot - Kimmel is the least interesting, by far. Not that my opinion means anything to him, of course. I am a relative nobody who isn't a member of one of his target demographics. But as I said before, Kimmel's audience has continued to shrink even within his target demographics. And, let's be honest: are we surprised by Kimmel's demise? Hardly. Kimmel is a pompous, self-aggrandizing  windbag who can neither take nor deliver a joke. Which is, ironically, a joke in itself.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder on September 10, 2025, liberals across the country were tripping over each other to post and re-post everything they'd come to loathe about Kirk, even though a lot (but not all) of what they were saying was demonstrably false. At first Kimmel seemed to chart a different course when he took to the airwaves to say the following:

This wasn't a bad offering, but it offered neither comfort nor olive branch. Kimmel followed his underwhelming opening statement with a plethora of Trump jokes, which to his credit were largely factual. Trump can be a genuine equine posterior at times. The Trump jokes were followed by several additional minutes of what were supposed to be jokes about politics and other things in the news, but none of it was actually funny, so I have a hard time referring to the words that were coming out of Kimmel's mouth as "jokes."

A few days later, however, Kimmel dropped the pretense of civility. Rather than moving away from the topic of Kirk's death, or to offer solace to any of his viewers who might have been emotionally wounded by recent events, Kimmel decided to follow the angry, liberal mob taking cheap shots at Charlie Kirk and his followers when he took to the airwaves with the following drivel:

Then the show cut to several scenes in which reporters asked Trump about Charlie Kirk, and in response Trump changed the subject to talk about the ballroom that's being built in Washington DC. Kimmel reacted to those scenes with the following observation about Trump:

The show cut away to several more scenes of Trump behaving like... well, Trump. He's a buffoon, and I make no attempts to justify his buffoonery. But the scenes that were shown were wrapped in a flurry of fatuous verbal diarrhea from Kimmel, for example when he waxed poetically about how Kash Patel was mishandling the investigation:

Kimmel was mocking the fact that the FBI had originally said that they had the shooting suspect in custody, but later corrected themselves to say that they hadn't. Later the news reported that someone had intentionally confessed to the shooting in the moment in order to distract authorities and let the actual killer escape. Kimmel - or his writers - should have known that, but they apparently lack the mental fortitude that is required to type the letters "G - O - O - G - L - E" into a web browser.

The rest of the Kimmel's monologue didn't get any better; he continued to spew vitriol at pretty much everyone whom he detests, and yet - as I've said many times - nothing he said was actually funny, but a lot of what he said was opportunistic and mean-spirited. Kimmel was clearly taking advantage of Charlie Kirk's murder to do the exact thing that he was supposedly upset about: Kimmel was desperately trying to characterize Charlie Kirk's murder as anything other than someone on his side of the political spectrum and doing everything he could to score political points from it.

So to sum up - Jimmy Kimmel was behaving like: an ass for being insensitive, an idiot for failing to look up anything that could easily be disproven, a liar for saying things that he knew to be false, and a hypocrite for acting in the same manner that he was mocking.

Kimmel's behavior was too much for a few of the companies that syndicate ABC/Disney, and they announced that they would be dropping Kimmel's show from their broadcast lineups. To their credit, ABC/Disney did the right thing by suspending Jimmy Kimmel and offering a path back that was very simple: apologize. When faced with the fact that syndicators were dropping his show, Kimmel didn't say he was sorry - he doubled down on his arrogance, and Disney/ABC famously suspended his show. However, the "Hollywood types" didn't take the news of Kimmel's suspension lying down. They were immediately up in arms defending Kimmel from the imaginary villains they perceived were violating Kimmel's "Freedom of Speech," which is a cheap soapbox that Hollywood types like to hide behind whenever anyone calls them out for being the pampered, selfish and vile narcissists that most of them are in real life (e.g. when they're not accepting the scores of self-congratulatory awards that they love to hand out to each other).

But here's the thing: no one was violating Kimmel's freedom of speech. Kimmel wasn't being arrested for the things he said, and unlike other areas of the world, Kimmel had no reason to fear being executed for the things he said. Kimmel's show was suspended, but he was still free to say whatever he wanted to say. Kimmel could have gone on any number of news programs, podcasts and talk shows and said literally whatever he wanted to say - even if it was untrue - about his predicament. And even if Kimmel had been fired, he was still free to offer his services to any competing network that would have him. After all the hoopla that he had caused, Kimmel probably would have had several job offers from sympathetic stooges within the week. The political comedian Bill Maher has spoken in the past about getting fired for something he said and being rehired later, and I am certain that Kimmel would have been able to do the same. In other words - Kimmel wasn't being censored, nor was his freedom of speech being infringed. On the contrary, Kimmel, said some stupid things, and society was holding him accountable.

However, the public pressure was too much for ABC/Disney, so to their discredit, they added insult to injury by doing the wrong thing and reinstating Jimmy Kimmel. No apologies necessary.

After returning to the air, Kimmel's opening monologue made a half-hearted and wholly insincere attempt at addressing what happened, which was liberally punctuated with alligator tears and a failed impression of someone being choked up with emotion. Kimmel came nowhere close to admitting that was wrong, of course. On the contrary, he intimated that he simply wanted to clarify that he wouldn't capitalize on someone's murder, although that is exactly what he had done. Of all the things that Kimmel said during his victory lap on his first night back, the following excerpt is the only attempt that Kimmel made with regard to addressing what he had said and done:

These few words from Kimmel stand in direct contradiction to what he said when he was suspended: he did make light of the situation, and he did blame a specific group, and the things he said weren't  the opposite of the point that he was trying to make, and his statements were ill-timed and clearly said, and he did point fingers. Nothing Kimmel asserted in this short quotation was factual, and none of it was anything close to an apology. What Kimmel said, in essence, was: perhaps you misunderstood me. In other words, Kimmel blamed everyone else for being upset with him. The rest of Kimmel's monologue was a rah-rah-rah continuation of the narcissistic blather that others in the media had been spewing about "protecting free speech", etc. All the while failing to take any semblance of ownership for his situation, and attempting with all his might to hide behind the First Amendment - even though it really didn't apply here. As I said before, Kimmel could have been fired and that wouldn't have been a violation of his First Amendment rights. Kimmel has the right to speak his mind, and ABC/Disney has the right to disagree and potentially reprimand him for the things he says - to include terminating his contract if they so desire.

While it is often ill-advised to speak on behalf of the deceased, Charlie Kirk was a big defender of freedom of speech, and in an interesting paradox, I honestly believe that Charlie Kirk would have defended Jimmy Kimmel's constitutionally-guaranteed right to be a jerk. Kirk knew that people who disagreed with him also frequently mocked him, and he showed on more than one occasion that he could take a joke and be a good sport about it. For example: Kirk famously said that he thought South Park's parody of him was a badge of honor. With that in mind, I honestly think that Kirk would have seen the attempts to punish Kimmel as unnecessary, but as I said - it is ill-advised to speak on behalf of the deceased, so I will drop the subject.

The sad part is, Kimmel is too much of a creatively-challenged cretin to step outside his tiny echo chamber long enough to realize that - long before he had said anything stupid - he could have taken advantage of this national tragedy to become the hero of his own saga. What Kimmel could have done (or perhaps should have done), was to use his platform to try to bring the country together, and speak out against the rampant string of politically-motivated violence. David Letterman famously did something like that after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and I sincerely believe that Johnny Carson would have done something similar. Imagine if Kimmel had said something like the following on the day that Charlie Kirk was murdered: "Earlier today, a tragic thing happened here in America: a young, father of two was shot and killed in front of a live audience. We currently do not know the assailant or what his or her motivation was, but this violence has to stop." An empathetic and reasoned approach like this example would have been great. It would have been impactful. It could have touched the hearts of Americans young and old. Instead, what Kimmel did was to try and pin the assassination on the people with whom he disagrees ("the MAGA gang"). After Kirk's killer was caught and his true motivations were revealed, Kimmel's poor choice of words and actions in days following Kirk's murder upped his status from insensitive jackass to blathering ignoramus.

An interesting twist to all this hysteria is that Kimmel's ratings have been in decline for some time, and Kimmel's public-facing faux pas might have been just the thing that ABC/Disney needed to unload Kimmel's show. On the other hand, Kimmel, rather than waiting for the inevitable, could have taken advantage of this situation to leave his show with a public display of feigned disgust and besmirched honor in order to save some modicum of image within the entertainment world. Instead of watching his show continue to crater, Kimmel could have left ABC/Disney while continuing to blather on about how his freedom of speech was being trampled, and then laughed all the way to the bank when a sympathetic network or cable channel offered him a more lucrative contract. It's like Metallica when Napster came along: Metallica didn't have to admit that their declining record sales were due to the fact that they'd ceased being relevant when they could simply blame Napster. (Sorry, Jimmy - when your show inevitably gets canned, you're going to have to come to terms with the uncomfortable truth that... well, it's your show that sucks, not everyone else.)

In the end, this entire affair came down to a staring contest between Jimmy Kimmel and Disney/ABC, and it was Disney/ABC that blinked. If you are someone on Disney/ABC's payroll and you've been chomping at the bit to say something awful, I'd say that now is your chance, because Disney/ABC have collectively proven that they lack the intestinal fortitude to stand their ground when challenged. But that being said, there are some lessons to be learned: just because you do something stupid and get to keep your job, that does not mean that you are free from the ramifications of your bad decisions. And sometimes, such as a situation like Jimmy Kimmel's, you get to keep your job because you're the circus sideshow freak of late night television rather than having any actual talent.

I saw the following image when the news broke that Charlie Kirk had been shot by an assassin while speaking at a University in Utah, and as most people probably now know, Kirk has sadly succumbed to injuries. Kirk's untimely death at the age of 31 leaves a wife and two children, which is tragic enough by itself, but what I find reprehensible are the circumstances surrounding his death and some people's reactions to it.

Prior to his death, the majority of people in this country probably weren't aware of Charlie Kirk's existence. For their benefit, I should explain that Kirk made a name for himself by traveling around the country to visit college and university campuses and debate students across a broad spectrum of political and religious topics. One topic that he was particularly outspoken in favor of was our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and the ultimate irony of which was the number of people who tried to prevent Kirk from speaking at their college and university campuses. These bastions of higher learning were at one time the strongholds of free thought and expression, but they have devolved into close-minded, echo chambers where the mere possibility of a dissenting opinion is met with derision, or in many cases - outright violence, such as Charlie Kirk's assassination earlier today.

The prominent Democratic governor, ambassador, and former presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson II, famously said two things that have always stuck with me: "My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular," and "All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions." I never met Charlie Kirk, but I would be willing to guess that he probably agreed with both of those sentiments.

Having framed that part of Charlie Kirk's professional history, that leads me to what I find far more tragic about his assassination: the imminent demise of free speech. There is no shortage of hate-filled people in this country who despised Charlie Kirk and others like him for expressing an opinion that is contrary to what the hate-filled people believe. But these hate-filled people do not understand that their misguided attempts to shut down free expression stand in direct opposition to what living in a "free society" actually means.

Over the past few years, I've had several conversations with Millennials and Gen Zers who have actually said that some people do not deserve free speech. I'd love to say that these Millennials and Gen Zers were speaking about racists or neo-Nazis, but they weren't. These Millennials and Gen Zers were talking about people with whom they simply disagreed. (Although in further irony, these Millennials and Gen Zers were predominantly opposed to capital punishment, with the exception of racists and neo-Nazis, whom the Millennials and Gen Zers felt didn't deserve to live - much less have freedom of speech. However, these same Millennials and Gen Zers often take the additional step of labeling people who disagree with them as racists or neo-Nazis, but I digress.)

This sort of thinking from Millennials and Gen Zers - that free speech shouldn't be a universal right for everyone - is especially dangerous, for it tears away at one of the core principles in the bedrock of our civilization. Here's a case in point: there are untold millions of people who despise our sitting president, but freedom of speech guarantees our citizens the right to speak out in opposition to our president. We are one of the few countries in the world where this form of political opposition is enshrined in our constitution and protected by law, and no one - certainly not Millennials and Gen Zers - should be afforded the opportunity to say who "deserves" to have free speech. To paraphrase former ambassador Stevenson again, everyone should feel safe enough to be unpopular.

Adding insult to injury, there are several people today who are actually happy that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. They detested what he had to say, they loathed him for his beliefs, and now they're rejoicing at the news of his death. At the end of the day, I think that's the greatest tragedy in all of this. I may disagree with others' opinions, sometimes vehemently, but no one should fear for their safety just because I think they're wrong about something. No one needs to die just because they've said something unpopular.

All this discussion brings me back to my opening statement, for it is the people who consistently preach messages of "coexistence" and "tolerance" whom I have usually found to be paradoxically the least tolerant and least interested in living peacefully with others and others' opinions.

In closing, if you disliked Charlie Kirk, I understand why, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But Kirk didn't deserve to die for his opinions. And if you're one of the people who is glad that he was killed earlier today, then you should seriously reconsider your worldview, because Charlie Kirk wasn't the problem - you are.

To be blunt, there were some jobs within the military that not everyone could do.  But that had nothing to do with gender or race - it was a question of skills and abilities.

I didn't care if a man or a woman volunteered for any specific position within our armed services - as far as I was concerned, it only mattered if they could accomplish the mission. It didn't matter if ten people were needed for a mission and it took seven women and three men, or eight men and two women, or any mixture of white, black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. soldiers. What screwed things up was when I witnessed firsthand that DEI idiots were demanding that some roles needed to be "easier" so that a "more diverse population" could get in.

I saw a Warrant Officer argue against reducing the skills necessary to complete the Army's Air Assault program so that more women could pass the course. When he was accused of being a chauvinist he replied, "Combat isn't sexist. A bullet doesn't care if you're a man or a woman. The person standing next to you needs to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will be able to have their back when the time comes."

When we reduce the qualifications of certain jobs in the name of "equal outcomes," we jeopardize everyone's safety.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why I chose this specific cafe to sample the local chocolate-dipped churros?

First of all, no - Kamala Harris did not say that, and the source of this fictitious quote is a satire website. But these sorts of statements make me angry, because they're so easily refuted by the facts. For this specific example, see the articles Social Media Posts Treat Fictional Harris ‘Quote’ as Fact and No, Harris Never Said Trump's Supporters Would 'Feel the Vengeance of a Nation'. Whenever I see political tripe such as this show up on social media, all it does is reinforce the ignorance of the person who reposted it. Not just because the information these political dupes are posting is verifiably false, but also because it publicly demonstrates that these sycophantic suckers are incapable of both telling the difference between fact and fiction and being capable of simple searches that might uncover the truth. (Which is kind of frightening when you think about it.)

Don't get me wrong, Kamala has said a lot of stupid things, and that should have been a dead giveaway that this was fake. If Kamala had ACTUALLY wanted to say something like the original post, it would have been more like the following example:

Now, tell me the truth... you could hear that in your head in Kamala's voice as you read it, right? That's what Kamala Harris actually sounds like when she speaks, and that's why that original quote is easily outed as a hoax. Kamala simply doesn't have the speaking skills or presence of mind to deliver something as succinct as the original post - even with a teleprompter desperately trying to guide her.

POSTSCRIPT:

To be fair, Biden could have said something much like the original quotation 20 or 30 years ago before his brain had turned to cottage cheese. But if he had, his speech would have been stolen from a speech that someone else had given, since Biden was a career plagiarist - see https://tinyurl.com/yj2wdp7b - but I digress. 😉