Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Sunday, 13 August 2017

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, by James Damore

Filed under: Politics, Reading, Technology — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:25 PM (21:25)

FULL TEXT OF JAMES DAMORE MEMO

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

by James Damore

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay / high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google — with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company./li>

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

  • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

  • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeling another’s pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. British Journal of Guidance & CounsellingWomen, careers, and work-life preferences by Catherine Hakim [Article linked to in the original document by J. Damore]
  2. PDF version (also here)

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 935 – 13 August 2017

Advertisements

Friday, 11 November 2016

Back Into Blogger, but for How Long?

Filed under: Frustrations, Life, Technology — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:43 PM (23:43)

Over a week ago (Tuesday, 1 November 2016, about 1:00 PM MST), I tried to log into Blogger from my Toshiba Satellite laptop (running Linux Mint 17 and Firefox) to post an article to the LPNM blog, and the Google login screen prompted me for my phone number for verification purposes.

So I put my cell number in and clicked “Submit.” A few seconds later, I received a code like this: “G-123456” (not the real code, obviously).

Then I typed in the verification code, but the screen for it would only allow me to imput the first four numbers: “G-1234.” Clicking “Submit” gave me an error message, as I also received when I tried “G12345” and “123456.” A few tries of that and I was locked out.

So I tried again, with my Dell desktop running MS Windows 7, and got the same web-based song and dance. This time, at the end of it, up popped a screen telling me that my account was locked for an alleged terms of service violation, but that was it – no word as to what that violation was. So I typed in my email address, along with a request for some enlightenment as to what I had done wong, and clicked “Appeal.”

In the same time frame, my Gmail account (another Google product) was also locked up. I was able to access that a few days later, and it seems that they were in the process of upgrading the Gmail software.

Just a few minutes ago (Friday, 11 Novemner 2016, 10:49 PM), I tried once more to access my Blogger account.

This time I was surprised that the admins actually let me in, after over a week of denying me access without telling me WHY they were denying me access.

(I realize that Google and its subsidiaries are in the private sector, and my use of them is subject to their rules. More on that below.)

This is what I found —

Here’s the full text of it —

Libertarian Party of Mora County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of McKinley County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of Hidalgo County, New Mexico — [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of Harding County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of Guadalupe County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of Grant County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of De Baca County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

Libertarian Party of Curry County, New Mexico [ Permanently delete ] [ Appeal ]
Your blog was locked for violating Terms Of Service. If you wish to request a review of your blog, edit its content and click ‘Appeal’. This blog will be permanently deleted within 79 days unless you request a review.

The other 26 county affiliate blogs were presumably free from Terms of Service violations, and are thus unlocked (at present).

Still, Google (or Blogger) won’t tell me the specific nature of the alleged violations. Which is rather shitty of them — wouldn’t you want to know if you were violating someone’s rules for their property, and how exactly you were violating those rules?

Luckily, there’s nothing on the affected blogs that I don’t already have backed up, so losing them won’t really be a loss.

Still, it was a bit of work on my part to set them all up.

With that, I’ll be downloading the archives to my hard drive(s) here, and moving them to the LPNM’s WordPress install.

Fuck it, I like WordPress better anyway.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / WordPress.com

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 16 May 2016

No Chrome For Me

Filed under: Frustrations, Life, Technology — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:05 PM (18:05)

Way back when, say, around December, 2008, I downloaded and installed Google Chrome. At the time I first tried it, I was also having connectivity problems. Which, if you’re a Chrome user, is a big problem, because Chrome needs to connect to Google’s servers to actually, you know, function at all. When I got nowhere with it, I decided “that’s enough for me.”

Side note: This is a big reason I have no interest in buying a Chromebook, as the Chromebook also requires a connection to the Google servers. Sometimes I need to do things at home. And I prefer to store my files at home, where I know where they are — “store it on the cloud” is just a fancy way to say “trust ME with your files . . .”

Fast-forward seven years and change . . .

Today I was halfway across Albuquerque, and opened Chrome on my new phone (an LG K7) to check for Pizza 9 locations near me. I typed in “pizza9.com,” and instead of just taking me to that site, Chrome bounced me over to btnactive.net, then something else, finally ending up on pizzahut.com

Mind you, this is the FIRST TIME I’ve launched Chrome on this phone or any other device or system, since 2008.

And it’s also a brand-new phone — I purchased it on Friday at about 5:45 PM, and haven’t used it much.

So I installed Mozilla Firefox instead.

In a way, it’s sort of good that this happened, as about three hours later, I found out that my debit account had been hacked . . .


Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit and Notepad++.

Tuesday, 25 December 2007

Searching for Myself

Filed under: Life — Tags: , — mikewb1971 @ 2:59 PM (14:59)

Every so often, I run a Google search on myself to see what comes up:

Google search for “Mike Blessing” — I place frequently in the top ten here (first place goes to a West Virginia realtor). Also listed along with me is the deputy city manager of Oceanside, California, a church chorus singer, and a Catholic priest in Ohio. I wonder what they think when they run Google searches on themselves and my stuff keeps popping up?

Google search for “mikewb1971” — OK, let’s narrow it down a bit — this search is just for my stuff. I get 1,350 hits — not bad. My Myspace site comes up first, and this Xanga site comes up fourth

Google search for “MikeinABQNM” — I used to use the handle “MikeinABQNM,” but I switched to “mikewb1971” because that’s more transportable — if I were to move away from Albuquerque, the older handle would no longer apply. Funny here that I’ve apparently got a profile or two here that I don’t remember creating.

Google search for “GunsSaveLives” — This is my handle on Victor Milan‘s message board, and was my handle on “Free Republic” until a few days ago, after I made a politically- incorrect comment about the Iraq Occupation (my account there has been suspended or deleted).


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Xanga

Copyright © 2007 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Thursday, 21 September 2006

What Was I Arrested For?

Filed under: Fun, Humor, Quizzes / Surveys — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:37 PM (15:37)

Current mood: amused

Ok, find out how you will be arrested, the Google way.

Go to Google, type “(your FIRST name) was arrested for” and see what you got sent to the slammer for. Remember to use the quotation marks! Stick your result below . . .

76. Mike was arrested for a lot of things — DWI, drugs, guns, B&E, rape, forgery, burglary, public indecency, burglary, theft, drunk & disorderly, traffic tickets, murder, grafitti, theft, trespassing, attempted assassination, political crimes. (Ten points for style (See Walter Jon Williams’ Divertimenti books for that reference!) to the person who guesses which of these comes closest to the truth.)

75. Katie was arrested for stealing bike tickets.

That isn’t the half of it. Seems that Katie has her bad side, too.

74. Miguel was arrested for playing traditional folk music. — Dammit, there go my chances of becoming president. 😛

73. “Charity was arrested for the bombing of the Egyptian embassy”…. AHAHAHA

72. “Beau was arrested for attempted murder, vehicular homicide, and man slaughter”

71. Michael was arrested for “Ulawfully restraining a girl, preforming a lewd act in a public restroom, corporate espionage, and Angel’s murder.” I been busy.

70. Tiffany was arrested for a felony unlawful mischief charge a couple of years ago. She and three others were charged. They spray painted graffiti on a bridge. lol….. you know me im such the little hoodlum..lol

69. Ryan was arrested for stealing underwear from the Black Flag store in January…

68. Jen was arrested for allegedly assaulting a police officer

67. Mike was arrested for his anti-fascist activities on at least two occasions.

666. Bob was arrested for stealing bundles of copper wire and bits of brass and aluminum from a scrap yard in October 1994, six months after his 18th birthday ….Sounds like something I would do.

65. Chris was arrested for trying to blackmail a state senator in Arizona

64. Arthur was arrested for “conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act.”

63. Michelle was arrested for welfare fraud. (I keep telling you people Im broke!)

62. Chloe was arrested for plotting and meticulously carrying out the brutal slayings of 61 bored myspace bulletin abusers……………..dicks.

61. Googling Unk came up with nothing so I went with my real name. “Brianw as arrested for a first degree murder in January 1987.”

60. “Daniel was arrested for doing nothing more than standing on the sidewalk.” It was self-defense.

[ Numbers 1-59 snipped because I don’t have the patience to repost them here. — MWB ]


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Myspace / Xanga

Copyright © 2006 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: