Big Brother is NOT the Government, it’s CORPORATIONS

Yeah… it’s fixin’ to get POLITICAL — as in ALL UP IN YO’ BIZNISS!

Almost EVERYONE complains about Congress, but not everyone votes. Some don’t for religious reasons, some don’t because that RIGHT has been voided by the government, others just don’t give a shit because they say “no one listens to me, anyway,” and for the greatest part, they’re correct. With a Representative-to-People ratio of 1-to-766,000, there’s no question — you’re NOT being heard, and they don’t care… or else ongoing & necessary would’ve happened long ago.

BUT!

There IS a group(s) who ARE listening to & watching you… all WITHOUT your knowledge.

You could call them “Big Brother,” but it’s NOT the government… it’s private enterprise — corporations not only in America, but worldwide.

Yeah.

You see,

Our “Privacy” Policy

Policy is NOT law.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, defines policy as:

1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company’s personnel policy.
2. a. A course of action, guiding principle, or procedure considered expedient, prudent, or advantageous: Honesty is the best policy.
b. Prudence, shrewdness, or sagacity in practical matters: It is never good policy to speak rashly.

Policy can change at any time, for any reason. It is not set in stone.

Furthermore, policy is not legally binding, nor is it a promise, and can be violated at any time, for any reason whatsoever, even by the one that establishes “policy.” A company does NOT have to abide by their “policy.”

Companies that have so-called “Privacy” policies are simply pulling your leg. They’re buffaloing you, pulling the wool over your eyes, fooling you, into believing that they actually “care” (give a rat’s ass) about you.

They do not.

To them, you’re nothing but a sales tool, to be exploited, bought, sold, and traded on the open market — a means to an end, that end being increasing their bank account.

Seriously.

Now, think about it for just one moment: Why, or what possible legitimate business reason, would ANY company have to “respect” your “privacy,” unless they had an ulterior motive (or policy) to violate it to begin with?

That’s like a couple going out on a first date, and one says to the other, “I don’t kiss on the first date,” while the other says, “That’s okay… I don’t mind. But I fuck on the first date,” and then proceeds to rape the one — but doesn’t kiss.

So to the other’s way of thinking, the one’s “policy” of not kissing was upheld.

That’s what a so-called “privacy” policy is like to businesses.

It’s like going into a dressing room, changing clothes, and admiring yourself in the mirror, only to find out later that it was a “one-way mirror,” and that you were not only being watched the entire time, but being recorded, as well — AND, that the video was sold — all without your knowledge, or consent.

How about THEM apples, eh?

Yeah.

THAT is what’s going on.

Why?

Because Congress has NOT given Americans any online privacy protection laws like the European Union has.

Or Japan.

The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution states, verbatim:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.

That amendment is NOT limited to the government, because

Alabama GOP Politicians Meddle In Healthcare To Deny Treatment

Should government exercise control over its citizens to the extent that:
a.) Certain types of private health care is illegal;
b.) Certain people are denied care?

Should your neighbors (aka “the government”) have the right to tell you, and/or your family, what you can, or cannot be treated for by a licensed healthcare professional?

Suppose someone said, “Well… I don’t think you need to be treated for

Will You Release Your Medical Records?

Just in the case you may not know it, there’s a law in our United States called HIPAA, which is the acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Signed into law in 1996 by then-POTUS Bill Clinton, the long title is “An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1996 to improve portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of health insurance, and for other purposes.”

The biggest takeaway from the bill for most people is the privacy it mandates for patient’s medical records, care, and treatment. With fines/penalties for violation starting at $250,000 per violation, an entire industry has grown up around HIPAA.

The Department of Health and Human Services summarizes, in part, the law’s privacy provisions:

“The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop regulations protecting the privacy and security of certain health information.¹ To fulfill this requirement, HHS published what are commonly known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the HIPAA Security Rule. The Privacy Rule, or Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, establishes national standards for the protection of certain health information. The Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information (the Security Rule) establish a national set of security standards for protecting certain health information that is held or transferred in electronic form. The Security Rule operationalizes the protections contained in the Privacy Rule by addressing the technical and non-technical safeguards that organizations called “covered entities” must put in place to secure individuals’ “electronic protected health information” (e-PHI). Within HHS, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has responsibility for enforcing the Privacy and Security Rules with voluntary compliance activities and civil money penalties.”

POTUS Bill Clinton Signing HIPAA

Before the HIPAA existed, there were no security standards nor requirements to protect patients’ health information or patients privacy in the entire health care industry. In reality, physicians, or anyone with access to the record – including the janitor and housekeeping crew – could simply access and divulge a patient’s entire medical record to the press, or to anyone, without any legal recourse for the victim. Now, it’s a violation of the law to even discuss any Personal Health Information, or Personally Identifying Information about the patient outside of a clinical setting, and that includes on elevators in hospitals. The law is so strict, that anyone who is not involved in the patient’s care cannot access the patient’s record without violating the law.

There have been cases where renown individuals, or those with celebrity status, including politicians, have had their records accessed by those within the healthcare system in violation of the law, ostensibly to satisfy their 24karat curiosity, or for other nefarious purposes, such as to gossip about the patient, or to divulge the information they found to the press. Healthcare organizations, especially large ones, are particularly sensitive to such violations of the HIPAA, and many, if not most, have policy in place to censure, or most often, dismiss for cause (fire) any employee who examines a record of a patient whom they’re not treating, or caring for.

In short, the law safeguards and protects patients’ right to privacy of their healthcare information in ways the average patient cannot imagine, including transmission of such information electronically, such as via facsimile or Internet.

The law also provides authorization for a patient to request a healthcare organization voluntarily release select portions of, or their entire medical records, to individuals whom they specify, such as to attorneys who may be representing their interests in a matter of law, including to the patients themselves, personally.

What many may not know about the law, is that it was a bipartisan bill sponsored by

Poll: Americans Unhappy With Abortion Laws

New polling released by Gallup shows that “Fifty-eight percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the nation’s policies on abortion, marking a seven-percentage-point increase from one year ago and a new high in Gallup’s trend.”

Gallup released the findings of their research from a

What If I Told You…

That Google knows where stuff is in your house?

Too far fetched?

Not really.

If you have a “Roomba” brand robot vacuum cleaner device, The Great G knows your house layout.

Seriously.

Danger, Will Robinson… DANGER! Big Brother IS Watching -and- Listening!

Feeling paranoid?

Not to worry.

You just think you are.

But it’s true.

YOU’RE BEING WATCHED.

-and-

Did you know?

Even the direction-finding app Waze is owned by Google.

The G will eat your babies.

The G has already eaten your lunch.

And G, you didn’t even know it.

The G is Google.

So, here’s the deal: You THINK you’re searching for something and the search will return UNBIASED results… right?

WRONG!

From Forbes, Mar 5, 2012, 12:34pm: “Google will track what you search for in its search engine facility and then use that intelligence to its advantage.”

But we can go back even further to see where “You’re not the customer; you’re the product.”

In 1973 the artists Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman broadcast a short video titled “Television Delivers People.” An anodyne soundtrack played while sentences in white text on a blue background slowly scrolled upward. The messages displayed thematically matched the saying under exploration. Emphases were added to the excerpt by Quote Investigator: ¹”

Commercial television delivers 20 million people a minute.
In commercial broadcasting
the viewer pays for the privilege of having himself sold.
It is the consumer who is consumed.
You are the product of t.v.
You are delivered to the advertiser who is the customer.
He consumes you.
The viewer is not responsible for programming——
You are the end product.

If you think that anything has changed, you’re WRONG AGAIN.

This time, it’s Google.

And not only is there online Google, there’s now the danger of Amazon’s Alexa listening device, which increasingly is being found to be not only INSECURE, but invasive.

Truly…

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!

Look, I’m not now, nor have I ever been one to be conspiracy-minded, nor any kind of fear-monger. But THIS is not surreptitious, this is BLATANT! Echo/Alexa, Siri, Cortana and Google’s Home Assistant are ALL privacy invaders! Those so-called “smart speakers” are ALWAYS LISTENING! They’re snoops! Blatant eavesdroppers! And the tragic irony is, folks freely give up their privacy to have that “shiny new thing.”

Okay, perhaps you don’t have that “shiny new thing,” and if you don’t, GOOD FOR YOU! But

Should Government Force You To Abort? To Give Birth? To Get Pregnant? Where Does It Stop?

Some rightfully believe/feel/think that government should NOT be making decisions for them and ask, “Do we really want government making decisions about our health care?” They are steadfastly convinced that they should make such important decisions for themselves.

I agree.

People should be free to make their own decisions in such matters. I don’t want the government, or someone else making decisions for me when I’m fully capable of making them for myself. That’s one HUGE reason why I support

#Abortion Is A #Religious Matter

Your remark “in God we trust” has validated what I wrote, which is that “Abortion is a religious matter. It is NOT one for the government.”

On a strictly PERSONAL RELIGIOUS level, I oppose abortion. And yet, as a strictly legal, Constitutional matter, I acknowledge that our United States Supreme Court has decided that we the people have the FREEDOM to make deeply personal decisions for ourselves, WITHOUT governmental interference.

Imagine, if you can, if the government told you that you must have a tubal ligation, or that you must have a hysterectomy… or, for a man, that he must have a vasectomy, or an orchidectomy (surgical removal of the testicles) so that they could no longer reproduce. Would you like that? Would you think that would be good? What if your neighbor could

Late Term #Abortion #Politics On #DebateNight

A few thoughts on a Presidential Debate topic by Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, with candidates Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) from the third, and final debate held last night at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Wednesday, 19 October 2016:

1.) Tweet from Dr. Jen Gunter, MD: “There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion – I’m a doctor who trained in late term abortions”
https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/788912646330257408

2.) A portion of her blog entry (linked herein) on the topic from the Debate states: “Trump’s statement, as incorrect as it may be, supports the fallacy of the due-date abortion. It is a common anti-choice narrative that

Deep Data Mining & Personal Privacy: The NSA has NOTHING on BIG BUSINESS

Much ado about nothing.

That’s how I describe the recent ruckus & hullabaloo made about the recent UK news story that “revealed” the U.S. National Security Agency is “spying” on American citizens at home.

The reality is, that the information the NSA is creating is called “metadata,” is a set of data that describes & gives information about other data. Phone numbers called, dates, times & length of calls is NOTHING by comparison to what BIG BUSINESS knows about us already.

Why do you get certain junk mail?

Ever got junk mail from the AARP?

If you’re near age 50, or older, you probably already have.

Ever gotten junk mail from Social Security, Medicare, FDIC, or even your Congressman or Senator?

I dare say you have NEVER.

When you bought your car, if you borrowed money to purchase it, the bank or credit union which loaned the money to you performed a background credit check on you before they loaned their money to you.

Where do you think they got such information? The federal government?

Please… don’t insult my intelligence.

When you applied for a credit card, did you happen to list your age or birthdate on the application?

What about the life, health, auto, or house insurance policies you have? Did you mention your relationship status, number of children, their ages, specifics of your health including medicines, treatments, surgeries, income & source, length of residency, height, weight, or even the size, color & consistency of your last bowel movement?

I would imagine the answer to ALL those questions – at one time or another – has been “yes.”

And yet, unless you’ve served in the Armed Services, or as a

Once, upon a time, FaceBookistan held a vote on their Privacy Policy… and there was 0.04% turnout.

Now let’s be honest about this.

How many people here KNEW that FaceBook was conducting a privacy policy vote?

Raise your hands and wave if you did.

How’d you find out?

Did you tell your friends?

Do these issue even raise the slightest bit of concern with you?

Even if these issues do concern you, why doesn’t FaceBook make greater, more significant efforts to inform their user base & general public?

Slowly but surely FaceBookistan is becoming like the elephant in the tent.

Slowly but surely, your privacy is being eroded.

Does anyone really give a rat’s rip?

—

Facebook Holds a Vote and Turnout Is Low

By SOMINI SENGUPTA, June 8, 2012, 9:39 pm

It has more than 900 million people. It has its own currency. And this month, for the first time, the digital republic known as Facebook held elections of a sort: it offered users a chance to vote on the way the site is governed, including how the company deploys its users’ data.

Turnout was spectacularly bad in the digital republic that the writer Rebecca Mackinnon has dubbed Facebookistan. Fewer than 350,000 Facebook users voted, or under 0.04 percent.

“Given these efforts and the subsequent turnout,” Elliot Schrage, its vice president of communications and public policy, wrote on the site, “We plan to

FaceBook jokes aside, are there GENUINE dangers in Social Media?

Slowly, but surely, there is a resounding “YES!” which is beginning to reverberate throughout the nation, in response to that question.

Recently, news reports have emerged that FaceBook‘s lawyers are seeking a way around the “Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.” Mr. Zuckerberg’s opposition to COPPA is well-known. In a May 2011 interview with CNNMoney writer Michal Lev-Ram, when asked how he would deal with COPPA, said “Because of the restrictions we haven’t even begun this learning process. If they’re lifted then we’d start to learn what works. That will be a fight we take on at some point.”

[Ed. note: The COPPA may be read here: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm]

That federal law, in essence, forbade (that is, made illegal) any effort by an online entity from collecting personally identifying information from children.

And, true to form, there will doubtlessly be laws enacted, and court cases decided that deal with issues of commerce, privacy, First Amendment rights, and other certain freedoms that we as people freely exercise.

Doubtless as well, those pushing the limits will be corporations – those “artificial” persons, which – according to the United States Supreme Court – also have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as any real person.

And then again, there’ll be the TEA Party/Republican radicals that scream “too much government, too much regulation, smaller government, less regulation – let the free market decide!”

In essence, not only have you already become a commodity that is bought, sold & traded (think “slavery” – yes, I’m dead serious), but you will soon no longer have any rights to control the invasive eavesdropping/electronic surveillance/stalking that the companies perform against you while you peruse their websites or use their software. Suffice it to say, the information they collect about you is not yours, but rather theirs.

And just so you’ll be aware, this FaceBook problem is not exclusively limited to the United States.

Before closing this commentary, I’d like to let readers know that there are several good browser add-ons that assist privacy efforts. Among them are “HTTPS Everywhere” – by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and “DNT+” – by Abine. Of course, Aurora by Mozilla/Firefox is a more secure browser than either Microsoft Internet Explorer, or Apple’s Safari.

I encourage you to also read the Consumer Reports article on FaceBook privacy which follows this item.

—

ADDENDUM Tuesday, 26 November 2013:

F.B. (Fluff Busting) Purity (FBPurity.com) is an anti-spam, browser extension / add-on that lets you clean up and customize Facebook. It filters out the junk you don’t want to see, leaving behind the stories and page elements you do wish to see. The list of story types that FBP hides is customizable to your taste. It alters your view of Facebook to show only relevant information to you. It removes annoying and irrelevant stories from your newsfeed such as game and application spam, ads and sponsored stories. It also hides the boxes you don’t want to see on each side of the newsfeed.

—

Wising Up to Facebook

June 10, 2012, By BILL KELLER

WHAT’S the difference, I asked a tech-writer friend, between the billionaire media mogul Mark Zuckerberg and the billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch?

When Rupert invades your privacy, my friend e-mailed back, it’s against the law. When Mark does, it’s the future.

There is truth in that riposte: we deplore the violations exposed in the phone-hacking scandal at Murdoch’s British tabloids, while we surrender our privacy on a far grander scale to Facebook and call it “community.” Our love of Facebook has been a submissive love.

But now, not so much. In recent weeks it seems the world has begun to turn a jaundiced eye on this global megaplatform. While that may not please Facebook’s executives, it is a good thing for the rest of us — and maybe for the future of social media, too.

The recent history of the Facebook phenomenon has been a serial bursting of illusions.

Most conspicuously, there was the

What’s the deal on a Facebook Privacy Notice?

Are people really that stupid?

Wait… that’s a rhetorical question.

But this does beg the question: It’s your information, it belongs to you because it’s about you – even if you use FaceBook. Why shouldn’t you have a say in how it’s harvested & used?

I’m not the only one predicting a new era of lawmaking pertaining to this type of electronic stalking.

—

Don’t Bother Posting the “Facebook Privacy Notice” That’s Spreading Around

By David Sydiongco

Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2012, at 12:13 PM ET

Just because Facebook has gone public does not mean its user terms and conditions have changed. (Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/GettyImages)

Since late last month, Facebook users have been posting a legal-sounding “privacy notice.” By putting the notice on their timelines, they hope, they will become exempt from the terms and conditions of Facebook’s “Data Use Policy,” which users agree to upon initially signing up.

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. As the urban-legend-debunking site Snopes explains, “[T]he basic premise is false.”

“We have noticed this recent status update that is being widely shared implying the ownership of your Facebook content has recently changed,” Alex Kirschner, a member of Faceook’s PR team, told me. “This is not true and has never been the case.”

While there are some variations, most of the warnings look like this:

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Or… maybe not.

Believe it or else, there were opponents to air bags, seat belts and child safety restraints.

Some time, someone will oppose everything… even vanilla ice cream and Mother’s Day.

There are, I suppose, several ways to consider the following.

One could presume the psychotic Chicken Little, paranoid delusional “the-sky-is-falling” approach, or, one could suppose the device is only an extension of someone who cannot tell a lie… or, at least is very difficult to deliberately fabricate falsehood.

And then, there’s something in the middle.

I would imagine that’s where the truth resides.
—

A Black Box in Your Car?

By Sam Favate, April 23, 2012, 1:40 PM

If you thought having EZ Pass in your car would make it too easy for the government to track you, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The Senate passed a bill in March that calls for “mandatory event data recorders” (or black boxes) to be installed in all new passenger motor vehicles, starting with the 2015 models, and which would record data before, during or after a crash, according to KurzweilAI.net.

The bill, which can be seen here, has a privacy provision but gives the government the authority to access the black box in a number of circumstances, including court order, consent of the owner, an investigation or inspection, or to determine the need for emergency responses.

The same bill would allow the IRS to

Federal Investigators: Google obstructed justice in snooping case

To some, the decline was in full swing when the term “google” became a proper name, but when “Google” as a proper name (and therefore a noun) began to be used as a verb, as in “Google it,” when referring to an Internet-based search.

Is this not another case in point for strong regulation?

—

Google fined by FCC for impeding Street View probe

By Hayley Tsukayama, Monday, April 16, 9:44 AM

The Federal Communications Commission has cleared Google of charges that it illegally collected WiFi data using its Street View cars, but fined the company $25,000 for obstructing the bureau’s investigation.

According to the FCC filing, the company has not been helping U.S. regulators look into the matter. “For many months, Google deliberately impeded and delayed the Bureau’s investigation by

FaceBook to Congress: We’re going to give users’ phone, address to others

FaceBook is a privately held firm, and much – if not all – of their financial facts are not public record, so any remarks by any firms other than FB themselves are pure speculation. That being observed, it has been remarked that FB does not generate significant revenue by advertising. Their “click through” rate is far less than half the industry norm. So “sharing” (that ‘s a poor euphemism for SELLING) contact information database is the solitary most valuable thing they have. Further complicating matters, FB’s apps have been well-known to be a repository for malware.

Facebook will soon share users’ phone numbers and addresses with 3rd parties

By Brett Michael Dykes – 3:49PM ET

Tuesday, 01March2011

It’s been a while since we’ve had an uproar over Facebook’s handling of its users personal information, so we suppose the time is ripe.

So cue the online outrage: Facebook announced today in a letter to Congress that the social-media platform is moving forward with plans to give

Welcome to our Incestuous Fiscal Orgy

On June 1 this year, I had posted a photo and commented about it. The following is that commentary. Though the picture is not necessary to support the entry, it served as a malignant source of inspiration. However, if you simply must see the photograph…

Welcome to our Incestuous Fiscal Orgy – State Farm Privacy Policy

Text of the area of the note:
“Why are we sending you a Notice of our Privacy Policy?

“Federal law permits banks, investment companies, and insurance companies to

What’s the Buzz about?

Google rarely contacts Gmail users via email, but we are making an exception to let you know that we’ve reached a settlement in a lawsuit regarding Google Buzz (http://buzz.google.com), a service we launched within Gmail in February of this year.

Shortly after its launch, we heard from a number of people who were concerned about privacy. In addition, we were sued by a group of Buzz users and recently reached a settlement in this case.

The settlement acknowledges that we

How Can I Customize Who Sees My FaceBook Posts?

Gee! I didn’t know I could do that!

Face it, sometimes we say things that we don’t want others to hear. Same thing goes for writing. Especially in a social environment like FaceBook!

While many folks may NOT know how to use FaceBook’s features, there are a few things that can be learned simply be watching others. So, while I’m not here guiding or holding your hand through this process, I think you’ll “get the picture” once you

A Short History of “Privacy” in American Jurisprudence

Privacy

[Note: This entry was originally entitled “Privacy,” and was transferred to this site, having previously been posted by me on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 2:57pm.]

“Privacy” is a relatively new term in American jurisprudence, and public dialogue. Former US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, an AL native, wrote against “privacy” in his dissent in Griswold v Connecticut.

The development of our right to privacy emerged, interestingly enough, from Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court Case which challenged the state’s 1879 criminalizing of a married couple’s use of contraceptive devices. Appellants were the

The title of this entry is “More sex!” No… Wait… Yes! “More sex!”

Ta-daah! This entry is about…. SEX!

Yup.

Sex.

Specifically, sexual prophecy!

Oh yeah!

Read on!

Goodfellas: Robert DeNiro, Ray Liotta, Hugo Black, Joe Pesci, Mama, Daddy, Jesus

Though it was nominated for several categories, only One Oscar emerged from the 1990 Martin Scorsese-directed film Goodfellas, which is the internal award those in the film and motion picture production industry give themselves. Joe Pesci, playing the character Tommy DeVito, won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role in Goodfellas.

Robert DeNiro, whom played the Irish character James “Jimmy” Conway, and Ray Liotta, whom played Irish-Italian protagonist Henry Hill, and Paul Sorvino, whom played the character of the local Lucchese family mob boss Paul Cicero, neither won any such acclaim or coveted award.

Based on the book and screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi, the story circulates around the fictitious character Henry Hill, whom as a 1955 youth began his life of crime, first with skipping school to park cars for nefarious Lucchese mob family members in his Brooklyn, New York City neighborhood, and gradually progressing into a full-fledged mobster.

Desiring a life of crime, Henry Hill understands becoming a “made man,” is a difficult obstacle he must overcome to become a full-fledged member of the Lucchese crime family. Yet his criminal mentor Jimmy Conway, whom is Paul Cicero’s close associate, can neither become a “made man,” because of his Irish heritage.

With Paul Cicero’s blessing, Jimmy Conway puts Henry Hill and Tommy DeVito together, and they become fast friends, and criminal compatriots.

As the story develops the characters, Henry meets and falls in love with Karen Friedman, described as a “no-nonsense Jewish girl,” and they eventually marry and have children.

Throughout the film, the strength and close-knit nature of the criminal companions and their families is demonstrated. The men work their various criminal enterprises together, their wives shop together, their children attend school and play with each other, and their families visit, dine and vacation together. The men are in constant contact with each other, and so are their wives and children. The strength of their bond is observed as a natural by-product of their consistent fellowship.

Eventually, Henry Hill cultivates a mistress named