Sunday, September 28, 2014
Tiny Houses are Awesome
I agree with almost everything this guy is saying, except for the millions and billions of years, evolutionary crap.
In my truck driving days, I passed this guys place about 8 or more times and always wished I could have stopped to check the place out. He's right on the Interstate 10 frontage road near Luling, Texas. I would seriously consider moving there. He is building a community.
Invisible Art, Invisible Brains
If this turns out to be a hoax, I apologize.
What are these people looking at?
A documentary team from the Canadian Broadcasting radio network traveled to Lana Newstrom's empty studio to learn more about her art that isn't there.
"Just because you can't see anything, doesn't mean I didn't put hours of work into creating a particular piece," Newstrom told the CBC. "Art is about imagination and that is what my work demands of the people interacting with it. You have to imagine a painting or sculpture is in front of you."
The most amusing aspect of the story is the image of snobby art collectors walking through an empty studio studiously staring at blank walls with track lighting properly illuminating the nothingness on display. Some of the art afficianados actually stop and soak in the lack of art that is not hanging on the blank wall and tilt their heads in a deeply thoughtful way as if to project their profound understanding of the message sent by the brilliant young artist and her stunning ability to not create anything.
Newstrom's agent, who is undoubtedly raking in a nice commission by his client's ability to not do anything, says, "When she describes what you can't see, you begin to realize why one of her invisible works can fetch upwards of a million dollars."
This story was not, we repeat, not published in The Onion.
I wish I had the funds to hire a polling firm to be there every hour the gallery is open, and be able to demand that every person who walks through the door submit to the questionnaire that I get to design. There will be a string of non-threatening, innocuous questions. Then there will be these questions:
(#) Would you support tax-payer funding for this art through the NEA?
(#) Of all the pieces you have viewed here today, which one had the most impact on you, and why? Please be very specific.
(#) What policital party or philosophy of government would you describe yourself as being most aligned with? Again, be very specific.
What are these people looking at?
A 27-year-old New York artist has invented something called "invisible art" and she is making millions selling it to people who absolutely must have it.
A documentary team from the Canadian Broadcasting radio network traveled to Lana Newstrom's empty studio to learn more about her art that isn't there.
"Just because you can't see anything, doesn't mean I didn't put hours of work into creating a particular piece," Newstrom told the CBC. "Art is about imagination and that is what my work demands of the people interacting with it. You have to imagine a painting or sculpture is in front of you."
The most amusing aspect of the story is the image of snobby art collectors walking through an empty studio studiously staring at blank walls with track lighting properly illuminating the nothingness on display. Some of the art afficianados actually stop and soak in the lack of art that is not hanging on the blank wall and tilt their heads in a deeply thoughtful way as if to project their profound understanding of the message sent by the brilliant young artist and her stunning ability to not create anything.
Newstrom's agent, who is undoubtedly raking in a nice commission by his client's ability to not do anything, says, "When she describes what you can't see, you begin to realize why one of her invisible works can fetch upwards of a million dollars."
This story was not, we repeat, not published in The Onion.
I wish I had the funds to hire a polling firm to be there every hour the gallery is open, and be able to demand that every person who walks through the door submit to the questionnaire that I get to design. There will be a string of non-threatening, innocuous questions. Then there will be these questions:
(#) Would you support tax-payer funding for this art through the NEA?
(#) Of all the pieces you have viewed here today, which one had the most impact on you, and why? Please be very specific.
(#) What policital party or philosophy of government would you describe yourself as being most aligned with? Again, be very specific.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Reconcile?
In this incredibly fast paced world, it is hard to catch the subtle things. Things that ought to make you sit up, raise an eyebrow and say, "What was that?"
I was reading this recent post, today, by Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta.
Grouchy's point seems to be mostly about the Fergeson, MO debacle. And I get that. But what should make all of us sit up and go, "WTF?" is the last sentence.
“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”
Oh, hell no. Not just no, The last thing we need to be doing is reconciling our traditions with globalization. That's one of the biggest reasons we are in the mess we are in. Our economy and freedom is swirling in the toilet bowl because we are allowing the creeping globalization to take over in this country.
Reconciling with greater diversity? How is that working out after decades? How about working toward consensus built around the founding principles of our Constitution and individual freedom, instead of trying to see how different we can all be in language, culture and values.
So much more I could say about that, but I'm keeping it short today. I'm celebrating the Sabbath, Yom Teruah, and Rosh Chodesh.
Shalom
I was reading this recent post, today, by Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta.
Grouchy's point seems to be mostly about the Fergeson, MO debacle. And I get that. But what should make all of us sit up and go, "WTF?" is the last sentence.
“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”
Oh, hell no. Not just no, The last thing we need to be doing is reconciling our traditions with globalization. That's one of the biggest reasons we are in the mess we are in. Our economy and freedom is swirling in the toilet bowl because we are allowing the creeping globalization to take over in this country.
Reconciling with greater diversity? How is that working out after decades? How about working toward consensus built around the founding principles of our Constitution and individual freedom, instead of trying to see how different we can all be in language, culture and values.
“Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen — written in blood — from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.”
― Thomas Sowell
So much more I could say about that, but I'm keeping it short today. I'm celebrating the Sabbath, Yom Teruah, and Rosh Chodesh.
Shalom
None Dare Call It Jihad
BY:
Mark Vaughn was able to stop Alton Nolen’s violent rampage through an Oklahoma food distribution warehouse by shooting him with a rifle.
Vaughn came upon Nolen while he was brutally attacking his coworkers. He then shot Nolen and ended his attack, according to KFOR.
Sgt. Jeremy Lewis says the alleged suspect, 30-year-old Alton Nolen had just been fired when he drove to the front of the business, hit a vehicle and walked inside.Police have said that Nolen, who reportedly converted to Islam recently and had tried to convert others, beheaded his first victim.
He walked into the front office area where he met 54-year-old Colleen Hufford and began attacking her with a knife.
Lewis confirms that Hufford was stabbed several times and that Nolen “severed her head.”He then started stabbing a second woman. As the second stabbing was ongoing Vaughn arrived at the scene and shot Nolen.
Officials say at that point, Mark Vaughn, an Oklahoma County reserve deputy and a former CEO of the business, shot him as he was actively stabbing Johnson.WTVR reports that Mark Vaughn is both an employee of the company Nolen attacked and a police officer. He was off duty at the time of the attack.
“He’s a hero in this situation,” Sgt. Lewis said, referring to Vaughn. “It could have gotten a lot worse.”
The person who shot and injured Nolen was the company’s chief operating officer, Mark Vaughn, who also is a Oklahoma County reserve sheriff’s deputy.The woman Nolen was stabbing when Vaughn shot him is reportedly alive and in stable condition. She is expected to survive, according to NewsOK.
The second victim in the attack was Traci Johnson, 43. Her injuries are not thought to be life-threating.
That's the story as presented by the "news"paper. Following are my observations and predictions.
This will simply be categorized as "workplace violence," no different than if it had been perpetrated by a disgruntled redneck white guy. It will not be associated with Islamic Jihad. [WOW, that was fast, check out this report.]
Note that they make it seem like Vaughn moonlighted every night as a LEO. The reality is that he probably spent as much time being a reserve LEO as a volunteer fireman in a rural town. This tidbit is in the story so people don't get the idea that it would have been just fine had Vaughn merely been a former executive at the company. We're not told why he was there in the first place.
The weapon was identified as a rifle, so unless he kept it in his office, he would have had to go out to his vehicle to get it. In most businesses I've ever been to, employees are not even allowed to have weapons in their vehicles on company property.
The article does not tell us how long it took for regular police to respond to the 911 call. But Sgt. Lewis admitted that it could have gotten a lot worse had it not been for Vaughn shooting the perp.
Too bad Vaughn did not shoot the perp dead. Now the
UPDATE: "Nolen, according to state corrections records, was convicted in January 2011 of multiple felony drug offenses, assault and battery on a police officer and escape from detention. He was released from prison in March 2013." (from FOXNews)
UPDATE: So, how is this NOT Jihad? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09/breaking-muslims-shouting-praise-allah-surround-ok-police-following-press-conference-on-beheading/
Friday, September 26, 2014
That Will Teach Him
Bitter abortion advocate demonstrates to Rush Limbaugh that no good deed goes unpunished
Merritt Tierce, budding novelist, former executive director of a not for profit and, of course, like all under appreciated artistes, a former moonlighting waitress, thought the $2000 in tips from Rush Limbaugh on a couple of meals at a high end Dallas restaurant "felt like 'blood money." So she gave it to her charity: the Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund, a group that finances abortion for poor women.
Irony seems to be completely lost on this woman. I wonder if the concept was covered in the coursework when she got her MFA from the University of Iowa?
Of course, her first novel, which she is now promoting, is all about working in a restaurant.
Let me hazard as guess as to the tone of this work. Since she looks like she is mad at the world, I bet her novel tells in great detail how the main character is mad at life in general and then beats the reader over the head with "the truth" about the high-end restaurant business. She will then wonder why so few people bought her novel. (Or came to her play, or listened to his music or bought the painting or sculpture, etc. etc etc.)
Irony seems to be completely lost on this woman. I wonder if the concept was covered in the coursework when she got her MFA from the University of Iowa?
Of course, her first novel, which she is now promoting, is all about working in a restaurant. Let me hazard as guess as to the tone of this work. Since she looks like she is mad at the world, I bet her novel tells in great detail how the main character is mad at life in general and then beats the reader over the head with "the truth" about the high-end restaurant business. She will then wonder why so few people bought her novel. (Or came to her play, or listened to his music or bought the painting or sculpture, etc. etc etc.)
The world of art is full of poseurs who routinely mistake progressive dogma for profound insight and garden variety experiences as penetrating metaphor. Those few with genuine talent actually seldom tell the audience much of anything. Instead, a real artist makes an audience feel the emotion as if it were their own.
Merritt Tierce, budding novelist, former executive director of a not for profit and, of course, like all under appreciated artistes, a former moonlighting waitress, thought the $2000 in tips from Rush Limbaugh on a couple of meals at a high end Dallas restaurant "felt like 'blood money." So she gave it to her charity: the Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund, a group that finances abortion for poor women.
Irony seems to be completely lost on this woman. I wonder if the concept was covered in the coursework when she got her MFA from the University of Iowa?
Of course, her first novel, which she is now promoting, is all about working in a restaurant.
Let me hazard as guess as to the tone of this work. Since she looks like she is mad at the world, I bet her novel tells in great detail how the main character is mad at life in general and then beats the reader over the head with "the truth" about the high-end restaurant business. She will then wonder why so few people bought her novel. (Or came to her play, or listened to his music or bought the painting or sculpture, etc. etc etc.)
The world of art is full of poseurs who routinely mistake progressive dogma for profound insight and garden variety experiences as penetrating metaphor. Those few with genuine talent actually seldom tell the audience much of anything. Instead, a real artist makes an audience feel the emotion as if it were their own.
Irony seems to be completely lost on this woman. I wonder if the concept was covered in the coursework when she got her MFA from the University of Iowa?
Of course, her first novel, which she is now promoting, is all about working in a restaurant.
Let me hazard as guess as to the tone of this work. Since she looks like she is mad at the world, I bet her novel tells in great detail how the main character is mad at life in general and then beats the reader over the head with "the truth" about the high-end restaurant business. She will then wonder why so few people bought her novel. (Or came to her play, or listened to his music or bought the painting or sculpture, etc. etc etc.)
The world of art is full of poseurs who routinely mistake progressive dogma for profound insight and garden variety experiences as penetrating metaphor. Those few with genuine talent actually seldom tell the audience much of anything. Instead, a real artist makes an audience feel the emotion as if it were their own.
So, let's think about this for a minute. "Blood-money?"
From Wikipedia I found this:
Blood money may refer to:
- Blood money (restitution), money paid to the next of kin of a murder victim as a fine
- Thirty pieces of silver, in The New Testament, the price for which Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus
- Weregild, in English history, reparational payment usually demanded of a person guilty of homicide or other wrongful death
- The money earned for contract killing
And even if Rush were guilty of something worthy of referring to the tip as blood money, in what universe does it make sense to help insure the brutal murder of an innocent child in the womb as a way to atone for whatever sins, either perceived or real, may have been committed by him?
I'm sure it would have been unthinkable to give the money to a homeless shelter or a community food bank or something that actually gives aid and comfort to someone who is suffering.
Naaaahh! Can't do that.
Official Statistics
I will admit, that I will use statistics just as much as the next guy. I don't have a problem using statistics. There is no evil in the statistics themselves, as data is amoral.
But there is an old saying in America: "Figures never lie, but liars can figure."
Data doesn't manipulate itself, but it does get manipulated. People who want gun-control are notorious for doing this. Politicians come up with stunning ways to spin facts and figures. Two of the easiest ways to do this are to either include way too much information, or leave out a lot of information. This little essay has to do with the latter.
Take a look at this graph:
See that dip down to zero at 1919 to 1925 area? That's because of the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent Volstead Act. Since this graph depicts the number of permits,* I have no problem with this graph. It makes perfect sense. The graph would be idiotic if it didn't show the number of licenses for producing alcoholic beverage dropping to zero during the time of prohibition.
But let's look at another graph:
Take your time and ponder it slowly.
This second graph made the claxons go off in my head. The question is, can you see the problem with this graph? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, you would have to know the rest of the story. There were a few characters who became famous during the prohibition era, and most notably two. One of them was far more honest than the other one and spent 11 years in Federal prison for it. The other guy was lucky enough to be born the son of a prominent politician in whose footsteps he would follow and use his prestige and connections to sock away millions of dollars under the cover of legitimate business. Read the passage below to figure out who.
"By 1925, New York was filled with speakeasy clubs that sold liquor illegally. Some historians say there were 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs operating in the city, several of which were well known as watering holes for government officials. Prohibition was an attempt to control and reduce the amount of liquor sold in the states, but like most laws, all it did was drive up the price of the regulated item and stimulate the growth of a well-organized underground black market.
One of the most famous names associated with bootlegging liquor at the time was Joseph P. Kennedy – the successful investor, businessman and political leader. Kennedy traveled to England with President Roosevelt's son, James, and made a deal to be the exclusive distributor of scotch, gin and bourbon from Scotland and England. Kennedy had the connections, the warehouses and the money to make the deal, which became a cash cow for him and the family.
One of the reasons the Kennedy bootlegging stories seem accurate is Joseph's association with Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation based in Montreal. Bronfman specialized in cheap whiskey and took advantage of Prohibition in the United States by bootlegging his whiskey to cities like Boston, New York and Chicago.
Kennedy and Bronfman became business partners of sorts when Bronfman bought Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, but some kind of relationship developed a few years earlier when Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate bought liquor from the Bronfman-run group. Kennedy had contacts with many Irishmen in Boston at the time and Danny was on that list. Some historians say Kennedy didn't have to be a bootlegger; just about every other Irishman in Boston was."
Why didn't I use the Wikipedia entry or a dozen others? Because the conquerors are the ones who write history, not the slaves. Too much of the Kennedy dynasty is still alive and kicking. But I digress. That's not the main point of this post. The main point is in the first paragraph of the passage.
If I presented a graph showing marijuana consumption in the U.S. based on sales in retail outlets across all fifty States, I think you would fall out of your chair laughing. Why? Because everybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cannabis goes up in smoke every year in America. Are you starting to see the problem with graph number two?
The United States has the peculiar distinction of having a major, multi-billion dollar, nearly exclusively spectator sport that owes its existence to one thing: Prohibition. That sport is NASCAR.
Please don't cite Wikipedia for me. I'm from the Southeastern U.S. I know too many people who are proud as hell to regale you with stories of their fathers outrunning the Feds in cars made fast out of necessity. We still have names of roads in the deep south that reflect the prohibition era and running moonshine.
The point I'm making, if you haven't already guessed it, is how incredibly silly is that second graph. Does anyone really believe that Al Capone, and probably hundreds of others, made millions of dollars while alcohol consumption dropped to nearly zero? When you see statistics or figures presented, learn to think. Ask questions. Ponder what data might be missing. Cogitate over who's presenting the data and why. Anybody who accepts that second chart above without any qualms or questions makes me think of this:
*permits and licensing are an evil and abhorrant thing in a free society. I hope to do a post in the future that explains why there is no need for any kind of licensing in a free society and just how it actually harms society through the auspices of government.
But there is an old saying in America: "Figures never lie, but liars can figure."
Data doesn't manipulate itself, but it does get manipulated. People who want gun-control are notorious for doing this. Politicians come up with stunning ways to spin facts and figures. Two of the easiest ways to do this are to either include way too much information, or leave out a lot of information. This little essay has to do with the latter.
Take a look at this graph:
See that dip down to zero at 1919 to 1925 area? That's because of the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent Volstead Act. Since this graph depicts the number of permits,* I have no problem with this graph. It makes perfect sense. The graph would be idiotic if it didn't show the number of licenses for producing alcoholic beverage dropping to zero during the time of prohibition.
But let's look at another graph:
Take your time and ponder it slowly.
This second graph made the claxons go off in my head. The question is, can you see the problem with this graph? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, you would have to know the rest of the story. There were a few characters who became famous during the prohibition era, and most notably two. One of them was far more honest than the other one and spent 11 years in Federal prison for it. The other guy was lucky enough to be born the son of a prominent politician in whose footsteps he would follow and use his prestige and connections to sock away millions of dollars under the cover of legitimate business. Read the passage below to figure out who.
"By 1925, New York was filled with speakeasy clubs that sold liquor illegally. Some historians say there were 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs operating in the city, several of which were well known as watering holes for government officials. Prohibition was an attempt to control and reduce the amount of liquor sold in the states, but like most laws, all it did was drive up the price of the regulated item and stimulate the growth of a well-organized underground black market.
One of the most famous names associated with bootlegging liquor at the time was Joseph P. Kennedy – the successful investor, businessman and political leader. Kennedy traveled to England with President Roosevelt's son, James, and made a deal to be the exclusive distributor of scotch, gin and bourbon from Scotland and England. Kennedy had the connections, the warehouses and the money to make the deal, which became a cash cow for him and the family.
One of the reasons the Kennedy bootlegging stories seem accurate is Joseph's association with Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation based in Montreal. Bronfman specialized in cheap whiskey and took advantage of Prohibition in the United States by bootlegging his whiskey to cities like Boston, New York and Chicago.
Kennedy and Bronfman became business partners of sorts when Bronfman bought Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, but some kind of relationship developed a few years earlier when Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate bought liquor from the Bronfman-run group. Kennedy had contacts with many Irishmen in Boston at the time and Danny was on that list. Some historians say Kennedy didn't have to be a bootlegger; just about every other Irishman in Boston was."
Why didn't I use the Wikipedia entry or a dozen others? Because the conquerors are the ones who write history, not the slaves. Too much of the Kennedy dynasty is still alive and kicking. But I digress. That's not the main point of this post. The main point is in the first paragraph of the passage.
If I presented a graph showing marijuana consumption in the U.S. based on sales in retail outlets across all fifty States, I think you would fall out of your chair laughing. Why? Because everybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cannabis goes up in smoke every year in America. Are you starting to see the problem with graph number two?
The United States has the peculiar distinction of having a major, multi-billion dollar, nearly exclusively spectator sport that owes its existence to one thing: Prohibition. That sport is NASCAR.
Please don't cite Wikipedia for me. I'm from the Southeastern U.S. I know too many people who are proud as hell to regale you with stories of their fathers outrunning the Feds in cars made fast out of necessity. We still have names of roads in the deep south that reflect the prohibition era and running moonshine.
The point I'm making, if you haven't already guessed it, is how incredibly silly is that second graph. Does anyone really believe that Al Capone, and probably hundreds of others, made millions of dollars while alcohol consumption dropped to nearly zero? When you see statistics or figures presented, learn to think. Ask questions. Ponder what data might be missing. Cogitate over who's presenting the data and why. Anybody who accepts that second chart above without any qualms or questions makes me think of this:
But then that's what the global elite have been working so hard for anyway.
Now, how long are you going to believe that this whole "War-on-drugs" is a good idea?
After the coming meltdown or TEOTWAWKI, if there are enough free people still alive to start a new society and we can write a new Constitution, the following would be two of the articles that I would fight for:
Article [#]
Since history has proven that inanimate objects are inherently amoral and can do nothing outside of the hands of man, and since it is self -evident that a person's body is his sole and inviolable property to care for as he sees fit, no branch or any other entity of government shall ever have the power to make any object or thing, whether inanimate or tangible, or even intangible to be banned or restricted or regulated. This article shall be exempt from repeal or modification by amendment so long as this entire Constitution is in effect.
Article [#]
It being obvious to people of reasonable intelligence that there can be no such thing as a crime where there is no victim, no branch or entity of government shall ever have the power to enact any legislation, statute, act, or code which makes any activity illegal or unlawful which does not harm or infringe upon the rights, person, or property of another individual.
What say you?
*permits and licensing are an evil and abhorrant thing in a free society. I hope to do a post in the future that explains why there is no need for any kind of licensing in a free society and just how it actually harms society through the auspices of government.
My People
According to the agriculturally corrected Biblical calendar of the Creator,* Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year begins at the same time as the weekly Shabbat, or Sabbath. Originally, Adonai Himself called this the Feast of Trumpets, or Yom Teruah (Day of Trumpets).
By the way, if any of my readers have questions about this stuff, I'd be glad to try to answer them.
What follows is an example that shows the glaring difference between my people and the people who want to wipe them off the face of the earth.
The Jihadi Muslims have stated plainly that they love death more than the Jews love life. No argument here.
*No, I don't follow the rabbinic calendar as do 98% of the rest of the devoutly religious Jewish world. I'm in an odd niche, believing that Yeshua is the Messiah and following a purer adherence to the Torah. This day, which starts at sundown Friday, is also the beginning of the New Moon, also known as Rosh Chodesh (lit. Head of the Month)
By the way, if any of my readers have questions about this stuff, I'd be glad to try to answer them.
What follows is an example that shows the glaring difference between my people and the people who want to wipe them off the face of the earth.
The Jihadi Muslims have stated plainly that they love death more than the Jews love life. No argument here.
*No, I don't follow the rabbinic calendar as do 98% of the rest of the devoutly religious Jewish world. I'm in an odd niche, believing that Yeshua is the Messiah and following a purer adherence to the Torah. This day, which starts at sundown Friday, is also the beginning of the New Moon, also known as Rosh Chodesh (lit. Head of the Month)
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Misdirection
Even true conservatives can fall for misdirection sometimes. Take the case of debating whether or not PresBO is incompetent or not. From the perspective of the true believers in FoxNews, I'm sure that Barry seems like an utter failure.
But from the perspective of his handlers and the real powers that put him where he is, he is a smashing success.
The best witnesses to this fact are the insiders who have become whistleblowers.
Retired former head of the Los Angeles division of the FBI.
But from the perspective of his handlers and the real powers that put him where he is, he is a smashing success.
The best witnesses to this fact are the insiders who have become whistleblowers.
Retired former head of the Los Angeles division of the FBI.
See? Perfectly Reasonable!
All we have to do is give in to all their demands. Why didn't we think of that before?
Just remember that when he talks about letting them have Sha'riah law, they don't mean to have it just stay in their little neighborhood. A major tenet of Islam is that Allah must rule the entire world and all, I mean all, -- may I have your attention -- ALL people must convert to Islam or die or be made slaves. No plurality, no compromise. No live and let live.
Just remember that when he talks about letting them have Sha'riah law, they don't mean to have it just stay in their little neighborhood. A major tenet of Islam is that Allah must rule the entire world and all, I mean all, -- may I have your attention -- ALL people must convert to Islam or die or be made slaves. No plurality, no compromise. No live and let live.
Attorney General Holder Steps Down
. . . and not a thing is going to happen worth noting.
Let me be one of the first to go on record, predicting what will happen from here.
All of the lamestream media, controlled by the global elite, will misdirect attention. To wit:
"Who will Obama pick to be the new Attorney General?"
"How hard will conservative republicans put up a fight over whoever Obama picks?"
"Isn't it about time we had a woman as the AG?"
"Will the new AG be strong enough to stand up to the Koch brothers?"
And a bunch of other inane stuff will be thrown against the wall to see what sticks long enough for a couple of news cycles to pass and then everything gets flushed down the memory hole.
But nothing, nothing will be done about the gun-walking scandal to Mexico. Nothing will be done about voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. Nothing will be done about ignoring the enforcement of laws selectively by the DOJ. DOJ will not assist in investigating the IRS for their harassment of conservatives.
Holder will quietly assume another position with some Washington law firm or a lobbying firm, and never have to worry that the Democrat operatives with press passes will ever ask him any questions.
But if any questions do come up about why Eric Holder had to leave the administration it will boil down to this:
Let me be one of the first to go on record, predicting what will happen from here.
All of the lamestream media, controlled by the global elite, will misdirect attention. To wit:
"Who will Obama pick to be the new Attorney General?"
"How hard will conservative republicans put up a fight over whoever Obama picks?"
"Isn't it about time we had a woman as the AG?"
"Will the new AG be strong enough to stand up to the Koch brothers?"
And a bunch of other inane stuff will be thrown against the wall to see what sticks long enough for a couple of news cycles to pass and then everything gets flushed down the memory hole.
But nothing, nothing will be done about the gun-walking scandal to Mexico. Nothing will be done about voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. Nothing will be done about ignoring the enforcement of laws selectively by the DOJ. DOJ will not assist in investigating the IRS for their harassment of conservatives.
Holder will quietly assume another position with some Washington law firm or a lobbying firm, and never have to worry that the Democrat operatives with press passes will ever ask him any questions.
But if any questions do come up about why Eric Holder had to leave the administration it will boil down to this:
Free Market Realities
Anyone who's read more than a few posts at this tiny little blog is probably pretty sure I'm a stark raving conservative. Oh hell, just run down the sidebar. You don't even have to actually read a post.
So, you might think that I would sympathize with the owner (or former owner?) of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, from whence the picture below comes.
Many thanks for this reference to Maggie's Farm.
Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for James Chu. He chose to fight the free-market, and thus his customers and he lost. And that's the way it should be.
When I had my own home repair and remodeling business, I knew never to tell a customer that they were wrong for wanting anything that was a matter of aesthetics or style or taste. Outside of anything that was absolutely necessary to get the job done correctly, anything in the variable or optional range was purely at the discretion of the customer.
It's been no secret that over about the last fifteen years, people all over the world have been waking up to the fact that MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) is both an excitotoxin and neurotoxin. You may not be convinced, and James Chu might not be convinced, but there is enough research and evidence available that myself and millions of others know that we don't need the risk. As for the gluten, we aren't talking about the gluten that naturally occurs in the plain old wheat or other grains that our grandparents thrived on. Today a lot of the cheap commercial wheat flour, sold in 25 to 50 lb. bags to restaurants and bakeries, is genetically modified (probably Monsanto patented) to contain double or triple the amount of gluten, but not natural gluten. They did that to make bread have that great chewy texture with only about a third of the kneading time and resting time that is required for regular bread production, thus cutting production time and increasing profits.
No, I'm not against profits. Not at all. If you can find a way to increase your profits, good on ya, mate. But the consumer has (or should ALWAYS have) the right to decide if your resulting product is something they want to consume, and they should have all the information to make that decision. If you want to eat all the foods that are processed and genetically modified and have cellulose fillers from pine trees and laugh at me for not wanting to put that stuff in my body, . . . well, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!
I'd never heard such a thing as a gluten allergy until about ten years ago. Today, I think about 1 in 10 people I meet has a gluten allergy that became so severe that it drove them to the endocrinologist to find out what was making them so ill.
If James Chu wanted to not only stay in business but even thrive, he should have listened to the customers and provided what they wanted.
I'm living in a rural area of Kentucky right now. In this whole city where I am, there is one little health food store. It's in a great location in the biggest shopping district. The population here is about 20,000 in the city limits, within a 6 mile radius of the shopping district, about 35,000 people. This little health food store is barely hanging on. Why? Because this is rural Kentucky. People still smoke in some of the little Mom & Pop establishments. There's an empty business space on main street that used to be a gym. There's another one on an adjacent street that used to be a yoga place.
There is not a synagogue within 100 miles of here.
How long would I survive as a businessman if I opened up a Kosher Deli here? These people have never heard of knishes or falafel or gefilte fish, let alone would they try it. How stupid would I be to blame the people who live here for not wanting to buy stuff they don't want to eat? I would be outraged if anyone blamed me for the local Waffle House closing down because I don't want to eat at a place that cooks pork and eggs and potatoes all on the same grill surface.
James Chu is like a guy who is angry because he decided to sell computers that use 3.5" floppies and only have 586 mb of RAM and he's pissed off because nobody is buying. I once lived in an area of Atlanta where a small Mom & Pop Pizza place opened up. They quickly discovered that the immediate neighborhoods were full of both Jewish and Muslim families. They made their establishment completely kosher, or halal if you will. They made sure they had no pork or shellfish products and they advertised it on their menus, takeout and delivery. The Domino's and Papa John's places within 10 blocks couldn't match the Mom & Pop's place combined. That's the beauty of competition.
Notice what the wording of the sign reveals: "We're closed because of you customers." He revealed that he didn't think of them as his customers. That's getting off on the wrong foot right from the get-go. James Chu failed the reality test of natural selection in free market economics. Phony conservatives, or what some might call "Neocons," might support James Chu, but I'm a real conservative. I believe in free choice for everyone. For James Chu and people who might have wanted to be his customers.
That also means that no money taken from taxpayers should ever be used to subsidize any business. None, whatsoever. Not dairies. Not soybean farmers. Not peanut farmers. Not oil companies. Not chemical companies. Nobody. Ever. There should be no FDA or USDA or any of these agencies who rubber stamp toxic crap so the gullible public can say, "It must be safe, the FDA approved it."
Check out the stories on Youtube just on aspartame, (NutraSweet).
Freedom means taking responsibility for your own life and health. Do your homework. Otherwise don't bitch when you end up sick, with Alziemers, or multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's or Fibro-myalgia or a dozen other conditions that were never heard of a 100 years ago. Sorry, went a little off topic. I'll stop here.
Shalom and Shanah Tovah
So, you might think that I would sympathize with the owner (or former owner?) of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, from whence the picture below comes.
Many thanks for this reference to Maggie's Farm.
Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for James Chu. He chose to fight the free-market, and thus his customers and he lost. And that's the way it should be.
When I had my own home repair and remodeling business, I knew never to tell a customer that they were wrong for wanting anything that was a matter of aesthetics or style or taste. Outside of anything that was absolutely necessary to get the job done correctly, anything in the variable or optional range was purely at the discretion of the customer.
It's been no secret that over about the last fifteen years, people all over the world have been waking up to the fact that MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) is both an excitotoxin and neurotoxin. You may not be convinced, and James Chu might not be convinced, but there is enough research and evidence available that myself and millions of others know that we don't need the risk. As for the gluten, we aren't talking about the gluten that naturally occurs in the plain old wheat or other grains that our grandparents thrived on. Today a lot of the cheap commercial wheat flour, sold in 25 to 50 lb. bags to restaurants and bakeries, is genetically modified (probably Monsanto patented) to contain double or triple the amount of gluten, but not natural gluten. They did that to make bread have that great chewy texture with only about a third of the kneading time and resting time that is required for regular bread production, thus cutting production time and increasing profits.
No, I'm not against profits. Not at all. If you can find a way to increase your profits, good on ya, mate. But the consumer has (or should ALWAYS have) the right to decide if your resulting product is something they want to consume, and they should have all the information to make that decision. If you want to eat all the foods that are processed and genetically modified and have cellulose fillers from pine trees and laugh at me for not wanting to put that stuff in my body, . . . well, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!
I'd never heard such a thing as a gluten allergy until about ten years ago. Today, I think about 1 in 10 people I meet has a gluten allergy that became so severe that it drove them to the endocrinologist to find out what was making them so ill.
If James Chu wanted to not only stay in business but even thrive, he should have listened to the customers and provided what they wanted.
I'm living in a rural area of Kentucky right now. In this whole city where I am, there is one little health food store. It's in a great location in the biggest shopping district. The population here is about 20,000 in the city limits, within a 6 mile radius of the shopping district, about 35,000 people. This little health food store is barely hanging on. Why? Because this is rural Kentucky. People still smoke in some of the little Mom & Pop establishments. There's an empty business space on main street that used to be a gym. There's another one on an adjacent street that used to be a yoga place.
There is not a synagogue within 100 miles of here.
How long would I survive as a businessman if I opened up a Kosher Deli here? These people have never heard of knishes or falafel or gefilte fish, let alone would they try it. How stupid would I be to blame the people who live here for not wanting to buy stuff they don't want to eat? I would be outraged if anyone blamed me for the local Waffle House closing down because I don't want to eat at a place that cooks pork and eggs and potatoes all on the same grill surface.
James Chu is like a guy who is angry because he decided to sell computers that use 3.5" floppies and only have 586 mb of RAM and he's pissed off because nobody is buying. I once lived in an area of Atlanta where a small Mom & Pop Pizza place opened up. They quickly discovered that the immediate neighborhoods were full of both Jewish and Muslim families. They made their establishment completely kosher, or halal if you will. They made sure they had no pork or shellfish products and they advertised it on their menus, takeout and delivery. The Domino's and Papa John's places within 10 blocks couldn't match the Mom & Pop's place combined. That's the beauty of competition.
Notice what the wording of the sign reveals: "We're closed because of you customers." He revealed that he didn't think of them as his customers. That's getting off on the wrong foot right from the get-go. James Chu failed the reality test of natural selection in free market economics. Phony conservatives, or what some might call "Neocons," might support James Chu, but I'm a real conservative. I believe in free choice for everyone. For James Chu and people who might have wanted to be his customers.
That also means that no money taken from taxpayers should ever be used to subsidize any business. None, whatsoever. Not dairies. Not soybean farmers. Not peanut farmers. Not oil companies. Not chemical companies. Nobody. Ever. There should be no FDA or USDA or any of these agencies who rubber stamp toxic crap so the gullible public can say, "It must be safe, the FDA approved it."
Check out the stories on Youtube just on aspartame, (NutraSweet).
Freedom means taking responsibility for your own life and health. Do your homework. Otherwise don't bitch when you end up sick, with Alziemers, or multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's or Fibro-myalgia or a dozen other conditions that were never heard of a 100 years ago. Sorry, went a little off topic. I'll stop here.
Shalom and Shanah Tovah
They came to leave a message
They came to tell the rest of us what we have to do to clean up the planet.
They came to tell the rest of us how capitalism doesn't work, even though we haven't had free market capitalism in this country since about 1913.
They came to tell the rest of us how socialism and communism are the only way to make things better.
They left a monument for us to look at and remember how brave and wise they are for having told us what we all need to do.
What I'd like to do is mix up a huge batch of clear epoxy resin and pour it all over this stuff and let it harden, so that people will be able to see how much actions speak louder than words.
Also, I'd like for the National Endowment for the Arts give me a few million dollars of the taxpayer's money for having created such an avante guarde piece of art for the public to enjoy.
They came to tell the rest of us how capitalism doesn't work, even though we haven't had free market capitalism in this country since about 1913.
They came to tell the rest of us how socialism and communism are the only way to make things better.
They left a monument for us to look at and remember how brave and wise they are for having told us what we all need to do.
What I'd like to do is mix up a huge batch of clear epoxy resin and pour it all over this stuff and let it harden, so that people will be able to see how much actions speak louder than words.
Also, I'd like for the National Endowment for the Arts give me a few million dollars of the taxpayer's money for having created such an avante guarde piece of art for the public to enjoy.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Waiting for the damn to break
The only people alive today who believe that socialism/communism is the way to order society, are the ones who believe that it's because they and their friends will be the elite intelligentsia who will be running it for the good of the rest of us, or people who believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus and free lunches.
Over at Maggie's Farm I found this article headline for Sept. 23, 2014:
"USA Spending 30 Times More Per Capita than China on Social Programs"
. . . and I shamelessly tell you that I didn't bother to go read it before making this post. Why?
Because experience and logic tell me that once you have a brutal totalitarian government in place, there is no reason to spend any money at all on the unwashed masses. You can instead spend your resources on luxurious living for yourself and your gang, and the necessary arms and infrastructure for protecting your elitist lifestyle. When the government has all the guns, the people have no choices. When the government has all control over water and food production, the people are essentially slaves. Once they seize the guns, it is quite easy to seize everything else.
The reason the U.S. government is spending so much on social programs is because the vast majority of the populace is still working under the illusion that a complete economic collapse is somehow going to be averted. Somehow, other countries like China are going to continue to loan us money in the form of buying our bonds and continuing to allow the U.S. Dollar to be the world reserve and petro-dollar. Then there is the fact that there are still hundreds of millions of firearms out there that the government hasn't been able to seize, . . . yet. There needs to be some sort of manufactured event that rapidly depopulates the U.S. or some crisis that causes a civil war to bring about martial law.
But soon we will hit the tipping point and the whole thing will come crashing down and the direct deposits to all those bank accounts will stop. All those electrons that magically seem to appear as "funds" in your IRA or 401(k) or whatever supposed assets you think you have in the bank will vanish.
Aren't you glad you didn't waste any of your precious time trying to understand what the politicians were doing with your life?
Good luck!
Over at Maggie's Farm I found this article headline for Sept. 23, 2014:
"USA Spending 30 Times More Per Capita than China on Social Programs"
. . . and I shamelessly tell you that I didn't bother to go read it before making this post. Why?
Because experience and logic tell me that once you have a brutal totalitarian government in place, there is no reason to spend any money at all on the unwashed masses. You can instead spend your resources on luxurious living for yourself and your gang, and the necessary arms and infrastructure for protecting your elitist lifestyle. When the government has all the guns, the people have no choices. When the government has all control over water and food production, the people are essentially slaves. Once they seize the guns, it is quite easy to seize everything else.
The reason the U.S. government is spending so much on social programs is because the vast majority of the populace is still working under the illusion that a complete economic collapse is somehow going to be averted. Somehow, other countries like China are going to continue to loan us money in the form of buying our bonds and continuing to allow the U.S. Dollar to be the world reserve and petro-dollar. Then there is the fact that there are still hundreds of millions of firearms out there that the government hasn't been able to seize, . . . yet. There needs to be some sort of manufactured event that rapidly depopulates the U.S. or some crisis that causes a civil war to bring about martial law.
But soon we will hit the tipping point and the whole thing will come crashing down and the direct deposits to all those bank accounts will stop. All those electrons that magically seem to appear as "funds" in your IRA or 401(k) or whatever supposed assets you think you have in the bank will vanish.
Good luck!
Progress in Venezuela
Back in the late 1990s when I was still living in Florida, I went to church with a family that had fled from Venezuela after Hugo Chavez had come to power. They left a lot of extended family and friends behind and did their best to keep in touch.
They were quite willing to talk about the horrific conditions of life down there. Terrible inflation, rampant and very blatant crime, thugs doing strong arm robberies in broad daylight, murder and mayhem. A common denominator of the criminal thugs was that they not only supported Hugo Chavez, but they were his enforcers at the polling places.
The immigrants were willing to admit that the things they saw in the SEIU here in America looked frighteningly close to what they left in Venezuela. I say all that to introduce this from Joe Huffman's blog:
Quote of the Day
"We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace." Nicolas Maduro [the new dictator who replaced Hugo Chavez]
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?] -- Joe Huffman
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
So what happens when the powers that be decide to try that here in the U.S.?
They were quite willing to talk about the horrific conditions of life down there. Terrible inflation, rampant and very blatant crime, thugs doing strong arm robberies in broad daylight, murder and mayhem. A common denominator of the criminal thugs was that they not only supported Hugo Chavez, but they were his enforcers at the polling places.
The immigrants were willing to admit that the things they saw in the SEIU here in America looked frighteningly close to what they left in Venezuela. I say all that to introduce this from Joe Huffman's blog:
Quote of the Day
"We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace." Nicolas Maduro [the new dictator who replaced Hugo Chavez]
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?] -- Joe Huffman
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
So what happens when the powers that be decide to try that here in the U.S.?
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Another Dream Girl
Never stop dreaming.
Of course, at my age, and given my current location, that's just about all I can do. It just warms my heart to see a video like this. To know that there are women like this around. Beautiful, sexy, and very, very intelligent.
Please, God, let me have a girl like this:
Shout out to Morgan at House of Eratosthenes. Morgan, you make me so damned jealous for finding and posting such awesome stuff like this before me. But, that's why your blog is so much more successful than mine, you freaking blogmaster.
Of course, at my age, and given my current location, that's just about all I can do. It just warms my heart to see a video like this. To know that there are women like this around. Beautiful, sexy, and very, very intelligent.
Please, God, let me have a girl like this:
Shout out to Morgan at House of Eratosthenes. Morgan, you make me so damned jealous for finding and posting such awesome stuff like this before me. But, that's why your blog is so much more successful than mine, you freaking blogmaster.
The Bigger Problem
"Miseducation is harder to overcome than ignorance."
-- Francis W. Porretto
Once again I run across a tidbit from Liberty's Torch that becomes the seed for a post here. Francis managed to encapsulate an idea in just seven words. Sometimes, really great quotes don't get the appreciation they deserve. Maybe this one little sentence struck me so significantly because I have enough worldly experience.
Maybe it set off bells and whistles in my head because I've had to deal with the truth of that statement so much lately.
At the risk of boring my more intelligent readers, I feel like expounding on the quote above. I guess another reason for this is that I've got several decades of experience that growing older does not guarantee growing wiser; at least not in a society that coddles ignorance and stupidity. Recently I've had to encounter the most egregious sin of stupidity. Willful ignorance. While lately I have seen this attitude most irritatingly in people quite older than myself, I try to mitigate my angst by seeing an underlying attitude of: "I'm old, I've paid my dues, and I'm not long for this world anyway."
Believe it or not, I've spent enough time thinking about this that I now have two categories of willful ignorance. In the first kind, the subject is confronted with facts that are so upsetting to his worldview, that he dismisses the new information and quickly moves on to something else that distracts him from having to really ruminate on it. It may be in the back of his mind, able to resurface later if brought about by another event. But the subject sort of subconsciously suppresses it because the cognitive dissonance is just too uncomfortable to deal with presently. In this primary level, at least there is hope that the subject will accept the truth in the future. When I encounter this in an individual, I can easily smile and drop the subject, thinking to myself, "It's okay, he/she's just not ready yet."
But the second level of willful ignorance is where I have to fight the demons that set my blood to boiling. It's when the subject makes clear and very declarative statements to the effect of: "I don't WANT to know." And more importantly, the statements are made with a smile and a smugness as if delivering divine wisdom from on high. This is where I DO need grace from the Almighty, because I feel like slapping the ever-loving shit out of the jerk.
Getting back to the main idea; both of the levels of ignorance above are most often born out of miseducation. Ignorance in its pure form simply means that you don't know, but you have not been indoctrinated in any particular direction, like a juror in a fresh venue with no prior knowledge of the case. The problem comes from being purposely "educated" to believe things that seem very plausible, have been seemingly accepted by the vast majority, and are typically very difficult and time consuming to falsify or prove on one's own. Amusement of all kinds is the modern American sport. Ignorance is bliss. "I'll take the blue pill."
Why? Well, as much as I don't like leftist/progressives, I'll quote one here. Gloria Steinem said, "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off." Of course, truth won't piss you off until you are forced to come to grips with it. It's like the child of any age who's parents finally throw him out of the house to go fend for his self. The Eastern Airlines employee or air traffic controller who finds out that the union doesn't really have his best interests at heart. The college graduate who finds out that there is no one looking to hire someone with a masters degree in "Graffiti's Social Importance."
So many more examples I would like to give here, but I'll move on.
People don't cling to false things they believe to be true because of evidence or logic. They cling to those things because of their emotions. Kevin Baker over at The Smallest Minority has many uberposts on his blog, along with some long-running exchanges with hoplophobes that help prove this point. I remember sifting through long threads on his site as well as others, and being dumbfounded at the extremes to which anti-gunners will go to defend their position against all evidence and logic which demonstrates their position to be blatantly stupid.
One reason emotion is such a big issue is because nobody likes to find out they've fallen for a lie. Short-term lies on the personal level are one thing. Someone in your personal world lies to you, but you eventually find out. Most of your anger can be righteously directed at them, and once you've calmed down you can at least feel good about yourself for discovering the truth. But the big lies that will really rock your world are just too painful to deal with for a lot of people. Big lies that you find out you actually talked yourself into because they sounded so good. But it was wrong. And in the realization it was wrong you become angry. You are angry because it made you feel stupid.
The bigger the lie, the more stupid you feel, and thus the angrier you get. The force multiplier to the tune of 10X is the fact that you have no one to blame but yourself. There's not one individual you can blame for knowingly defrauding you. If you got taken in by Bernie Madoff, you've got someone you can focus your anger on. But who are you going to take to court or see in shackles over the Social Security Ponzi scheme?
Nothing perpetuates and protects ignorance as much as believing that you already know the truth. Oh, I believe that there are indeed absolute truths. But they are the things which I am always willing to put to the test. Any test. Over and over. But when you've come to the conclusion that "the argument/debate is over," then the only thing you have proven is your ignorance.
Minor Rabbit Trail: It's so easy to be like one of the sheep in this parade. It's cool to feel like you are connected with a popular movie star. It's so easy to let people like Leo and Algore and Bernie the Commie Sanders do your thinking for you, instead of asking the epistemological question: Are they right? How do they know? What are the arguments on the other side? If the argument is over, why the need for the march? Back to my screed.
The things I am willing to argue passionately for are the things I am sure are true, with the caveat that I know I am human and that there may be information yet that I do not have. But show me someone who is unwilling to entertain a reasonable and intelligent argument, and I'll show you a willfully ignorant and downright stupid fool.
-- Francis W. Porretto
Once again I run across a tidbit from Liberty's Torch that becomes the seed for a post here. Francis managed to encapsulate an idea in just seven words. Sometimes, really great quotes don't get the appreciation they deserve. Maybe this one little sentence struck me so significantly because I have enough worldly experience.
Maybe it set off bells and whistles in my head because I've had to deal with the truth of that statement so much lately.
At the risk of boring my more intelligent readers, I feel like expounding on the quote above. I guess another reason for this is that I've got several decades of experience that growing older does not guarantee growing wiser; at least not in a society that coddles ignorance and stupidity. Recently I've had to encounter the most egregious sin of stupidity. Willful ignorance. While lately I have seen this attitude most irritatingly in people quite older than myself, I try to mitigate my angst by seeing an underlying attitude of: "I'm old, I've paid my dues, and I'm not long for this world anyway."
Believe it or not, I've spent enough time thinking about this that I now have two categories of willful ignorance. In the first kind, the subject is confronted with facts that are so upsetting to his worldview, that he dismisses the new information and quickly moves on to something else that distracts him from having to really ruminate on it. It may be in the back of his mind, able to resurface later if brought about by another event. But the subject sort of subconsciously suppresses it because the cognitive dissonance is just too uncomfortable to deal with presently. In this primary level, at least there is hope that the subject will accept the truth in the future. When I encounter this in an individual, I can easily smile and drop the subject, thinking to myself, "It's okay, he/she's just not ready yet."
But the second level of willful ignorance is where I have to fight the demons that set my blood to boiling. It's when the subject makes clear and very declarative statements to the effect of: "I don't WANT to know." And more importantly, the statements are made with a smile and a smugness as if delivering divine wisdom from on high. This is where I DO need grace from the Almighty, because I feel like slapping the ever-loving shit out of the jerk.
Getting back to the main idea; both of the levels of ignorance above are most often born out of miseducation. Ignorance in its pure form simply means that you don't know, but you have not been indoctrinated in any particular direction, like a juror in a fresh venue with no prior knowledge of the case. The problem comes from being purposely "educated" to believe things that seem very plausible, have been seemingly accepted by the vast majority, and are typically very difficult and time consuming to falsify or prove on one's own. Amusement of all kinds is the modern American sport. Ignorance is bliss. "I'll take the blue pill."
Why? Well, as much as I don't like leftist/progressives, I'll quote one here. Gloria Steinem said, "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off." Of course, truth won't piss you off until you are forced to come to grips with it. It's like the child of any age who's parents finally throw him out of the house to go fend for his self. The Eastern Airlines employee or air traffic controller who finds out that the union doesn't really have his best interests at heart. The college graduate who finds out that there is no one looking to hire someone with a masters degree in "Graffiti's Social Importance."
So many more examples I would like to give here, but I'll move on.
People don't cling to false things they believe to be true because of evidence or logic. They cling to those things because of their emotions. Kevin Baker over at The Smallest Minority has many uberposts on his blog, along with some long-running exchanges with hoplophobes that help prove this point. I remember sifting through long threads on his site as well as others, and being dumbfounded at the extremes to which anti-gunners will go to defend their position against all evidence and logic which demonstrates their position to be blatantly stupid.
One reason emotion is such a big issue is because nobody likes to find out they've fallen for a lie. Short-term lies on the personal level are one thing. Someone in your personal world lies to you, but you eventually find out. Most of your anger can be righteously directed at them, and once you've calmed down you can at least feel good about yourself for discovering the truth. But the big lies that will really rock your world are just too painful to deal with for a lot of people. Big lies that you find out you actually talked yourself into because they sounded so good. But it was wrong. And in the realization it was wrong you become angry. You are angry because it made you feel stupid.
The bigger the lie, the more stupid you feel, and thus the angrier you get. The force multiplier to the tune of 10X is the fact that you have no one to blame but yourself. There's not one individual you can blame for knowingly defrauding you. If you got taken in by Bernie Madoff, you've got someone you can focus your anger on. But who are you going to take to court or see in shackles over the Social Security Ponzi scheme?
Nothing perpetuates and protects ignorance as much as believing that you already know the truth. Oh, I believe that there are indeed absolute truths. But they are the things which I am always willing to put to the test. Any test. Over and over. But when you've come to the conclusion that "the argument/debate is over," then the only thing you have proven is your ignorance.
Minor Rabbit Trail: It's so easy to be like one of the sheep in this parade. It's cool to feel like you are connected with a popular movie star. It's so easy to let people like Leo and Algore and Bernie the Commie Sanders do your thinking for you, instead of asking the epistemological question: Are they right? How do they know? What are the arguments on the other side? If the argument is over, why the need for the march? Back to my screed.
The things I am willing to argue passionately for are the things I am sure are true, with the caveat that I know I am human and that there may be information yet that I do not have. But show me someone who is unwilling to entertain a reasonable and intelligent argument, and I'll show you a willfully ignorant and downright stupid fool.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Vote Fraud in Scotland
I began telling everyone I knew over ten years ago. When we began to see all the computerized voting machines appearing all over the United States, I knew that we would never see a fair election ever again.
Don't even start with the luddite talk. I love my technology as much as the next guy. But nothing is perfect. Of course, nothing is so damn perfect for making vote fraud invisible to the public as eliminating paper ballots. The powerful elite can too easily bribe or coerce the results in electronic balloting because just one tech savvy person is all you need to insure that you get the result you want with no tangible evidence that the average person can see, let alone understand.
Check this out. Via Infowars.com
If we survive the fiscal and societal meltdown and get the chance to start over, one thing that would have to happen is the enshrinement of one basic principle of elections: paper balloting. This is so important that whatever new Constitution was created, it would have as an un-repealable law that anyone who suggests any form of electronic balloting will forfeit the privilege of voting permanently. Anyone caught tampering with paper ballots will be sentenced to having a special mark tattooed on the hand or arm so they can never be anywhere near a polling place again.
Don't even start with the luddite talk. I love my technology as much as the next guy. But nothing is perfect. Of course, nothing is so damn perfect for making vote fraud invisible to the public as eliminating paper ballots. The powerful elite can too easily bribe or coerce the results in electronic balloting because just one tech savvy person is all you need to insure that you get the result you want with no tangible evidence that the average person can see, let alone understand.
Check this out. Via Infowars.com
If we survive the fiscal and societal meltdown and get the chance to start over, one thing that would have to happen is the enshrinement of one basic principle of elections: paper balloting. This is so important that whatever new Constitution was created, it would have as an un-repealable law that anyone who suggests any form of electronic balloting will forfeit the privilege of voting permanently. Anyone caught tampering with paper ballots will be sentenced to having a special mark tattooed on the hand or arm so they can never be anywhere near a polling place again.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Danger of Ecumenism
Just like all other regular bloggers, I make it a point to check out a list of certain blogs every day, one of which is Liberty's Torch. Its main writer is Francis W. Porretto, the Curmudgeon Emeritus, who has no qualms discussing his religion of Roman Catholicism. I like most of Francis' stuff and I recommend his blog, so I'm not writing this to pick a fight. I'm just offering some food for thought. If you've checked out most of my blog, you probably recognize that I would be thought of as a Messianic Jew. I just make that clear in the interest of full disclosure, even though the description isn't really adequate.
It seems Francis is trying be a peacemaker in the kerfuffle over homosexuality. He is citing ecumenism as an important, if not the most important goal of the "Church." Since the word "catholic" has it's earliest etymology in what we might now call syncretism, rather than universalism, that does make a lot of sense. Of course, that is a daunting goal considering the wide range of opinion within the Church. Let me also make this point: wide range of opinion is a troubling problem in every denomination and religion. It is why Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other. It's why there are four or five different Baptist churches within walking distance of each other while only being a quarter full every Sunday morning. It's why there are liberal, non-religious Jews by birth, and the other extreme of Heredi Jews.
Church bodies split up. Not all the time for bad reasons, but most of the time it is over stupid disagreements that have nothing to do with what should be the core tenets of the faith.
Politics and religion have been deeply entwined together for all of history. Some will react with horror to that idea, but it is nonetheless provable by an honest study of history. Rather than do the whole history of the world to prove my point, lets just look at the protestant reformation, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.
Martin Luther jump-started the protestant reformation with his 95 Theses (1517) at Wittenberg, sort of being like the little boy in the fable who had the courage to say that the king was naked. Everybody knew that the Roman Catholic (really the ONLY) Church was cesspool of corruption, but the laity and lower ranks of clergy were scared to death of the power of the Pope and his minions. Most kings could not afford to cross the Church. BTW - the joint power of the monarchies and the Church did not even begin to come to any real end until the 18th century. This was in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta made an attempt to establish some separation between the Church and State. Of course, it only applied to Great Britain.
I'll ask the question at this point: What if Martin Luther had opted for going along with the program for the sake of ecumenism rather than doing what was right?
Francis and I get to live here in the United States and (for the time being) enjoy all kinds of freedoms that would not even be dreamed of before the 20th century. We owe most of that, with both the good and very bad consequences to the fact that there were enough men who decided to throw off the chains of Great Britain in 1776. They had enough. They were in the minority, but they did not seek unity and peace at the cost of continued serfdom to the monarchy or even an elected parliament. The explanation is in the words of the Declaration of Independence:
" Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
Now just replace the word Government above with the word "Church." That's kind of the idea that Martin Luther was going for. As well as many in the Church for next several centuries. Mr. Gutenberg's invention and the rapid spread of literacy in the renaissance period fueled the fire. People became very aware that men were men and nothing more, and God was God and nothing less.
The central cry of the protestant reformation was the phrase: "Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sole Deo Gloria." Faith alone, Scripture alone, only to God be the glory. In a nutshell, the only and final authority came directly from God through His written word, and no mere mortal, regardless of vestments or ordination could supercede that.
Another way I could say that, is that man's opinion no longer mattered. There's the rub. The struggle for ecumenism is about compromising on our opinions. Problem is, God didn't establish a democracy or even a republic. He isn't really concerned with any man's opinion. He dictated the first five books to Moses (The Torah). His laws are laws. Commandments. Not suggestions. Religion is a man-made thing. There is no word in the Hebrew language for "religion." If the Bible is not the final authority for those who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus Christ), then we have no standard. Just like if the POTUS or the SCOTUS or the Congress of the United States can enact laws or executive orders in direct contradiction to the Constitution, we are no longer a free people in a republic. We have become serfs in an oligarchy of petty tyrants.
But since the main issue is ecumenism in a Church that claims allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and claims that they operate under the authority of His Son, let us review His words for what our opinion ought to be so as to be in obedience to the Most Sovereign Creator of the Universe:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 NIV
I don't see any wiggle room there that allows for opinion. And when it comes to our Lord and Savior's word on ecumenism:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
Either Jesus needs to send the Roman Catholic Church a new memo on His revised mission statement, or the Pope needs to revise his mission statement for the RCC to conform with the Home Office.
The United States is in the deplorable condition it is, not because we haven't had enough compromise for the sake of unity. This country is FUBAR because we abandoned the principles born out of an uncompromising adherence to biblical standards, and began tolerating the idea that every individual can and should do whatever seems right in his own eyes, no matter how evil or decadent or depraved it may be.
We have sown the wind, and now we shall reap the F5 tornadoes that are bearing down upon us.
It seems Francis is trying be a peacemaker in the kerfuffle over homosexuality. He is citing ecumenism as an important, if not the most important goal of the "Church." Since the word "catholic" has it's earliest etymology in what we might now call syncretism, rather than universalism, that does make a lot of sense. Of course, that is a daunting goal considering the wide range of opinion within the Church. Let me also make this point: wide range of opinion is a troubling problem in every denomination and religion. It is why Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other. It's why there are four or five different Baptist churches within walking distance of each other while only being a quarter full every Sunday morning. It's why there are liberal, non-religious Jews by birth, and the other extreme of Heredi Jews.
Church bodies split up. Not all the time for bad reasons, but most of the time it is over stupid disagreements that have nothing to do with what should be the core tenets of the faith.
Politics and religion have been deeply entwined together for all of history. Some will react with horror to that idea, but it is nonetheless provable by an honest study of history. Rather than do the whole history of the world to prove my point, lets just look at the protestant reformation, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.
Martin Luther jump-started the protestant reformation with his 95 Theses (1517) at Wittenberg, sort of being like the little boy in the fable who had the courage to say that the king was naked. Everybody knew that the Roman Catholic (really the ONLY) Church was cesspool of corruption, but the laity and lower ranks of clergy were scared to death of the power of the Pope and his minions. Most kings could not afford to cross the Church. BTW - the joint power of the monarchies and the Church did not even begin to come to any real end until the 18th century. This was in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta made an attempt to establish some separation between the Church and State. Of course, it only applied to Great Britain.
I'll ask the question at this point: What if Martin Luther had opted for going along with the program for the sake of ecumenism rather than doing what was right?
Francis and I get to live here in the United States and (for the time being) enjoy all kinds of freedoms that would not even be dreamed of before the 20th century. We owe most of that, with both the good and very bad consequences to the fact that there were enough men who decided to throw off the chains of Great Britain in 1776. They had enough. They were in the minority, but they did not seek unity and peace at the cost of continued serfdom to the monarchy or even an elected parliament. The explanation is in the words of the Declaration of Independence:
" Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
Now just replace the word Government above with the word "Church." That's kind of the idea that Martin Luther was going for. As well as many in the Church for next several centuries. Mr. Gutenberg's invention and the rapid spread of literacy in the renaissance period fueled the fire. People became very aware that men were men and nothing more, and God was God and nothing less.
The central cry of the protestant reformation was the phrase: "Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sole Deo Gloria." Faith alone, Scripture alone, only to God be the glory. In a nutshell, the only and final authority came directly from God through His written word, and no mere mortal, regardless of vestments or ordination could supercede that.
Another way I could say that, is that man's opinion no longer mattered. There's the rub. The struggle for ecumenism is about compromising on our opinions. Problem is, God didn't establish a democracy or even a republic. He isn't really concerned with any man's opinion. He dictated the first five books to Moses (The Torah). His laws are laws. Commandments. Not suggestions. Religion is a man-made thing. There is no word in the Hebrew language for "religion." If the Bible is not the final authority for those who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus Christ), then we have no standard. Just like if the POTUS or the SCOTUS or the Congress of the United States can enact laws or executive orders in direct contradiction to the Constitution, we are no longer a free people in a republic. We have become serfs in an oligarchy of petty tyrants.
But since the main issue is ecumenism in a Church that claims allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and claims that they operate under the authority of His Son, let us review His words for what our opinion ought to be so as to be in obedience to the Most Sovereign Creator of the Universe:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 NIV
I don't see any wiggle room there that allows for opinion. And when it comes to our Lord and Savior's word on ecumenism:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-38 NIV
Either Jesus needs to send the Roman Catholic Church a new memo on His revised mission statement, or the Pope needs to revise his mission statement for the RCC to conform with the Home Office.
The United States is in the deplorable condition it is, not because we haven't had enough compromise for the sake of unity. This country is FUBAR because we abandoned the principles born out of an uncompromising adherence to biblical standards, and began tolerating the idea that every individual can and should do whatever seems right in his own eyes, no matter how evil or decadent or depraved it may be.
We have sown the wind, and now we shall reap the F5 tornadoes that are bearing down upon us.
Ain't Gonna Happen
First of all, Scotland's recent (Sept. 18, 2014) referendum proves it won't happen in America.
No, we are not Scotland, those people tend to be way more socialist than Americans are. That just more than doubly proves my point. Up until Sept.17, 2014, the vote was close, and at one point the secessionist vote was slightly ahead, but they still couldn't do it. If a territory of people who mostly like big government and all that comes with it could only come close to a simple majority, then there's no way a land that ostensibly prides itself in "God, guns, and guts," but can only muster a bare 14% of strong support for seceding from the Union, is going to pull away.
We are like the typical 14-year-old who wants to stomp our feet and demand to be treated like an adult when we want our way, but ten minutes later we are excusing our fear or stupid behavior by saying, "But I'm only a kid!" The bottom 50% of income earners in the U.S. not only do not pay any income tax, but most of them are likely to get the "Earned Income Tax Credit." Not the Orwellian title. Then note that probably better than 15% of the people who are ostensibly working to earn a paycheck now are doing so by working for some government agency. No, that's not an exaggeration. Take into account city, county, state and federal. It really is that high. But we can't just take into account the direct employees of government. Think about all of the businesses that depend on government contracts to be in business. Defense contractors. Infrastructure. Welfare. Subsidies for business and farms. The social security Ponzi scheme. True free-enterprise has not existed unfettered since we got three things: An income tax, a private central bank called the Federal Reserve, and Social Security.
The people who make up those percentages on the map above are rugged individuals who want to be free to succeed and be left alone. But the vast majority don't care what government does as long as they can have their booze, drugs, cigarettes, sports or other mindless TV programming. Politics is boring, dontcha know? Until, that is, that the system implodes due to a collapsed, worthless dollar, and the sheep who survived the first couple of waves of riots over food and other necessities get herded into the FEMA camps.
Nope. Americans haven't felt near enough pain yet to even start thinking about taking back control of the government, let alone learn the names of their congressmen or what the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution says.
And you also have to remember that there are way too many examples of this in the United States:
Saturday, September 20, 2014
How we got here
ATTENTION: This is reposted with corrections for the videos and other little details.
If I was forced to blame the current economic recession, malaise, problems (use whatever term you like) on only one thing, it would be ignorance of most of the people. Ignorance of both history and economics. And I do mean real economics and not Keynesian theory, which is why I say both history and economics. History proves which economic models work and which ones don't.
Notice the fact that the largest reserves of petroleum energy in the world, more than all of the middle east and Venezuela combined, is laying underneath United States territory. The only close second is Russia, providing 90% of Europe's oil.
By the way: you won't find this information easily on the internet anymore.
The above image is from 2011. Such info has mysteriously vanished from most sites. Just like some of my info on this blog has mysteriously vanished.
Thanks to Jerome Corsi's book on the oil conspiracy, we can now know what most of the rest of the world knows: that petroleum is abiogenic. There is no such thing as "fossil fuel." Crude oil and natural gas are not made from formerly living things, but by a chemical process in the earth's crust that a couple of Nazi scientists discovered during or before WWII.
We have the greatest technology. We have the greatest basic infrastructure. We have no lack of consumers who would be happy to purchase goods made right here on American soil.
We have plenty of scientists who know that we could build incredibly safe reactors that would use super cheap and abundant thorium. Before you watch the video, I want to make a couple of points. About 40,000 people die every year in the U.S. in vehicle accidents. About 800,000 people die from standard, non-malpractice medical care. Just to help you keep the deaths from coal in proper perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
Of course that's not the only way to improve our energy situation. The bloom box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkFDPI6kGE
But of course, this government would rather throw money down the black holes of solar panels (Remember Solyndra?) Or windmills that nobody wants (NIMBY).
But I say all that to get to the question: What's the real reason we are in this situation?
If I was forced to blame the current economic recession, malaise, problems (use whatever term you like) on only one thing, it would be ignorance of most of the people. Ignorance of both history and economics. And I do mean real economics and not Keynesian theory, which is why I say both history and economics. History proves which economic models work and which ones don't.
Notice the fact that the largest reserves of petroleum energy in the world, more than all of the middle east and Venezuela combined, is laying underneath United States territory. The only close second is Russia, providing 90% of Europe's oil.
The above image is from 2011. Such info has mysteriously vanished from most sites. Just like some of my info on this blog has mysteriously vanished.
Thanks to Jerome Corsi's book on the oil conspiracy, we can now know what most of the rest of the world knows: that petroleum is abiogenic. There is no such thing as "fossil fuel." Crude oil and natural gas are not made from formerly living things, but by a chemical process in the earth's crust that a couple of Nazi scientists discovered during or before WWII.
We have the greatest technology. We have the greatest basic infrastructure. We have no lack of consumers who would be happy to purchase goods made right here on American soil.
We have plenty of scientists who know that we could build incredibly safe reactors that would use super cheap and abundant thorium. Before you watch the video, I want to make a couple of points. About 40,000 people die every year in the U.S. in vehicle accidents. About 800,000 people die from standard, non-malpractice medical care. Just to help you keep the deaths from coal in proper perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
Of course that's not the only way to improve our energy situation. The bloom box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkFDPI6kGE
But of course, this government would rather throw money down the black holes of solar panels (Remember Solyndra?) Or windmills that nobody wants (NIMBY).
But I say all that to get to the question: What's the real reason we are in this situation?
Mea Culpa
I've been away for a while and as a result, I've forgotten how to do a lot of little technical things with the computer. It's not exactly the kind of thing I think of as survival skill so my brain relegated stuff I used to know how to do well on the computer to stuff I have to re-learn.
I'm trying to get back into blogging again and I'm making all kinds of mistakes. If you've visited here in the past few weeks, you've probably notices that stuff on my blog isn't working right. Specifically video links.
I'm trying to retro-fix these problems and get my skills back. Perhaps in the future I will write about where I've been and why.
Hope you enjoy what you've seen lately. But come back and look at the posts again and see if I have corrected the problems.
I'm trying to get back into blogging again and I'm making all kinds of mistakes. If you've visited here in the past few weeks, you've probably notices that stuff on my blog isn't working right. Specifically video links.
I'm trying to retro-fix these problems and get my skills back. Perhaps in the future I will write about where I've been and why.
Hope you enjoy what you've seen lately. But come back and look at the posts again and see if I have corrected the problems.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Origin of Government
Morgan over at House of Eratosthenes got me going on this subject with this post.
My perspective on this is so divergent from his that I decided to make it my own stand alone post on my blog here. I couldn't just comment on his blog.
For the purpose of this discussion, trying to keep it in as narrow and controllable forum as possible, I'm going to define Column A and Column B in my own terms and maybe give them catchier names.
Severian says Column A people are: "A group of individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, agree to cede some of their rights to a collective, in order to better secure their remaining rights. The key player here is the individual." The only problem I have with that definition is that there is no need to cede any rights. This is a misconception that has crept into our republican society. Just because I agree with forming a local government with a police force and courts does not mean that I cede any rights or any sovereignty. I simply LEND my authority to those entities as a matter of convenience. I refuse to give up or cede anything to government. To do so would be to misunderstand and negate the very words of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Until I come up with something better, I'll call the Column A group, "Indies."
The Column B group is made up of people who cover a wide range, as surprising as that may seem. At the worst end of the spectrum are those who are ravenously power hungry and mean to rule others. Such people have learned to parlay their narcissism and sociopathy into lucrative careers. At the mildest end of the spectrum are those who desire to be ruled under the guise of having security and believe that all others should feel the same way, believe the same way, and by God we will give whatever power necessary to our champions to enforce it. Probably the greatest rallying cry of this crowd is; "There Ought To Be A Law." So, I'll call them the TOTBALS. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If it protects ONE child . . . Such are the self-proclaimed "liberals" who justify the most intolerant, totalitarian government for the purpose of enforcing what they believe is best for everybody at the point of a gun. And yes, there are more than enough of such people proudly bearing the labels of Republican and Conservative. They are just as bad. Don't talk to me about how evil abortion is and then in the next breath defend the so-called "war on drugs." Shut. UP. Don't you dare defend subsidies for industries and corporations and even farmers and then gripe about WIC and food stamps. All of the policies and bloated bureaucracies of government need to be destroyed or scaled back to make none of those things necessary.
The Indies are those who would love to not need any courts or any police or any government, except for the fact that they recognize that human nature won't allow it. Indies recognize that anarchy is not viable because there will always be evil people who mean to abuse other people, innocent people, and so we must establish and ordain at least some limited form of government in order to restrain the evil.
The biggest problem in this scenario is that the true-to-the-core Indies who would be the best and most trustworthy at executing that role don't really want the job. They just want to be left alone to pursue a multitude of worthwhile goals and just taking care of themselves and their loved ones.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who actively seek to get the jobs in government are the TOTBALS. And they actually think of themselves as really good people who are doing us a favor by sacrificing and working for far less than they are actually worth.
I get extremely irritated by anyone who thinks that the American Revolution and the French Revolution had anything remotely in common. Even if you don't want to study them in depth, at least read "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens. The former was a righteous attempt to redress grievances and establish a proper government. The latter was just an excuse to go on a cathartic blood-bath over a corrupt Church-monarchy cabal.
I don't know if there is much more that I should add to this post. Let me know.
My perspective on this is so divergent from his that I decided to make it my own stand alone post on my blog here. I couldn't just comment on his blog.
For the purpose of this discussion, trying to keep it in as narrow and controllable forum as possible, I'm going to define Column A and Column B in my own terms and maybe give them catchier names.
Severian says Column A people are: "A group of individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, agree to cede some of their rights to a collective, in order to better secure their remaining rights. The key player here is the individual." The only problem I have with that definition is that there is no need to cede any rights. This is a misconception that has crept into our republican society. Just because I agree with forming a local government with a police force and courts does not mean that I cede any rights or any sovereignty. I simply LEND my authority to those entities as a matter of convenience. I refuse to give up or cede anything to government. To do so would be to misunderstand and negate the very words of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Until I come up with something better, I'll call the Column A group, "Indies."
The Column B group is made up of people who cover a wide range, as surprising as that may seem. At the worst end of the spectrum are those who are ravenously power hungry and mean to rule others. Such people have learned to parlay their narcissism and sociopathy into lucrative careers. At the mildest end of the spectrum are those who desire to be ruled under the guise of having security and believe that all others should feel the same way, believe the same way, and by God we will give whatever power necessary to our champions to enforce it. Probably the greatest rallying cry of this crowd is; "There Ought To Be A Law." So, I'll call them the TOTBALS. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If it protects ONE child . . . Such are the self-proclaimed "liberals" who justify the most intolerant, totalitarian government for the purpose of enforcing what they believe is best for everybody at the point of a gun. And yes, there are more than enough of such people proudly bearing the labels of Republican and Conservative. They are just as bad. Don't talk to me about how evil abortion is and then in the next breath defend the so-called "war on drugs." Shut. UP. Don't you dare defend subsidies for industries and corporations and even farmers and then gripe about WIC and food stamps. All of the policies and bloated bureaucracies of government need to be destroyed or scaled back to make none of those things necessary.
The Indies are those who would love to not need any courts or any police or any government, except for the fact that they recognize that human nature won't allow it. Indies recognize that anarchy is not viable because there will always be evil people who mean to abuse other people, innocent people, and so we must establish and ordain at least some limited form of government in order to restrain the evil.
The biggest problem in this scenario is that the true-to-the-core Indies who would be the best and most trustworthy at executing that role don't really want the job. They just want to be left alone to pursue a multitude of worthwhile goals and just taking care of themselves and their loved ones.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who actively seek to get the jobs in government are the TOTBALS. And they actually think of themselves as really good people who are doing us a favor by sacrificing and working for far less than they are actually worth.
I get extremely irritated by anyone who thinks that the American Revolution and the French Revolution had anything remotely in common. Even if you don't want to study them in depth, at least read "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens. The former was a righteous attempt to redress grievances and establish a proper government. The latter was just an excuse to go on a cathartic blood-bath over a corrupt Church-monarchy cabal.
I don't know if there is much more that I should add to this post. Let me know.
And now for a breakaway moment
Sometimes I get too caught up in the ugliness of this world and I need something to life my spirits.
I can think of nothing better than good music. There are very, very few exclusively instrumental pieces that move me. Very few.
I don't really give a flying whatever for the movie Jurassic Park, but John Williams signature piece for this movie is stunning. It is majestic. It raises the bar on what can be called majestic.
I've listened to several renditions and the link below is one of the absolute best.
Think on this. It was commissioned for a capitalist enterprise. Had it been funded through the NEA or some such government entity, we would have ended up with some piece of crap that wouldn't be suitable for introducing Sponge Bob Square Pants or Captain Kangaroo.
Enjoy.
I can think of nothing better than good music. There are very, very few exclusively instrumental pieces that move me. Very few.
I don't really give a flying whatever for the movie Jurassic Park, but John Williams signature piece for this movie is stunning. It is majestic. It raises the bar on what can be called majestic.
I've listened to several renditions and the link below is one of the absolute best.
Think on this. It was commissioned for a capitalist enterprise. Had it been funded through the NEA or some such government entity, we would have ended up with some piece of crap that wouldn't be suitable for introducing Sponge Bob Square Pants or Captain Kangaroo.
Enjoy.
Drama
In a recent personal exchange, this concept came to me and I reproduce it here.
"All the world is a stage. [yes, credit to Shakespeare] All of life is drama. There's no escaping it. Question is what script are you going to choose? What play do you want to be in? What character are you?"
No doubt we've got people in our lives who protest to the high heavens that they don't want any drama in their lives.
I'll bet ten dollars against a donut that such people watch "Survivor" or "The Walking Dead" or any number of shows full of tense drama. Which exposes the lie that they don't want drama. People love drama. Billions and billions of dollars are freely given up by a populace that can't get enough drama. What they really want is drama that they can turn on or shut off at a moment's notice. They want to experience drama vicariously through other people without the actual consequences that will remain after the programming hour is done.
Life is drama. Stuff happens. We can deal with it well or we can deal with it poorly. When people talk about not wanting drama in their lives, it typically means they don't want to put up with the poor ways that other people react to stuff that happens. Or, they don't want to put up with the different ways that other people react to stuff that happens. In a nutshell, they don't want to deal with YOUR drama.
We each have enough of our own drama. Another way to think of it is our own stress. Every day is a new challenge with all kinds of stress. We think of our struggles every day as our own stress, but we don't think of it as drama. Your stress and the way you don't handle it well according to my judgment is your drama. We each want others to cut us some slack because of all the difficulties we are dealing with, while at the same time we want others to take their drama someplace else and leave us the hell alone.
God, please help me to remember these words from day to day as I live through the drama, and remember that other people are going through some drama as well.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Scottish Revolt
Subtitle: Why it matters.
Never been there. So I know that my opinion is probably woefully inadequate. I can only go on what I can glean from the internet, which really isn't much.
What little I can get tells me that Scotland is pretty leftist. I don't use the word liberal, because that word has been abused beyond its classical meaning. I mean leftist or "progressive" in the sense that Hillary Clinton uses it, which is to say that "progressive" is a euphemism for socialism or communism light.
Many real conservatives in America have dreamed of an independence or secession movement. Like having Texas separate from the rest of the states and become an independent Republic. A more optimal scenario would be to let California secede and implement all the ideals that leftists want and become the socialist utopia that they believe in, but without any help from the rest of the states. Then we can all sit and watch as they crumble and starve and implode from their own stupidity in rapid order. Right now, California is just doing it in slow motion because they can use the largess of the rest of the states via the Federal government.
Scotland is a tiny country by itself. If it separates from Britain and maintains leftist policies, it will be a disaster and it will collapse, which will reinforce the cause of the global elitists. If Scotland tries to implement true conservative measures that would make a positive difference, expect the global elitists to make moves to bring Scotland to her knees. Socialism has never, and can never work. The USSR proved that in no uncertain terms. Socialism only lasts as long as it has other sources to leech from.
Never been there. So I know that my opinion is probably woefully inadequate. I can only go on what I can glean from the internet, which really isn't much.
What little I can get tells me that Scotland is pretty leftist. I don't use the word liberal, because that word has been abused beyond its classical meaning. I mean leftist or "progressive" in the sense that Hillary Clinton uses it, which is to say that "progressive" is a euphemism for socialism or communism light.
Many real conservatives in America have dreamed of an independence or secession movement. Like having Texas separate from the rest of the states and become an independent Republic. A more optimal scenario would be to let California secede and implement all the ideals that leftists want and become the socialist utopia that they believe in, but without any help from the rest of the states. Then we can all sit and watch as they crumble and starve and implode from their own stupidity in rapid order. Right now, California is just doing it in slow motion because they can use the largess of the rest of the states via the Federal government.
Scotland is a tiny country by itself. If it separates from Britain and maintains leftist policies, it will be a disaster and it will collapse, which will reinforce the cause of the global elitists. If Scotland tries to implement true conservative measures that would make a positive difference, expect the global elitists to make moves to bring Scotland to her knees. Socialism has never, and can never work. The USSR proved that in no uncertain terms. Socialism only lasts as long as it has other sources to leech from.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Fashion Friviolitry
The computer I happen to be using, is serviced by an ISP using Bing, and one of the stupid, pseudo-news headlines that come across the splash screen is about Taylor Swift being "best-dressed" or some nonsense to that effect.
The reality is this. Taylor Swift, or Salma Hayek, or Carrie Underwood, or Kellie Pickler, Marissa Tomei, or Mary McDonald, or a hundred other women I could name, could wear a burlap bag, or a bath towel or flannel shirts and worn out jeans and I would get just as hot and bothered as I would if they were wearing a negligee or nothing at all.
The pieces of material have nothing to do with why we want to look at these women. By the way, Marissa Tomei turns 50 this year and Mary McDonald is 62. I will leave you to google Rachel Welch on your own.
I don't care how much Rosanne Barr, or Whoopie Goldberg, or Rachel Maddow, or Hillary Clinton invest in clothes or cosmetics, or the experts that can tell them how to use those things, I can't stand to look at them.
In several decades, I've seen some women who have made dramatic changes in their lives to become very pretty compared to their former selves, so let's be clear that it is very possible to improve.
But I am sick to freaking death of seeing thinly veiled advertising in the form of "news" that gives women the impression that if you wear the same stuff ____________ does, then you can be pretty too.
You can take the clothes off of Kate Upton, or Heidi Klum and put them on an anatomically correct manikin. Once they are on the plastic doll, I could care less how nice they look. I wasn't really looking at the clothes when they were on Kate or Heidi. I guess you could think of it as men having a form of X-ray vision.
I don't care what you do to the Hildebeast, or Whoopi, or Maddow. Their ugliness goes deep down. And I could not imagine going beyond polite pleasantries with Eva Longoria or the Dixie chicks or any other gorgeous leftist female. Just can't go there.
This makes me realize how inadequate is the phrase, "undressing her with your eyes." When a man sees a beautiful woman wearing form-fitting clothing, swim suits or anything of that nature, we've already thought about how wonderful it would be to experience all the various parts of that body about 0.0056 seconds into the first look. There is no scientific way to measure these things. It's just a guess. We've all seen men go into a form of mental vapor-lock in the presence of a beautiful woman. A lot of women understand this phenomenon, but amazingly some women can never comprehend it and condemn men for it. I say amazingly, because the women on the left who are so disgusted by male behavior, also believe in evolution. They also believe that people are born homosexual, and thus have no control or choice over their sexual preferences.
If you believe that, don't you EVER give me a hard time for fawning or even drooling over a pretty, sexy female. Just shut the hell up. You don't beat a dog for eating a steak you left on the floor.
Do I still go into mental vapor-lock over pretty females? Not since about 1985. Becoming a mature human being (male or female) means learning to control yourself. Are the feelings still there? Oh yeah. Deep down inside. But just as I control the things I eat because there are all kinds of things that I could over-consume to my detriment, I don't reveal what I'm really thinking in the presence of a hot babe for fear of looking like an idiot. But I've digressed way too much.
Of the first group of women above, I don't know much about the intelligence of all of them except Kellie Pickler. If it were up to me, the Wikipedia entry that explains the phrase, "dumber than a box of rocks," would have youtube videos of Kellie Pickler from "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" and one of Jessica Simpson explaining the tuna she was eating from a Chicken-of-the-Sea can was really chicken. By the time I was in my early thirties, I understood that while both of those women were incredibly hot and the purely animal part of my being could go into an erotic form of apoplexy in their presence, I could not imagine any kind of long term relationship with either of them, because at some point we would have to talk.
Maybe you noticed that I included a photo of Jewel Staite. She's not what most people would think of as glamorous, or a "knock-out," but I find her incredibly sexy. Both from her role in Firefly and from working without a script at the fan conventions. A "kinda" pretty woman with intelligence beats a "drop-dead gorgeous" femme fatale any day of the week for me. Women like Jessica Simpson and Kellie Pickler remind me of what smart prostitutes know. Men don't pay you to have sex. They pay you to leave after having sex. And I'm guessing that except for maybe 5% of the male population, every man pays for sex. Money may or may not be the form of currency used.
Some people can never comprehend what happened with Prince Charles regarding Princess Diana and Camilla Parker Bowles. Why in the world would he choose Camilla over Di? We can never know for sure, but any mature male with enough experience can surely guess.
Can you have a beautiful woman with brains? No doubt. Heddy Lamarr must have had an IQ off the charts. Just check out her Wikipedia page.
Ladies, whatever you wear will only impress a man for a few seconds. We will not remember what you wore beyond 48 hours. The clothes that we do remember will only be because we remember how much and what parts of your flesh they revealed.
Ultimately, you women wear clothes for other women. If a woman is really beautiful and sexy to most men, she could wear jeans and a tee-shirt or a uniform every day and we'd still have the hots for her. And if a woman is ugly, and not just in the visual sense, she could wear a negligee and we'd be tired of her in two minutes.
The reality is this. Taylor Swift, or Salma Hayek, or Carrie Underwood, or Kellie Pickler, Marissa Tomei, or Mary McDonald, or a hundred other women I could name, could wear a burlap bag, or a bath towel or flannel shirts and worn out jeans and I would get just as hot and bothered as I would if they were wearing a negligee or nothing at all.The pieces of material have nothing to do with why we want to look at these women. By the way, Marissa Tomei turns 50 this year and Mary McDonald is 62. I will leave you to google Rachel Welch on your own.
I don't care how much Rosanne Barr, or Whoopie Goldberg, or Rachel Maddow, or Hillary Clinton invest in clothes or cosmetics, or the experts that can tell them how to use those things, I can't stand to look at them.
I would have to be homosexual to even begin to think of being - gaag, gaag, ick, spew, - attracted to that. That pic came from his, er, her own website.
In several decades, I've seen some women who have made dramatic changes in their lives to become very pretty compared to their former selves, so let's be clear that it is very possible to improve.
But I am sick to freaking death of seeing thinly veiled advertising in the form of "news" that gives women the impression that if you wear the same stuff ____________ does, then you can be pretty too.
You can take the clothes off of Kate Upton, or Heidi Klum and put them on an anatomically correct manikin. Once they are on the plastic doll, I could care less how nice they look. I wasn't really looking at the clothes when they were on Kate or Heidi. I guess you could think of it as men having a form of X-ray vision.
I don't care what you do to the Hildebeast, or Whoopi, or Maddow. Their ugliness goes deep down. And I could not imagine going beyond polite pleasantries with Eva Longoria or the Dixie chicks or any other gorgeous leftist female. Just can't go there.
This makes me realize how inadequate is the phrase, "undressing her with your eyes." When a man sees a beautiful woman wearing form-fitting clothing, swim suits or anything of that nature, we've already thought about how wonderful it would be to experience all the various parts of that body about 0.0056 seconds into the first look. There is no scientific way to measure these things. It's just a guess. We've all seen men go into a form of mental vapor-lock in the presence of a beautiful woman. A lot of women understand this phenomenon, but amazingly some women can never comprehend it and condemn men for it. I say amazingly, because the women on the left who are so disgusted by male behavior, also believe in evolution. They also believe that people are born homosexual, and thus have no control or choice over their sexual preferences.
If you believe that, don't you EVER give me a hard time for fawning or even drooling over a pretty, sexy female. Just shut the hell up. You don't beat a dog for eating a steak you left on the floor.
Do I still go into mental vapor-lock over pretty females? Not since about 1985. Becoming a mature human being (male or female) means learning to control yourself. Are the feelings still there? Oh yeah. Deep down inside. But just as I control the things I eat because there are all kinds of things that I could over-consume to my detriment, I don't reveal what I'm really thinking in the presence of a hot babe for fear of looking like an idiot. But I've digressed way too much.
Of the first group of women above, I don't know much about the intelligence of all of them except Kellie Pickler. If it were up to me, the Wikipedia entry that explains the phrase, "dumber than a box of rocks," would have youtube videos of Kellie Pickler from "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" and one of Jessica Simpson explaining the tuna she was eating from a Chicken-of-the-Sea can was really chicken. By the time I was in my early thirties, I understood that while both of those women were incredibly hot and the purely animal part of my being could go into an erotic form of apoplexy in their presence, I could not imagine any kind of long term relationship with either of them, because at some point we would have to talk.
Maybe you noticed that I included a photo of Jewel Staite. She's not what most people would think of as glamorous, or a "knock-out," but I find her incredibly sexy. Both from her role in Firefly and from working without a script at the fan conventions. A "kinda" pretty woman with intelligence beats a "drop-dead gorgeous" femme fatale any day of the week for me. Women like Jessica Simpson and Kellie Pickler remind me of what smart prostitutes know. Men don't pay you to have sex. They pay you to leave after having sex. And I'm guessing that except for maybe 5% of the male population, every man pays for sex. Money may or may not be the form of currency used.
Some people can never comprehend what happened with Prince Charles regarding Princess Diana and Camilla Parker Bowles. Why in the world would he choose Camilla over Di? We can never know for sure, but any mature male with enough experience can surely guess.
Can you have a beautiful woman with brains? No doubt. Heddy Lamarr must have had an IQ off the charts. Just check out her Wikipedia page.Ladies, whatever you wear will only impress a man for a few seconds. We will not remember what you wore beyond 48 hours. The clothes that we do remember will only be because we remember how much and what parts of your flesh they revealed.
Ultimately, you women wear clothes for other women. If a woman is really beautiful and sexy to most men, she could wear jeans and a tee-shirt or a uniform every day and we'd still have the hots for her. And if a woman is ugly, and not just in the visual sense, she could wear a negligee and we'd be tired of her in two minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)