Leany on Life -- January 2011

On This Day in History

Meanwhile, over in an Alternate Universe

State of the Union
First things first . . .

Continued below
(Best viewed with a mind not clouded by the Kool-Aid)

Leany home   |   Articles   |   Chronicles   |   Prostitution Arrests   |   Who is Frank Leany?   |   Libotomies   |  

What to do until the Blog arrives

The Litter-ature novel is here. I update it regularly--every time Rosario Dawson tackles me and sticks her tongue in my ear.

Amazing Grace Choral Arrangement New!

Jordan's Eagle Project.

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Duke Boys Car Chase

Pipe Intersections

Gymkhana Practice

Programmable Calendar

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files Updated!

Things you may not know about Sarah Palin

Handy Units Conversion Utility

Amazing Grace on the Sax

Obama's Magic 8 Ball


The John Galt Society

It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all the grown-ups gone?"

Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them. I would suggest going gown this list every day and printing off the most recent articles you haven't read to read over lunch.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here.
Ann Coulter

Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns.
George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
Charles Krauthammer posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try Thomas Sowell, who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldbert seldom disappoints.
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.

Jewish World Review has all these guys plus lots more good stuff.

Or you can go to radio show sites like
 Laura Ingraham's or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's..

If you'd like you can study The Constitution while you wait.

Then there's always TownHall.com, NewsMax.com, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, World Net Daily, (which Medved calls World Nut Daily), News Busters, or National Review Online.

For the Lighter Appetite

If you have to read the news, I recommend The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media. HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters, it's a spoof.)

Dave Barry's Column
Daryl Cagle's Index of Political Cartoons
About half of these cartoonists are liberal (Latin for wrong) but the art is usually good. (Fantastic, if you're used to the quality of art on this site.)

Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my I'm Not Falling For It section.

Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.

Today's Second Amendment Message

Latest Blog (continued)

Check it Out

You probably already have, but just in case you haven't, check out Jordan's Eagle Project.

State of the Union
First things first. Let's get the current stuff out of the way, because the rest of this is just cleaning out stuff that is (literally) three months old.

What kind of blogger would I be if I didn't comment on the State of the Union address? (Don't answer that). I didn't watch or listen to it. I figured it was like Obama talking to BP--I already knew what he was going to say.

If I had to type up a transcript I imagine it would look like:

State of the Union Address Delivered by Barack H. Obama, January 25, 2011

I, me, I. I. Me. Let me tell you a story about me. I inherited a mess, I . . . Waaaaah! I, me myself, let me tell you about me, the mess I inherited, I, me, did I mention me?

Those filthy stinking Republicans ought to be tortured to death because they are not civil, those dirty rat bastards. We need civility, you pieces of crap, and that means if you believe in these American values we all cherish so much, you should find a Republican and kill him.

Uh . . . jobs . . .

I, me, mess I inherited, me myself and mine, you are a despicable piece of trash if you don't do it my way. Oh, yeah, and me, and me and I and George Bush's fault.

This cartoon is pretty good, but mostly I just like how the artist captured their likeness. Seriously, how do you do that? With a few lines how do you capture the essence of what a person looks like? How sensitive is it? I mean, when you're drawing a person and you make a line on their eye too bold you lose the likeness, but in a caricature the proportions aren't even close and it still . . .

Trust me to take a simple cartoon and torment it into oblivion.

Liberal terrorists
This will be stale news quick, so I'll get to it now. Some nutcase tried to assassinate the governor of Missouri last September. You heard nothing about it because the shooter was a professed liberal. Seriously. When Glenn Beck pointed out that the guy was a left wing nutjob some paper in Kansas City wrote an article blasting--not the left wing nut job--Glenn Beck, saying that insanity clouds any political ideologies that he might have had.


Where was this guy when the liberal nutjob shot up the crowd in Tucson?

I need an acronym for this, kinda' like the 'LOL' deal. Let's try IYACOUTYAD--If you are capable of understanding this you already do. The left always pounces to associate anything violent with conservative ideology. That is pure projection--completely attributable to the psychology that projects your own way of thinking onto other people. Liberals believe that they should be allowed to force everyone to do and think what liberals want them to. Conservatives understand that the system is only sustainable when it serves everyone--and that means you don't always get to have it your way.

The people that commit these atrocities are liberals. They are, because that's what liberals do. If you claim to be a vegetarian you have to not eat meat. Once you eat meat you're not a vegetarian.

Once you decide to take out people instead of following the system, you are a liberal. Pelosi did it with Obamacare. The Tucson monster did it with a gun. Same thing.

Conservatives believe in following the Voice of the People. When you think that's too much bother and you think you get to decide for everyone, you've exposed your politics.

The drama queen is gone
They cancelled Olbermann's worthless show. I think Nelson said it best:


Case in point
Keith Olbermann is an excellent case in point. What a lunatic! He figured that he was the only one that got to decide how we think. His view was that anyone who doesn't think like he does is obviously too stupid and should be silenced.

Who got silenced?

And not because Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said "Take that guy out." It was because nobody wants to listen to someone who is wrong all the time and they had a choice. The American public took him out because nobody watched him. That's how the system works.

In fact, if Rush and Glenn and Sean had their way, Olbermann would still have this job, because he was the poster boy for left-wing lunacy; he provided them with daily examples of how wrong the viewpoint is.

The shellacking
I guess these could fall under the "better late than never" category. In fact, I wonder if "betterlatehtannever.com" is taken. That's the predominant texture of this blog.

Anyway . . .

You might have heard, the democrats got thumped last November. I have to tell you, I have heard sadder news. Here's a sampling of the cartoons associated with that event.

One of the best ones that I saw (which you saw, as well, so I don't have to post it--I could, if I wanted to, really, I could. I could find it . . . probably) was the democrats (aptly symbolized by an ass) in a car crashed into a tree. A Republican (elephant) was standing there with a fresh AA graduation certificate saying "Let me drive. You can trust me, I'm rehabilitated."

Pelosi crashes the ship
So Pelosi screwed the pooch, but the democrats still figure she ought to be the one running the show for them. That's exactly the advice I would have given them had they asked me.

Okay, this is the kind of story that makes blood shoot out of your eyeballs. It's like what happened yesterday when Obama, who as you recall is evil, said that the Republicans would appeal to their base for awhile, but eventually realize they have to do what is right for the country (blindly and mindlessly follow him). (Note--I think the 'yesterday' here was January 3rd, but I can't be sure.)

Anyway, in what psychologists are calling a textbook case of projection, Pelosi characterizes herself with astonishing precision through her accusations of Republicans. Amazing. "They will be more eloquent in defining themselves than we are in defining them." Simply amazing.

“It isn’t about me. Maybe the Republicans will take a course of action that will solve problems — God bless them if they do. But, maybe, they will pursue what they have said,” Pelosi said. “The opportunity that is there is to have clarity. Maybe, they will be more eloquent in defining themselves than we could have ever been in defining them.”
Read more here. This woman is the enemy. She said so herself.

I would love to believe that she is a nice person who happens to have different views than I do. But I can either believe that or I can listen to her talk. It's impossible to do both.

You know the score here. Obama won't compromise. He'll try to pretend like he will. It's a trap. The man is a skunk. We've chatted about this before. If you are capable of understanding this, you already do.

Obama has a listening problem
Here's an article by Karl Rove about Obama's listening problem.

It's an odd thing . . . I just hit a kind of a wall. Obama is evil. We can't say he's evil, because that, as Medved so accurately pointed out, will guarantee him a second term. But he's bad for America. We should never tire in defending America against things that are bad for her.

But I just got tired. I guess the point is that we have to be smart. I was cleaning up these notes to post this and came across "Obama has a listening problem" and it just seemed like too much; like just constant banging on the guy.

I noticed this in The Teknolix Chronicles. You need a bad guy, but if all you have is a bad guy it wears on you and he becomes a sympathetic character.

But what do you do? Do you get tired and say let's give it a rest, when the bad guy is not going to rest? I guess you're smart. You do it Medved's way so they can't say you're just negative. 'Cause if I'm thinking it's too negative you know the left has accused us of it long before that -- which . . . well, I'll shut up. That just lit another fire under me, but IYACOUTYAD.

Uniting the sides

The Obama Tax Increases
Again, kudos to Neal Boortz. The talk is about the Bush tax cuts. That's all well and proper. But you might have read somewhere that Bush is no longer the President.

What the democrats are trying to do now is the Obama tax increase. That's the simple truth.

(Now, by the way, was now last month when I jotted down this note)

Charlie Rangel

Like he cares about his reputation, or it even matters.

On Religion
Someday I'm going to nail this. Someday I'm going to write the definitive story that illustrates this concept, kinda' like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" or "The Emperor's New Clothes."


But today you're going to have the painful experience of watching me muddle through this. Today I'm going to start from the backside. Since I have no good way to tell you what it is, I'm going to tell you what it isn't.

A wife is driving past a motel and sees her husband's car. She stops and goes and knocks on the door. Her husband opens the door wearing nothing but a towel. Through the open door the wife can see a woman on the bed, holding the bedclothes up to cover herself.

What does the husband say? Say it with me: "It's not what it looks like!"

So, tell, what is the other explanation that covers this situation? Huh?

Life has various situations where two or more very contrasting stories can fully explain the scene you're witnessing. (The motel room scene is not one of them.)

I'll take pity on you. I'll let you read a passage from a real writer. This is an exchange between Teddy and Rachel Solando in Shutter Island.

"You think I'm crazy."


"I'm not crazy. I'm not. Of course what else would a crazy person claim? That's the Kafkaesque genius of it all. If you're not crazy but people have told the world you are, then all your protests to the contrary just underscore their point. Do you see what I'm saying?"

Sort of.

"Look at it as a syllogism. Let’s say the syllogism begins with this principle: 'Insane men deny that they are insane.' You follow?"


"Okay, part two: 'Bob denies he is insane.' Part three, the 'ergo' part. 'Ergo—Bob is insane.'"

"If you are deemed insane, then all actions that would otherwise prove you are not do, in actuality, fall into the framework of an insane person’s actions. Your sound protests constitute denial. Your valid fears are deemed paranoia. Your survival instincts are labeled defense mechanisms. It’s a no-win situation."

Rachel contends that the doctors are performing experiments on the patients, that once the doctors brainwash or lobotomize them they think they are cured. The doctors say that no, that's what the patients might think before they're cured . . .

What's the truth? Either explanation fits the scene you're watching.

So . . . aren't you glad you stumbled across these few paragraphs in a blog where we are going to settle a debate that's raged since men began to debate?

Explanation number 1: There is a God. We--the immortal soul part of us--are his children and he loves us. Our actions in this life determine what quality of life we have after we leave this existence. Our actions have consequences beyond this life.

Explanation number 2: Religion is a good way to get people to do what you want them to by scaring them into thinking that their actions have consequences beyond this life.

Those are the explanations. Which one is true? The trick--the scientific way of looking at it--is to examine both of them and find out which explanation doesn't fit what you observe. But no one has definitively nailed it in 6,000 years (much longer if you believe the advocates of explanation number 2).

So, what are you going to do? Which explanation guides your behavior?

Now to my point--and only 136 paragraphs into the post!

Whichever explanation you believe to be correct, the religious life results in more happiness. I'm not saying this very well, but the point is that the consequences of "sin" don't wait until the next life. Actions contrary to the teachings of true religion (false religion, the theological equivalent of rape hoaxes, is a topic for another day) result in broken lives and families.

Wow, that one turned out a lot less enlightening than I intended.

I'm sorry to be so heavy. I'll be funny tomorrow.

I did it
I was driving to work. Mount Timpanogos was beautiful. I had the camera in the car. I had a place I could pull over. I had time.

I just enjoyed the view, all to myself. I didn't even try to take a picture; didn't try to capture for other people the beauty of what I was seeing.

Maybe I've conquered it. Maybe I've grown into the understanding that a two-dimensional photographic representation of a mountain is much less majestic and beautiful than the mountain. I understand that experiences conveyed over a small electronic device are a counterfeit of the experience in real life.

The reason you're fascinated by this is that someday I may be capable of learning that brilliant ideas really are crap when reduced to a blog.

Get out and vote
We were with a bunch of friends at a Fourth of July picnic one year and one of the kids did something to another kid--I don't remember, threw a watermelon rind or water balloon at him or shot him with a Nerf gun or something--and made the other kid cry. I watched the mother of the offending kid go over to handle the situation. You knew what was coming. The kid was going to get a well-deserved smack on the behind.

But that didn't happen. In a parenting move that I will never forget, this lady took her son by the hand and led him over to the crying child and pointed out what effect his actions had had on another person. I have had many occasions to remember that move and wish I had such great instincts.

Yesterday I ran across this good lady's husband. "How are you doing?"

"Oh, you know, we're getting along okay."

Okay . . . the judges would have also accepted a good, solid 'fine,' but okay.

He looked at me "You knew Christine died?"


"Christine. My wife. She was diagnosed with metastases melanoma four months ago and died in December."

She was forty.

I'm sorry to report to you that something is seriously messed up. I personally know more than o ne person whose obituary I am very much looking forward to reading. This lady is not on anybody's list like that.

I've told you before, people are dying in this world at about the right rate. The problem is that they are the wrong people. You and I know both know people who make the planet a worse place by being alive. Why do people like my friend end up going instead?

I urge you, please, next election replace everyone on the board that decides such things. Vote them out. They are screwing up big time.

Shut up? Moi? I don't think so
I had two things to blog about today. They were completely unrelated. Were.

I wanted to let all three of my readers know about what a wonderful person my friend was and I wanted to inform you that something is seriously screwed up because she died. I've done that.

And I wanted to blast the left for their transparent tactics at trying to squash any opinion that doesn't match their own indefensible ones.

The left will use any excuse to eliminate the competition. That's what you do if you're a Tonya Harding and can't compete. You break Nancy Kerrigan's knees. That's all you can do.

For anyone who tells me to tone down the rhetoric I have two words: . . . uh, well, I guess the judges will also accept "No way."

Displaying their complete lack of any class at all, the left has used the a tragedy (committed by a liberal) to try to whip the public into a frenzy against the enemies of tyranny and socialism. They are willing to blaspheme sacred principles like civility and racial tolerance to achieve their ends.

I don't need to tell you how descpicable these people and their methods are. If you're reading this blog you're too smart to be swayed by them, too.

You know the rules. Right after you say "I don't have to tell you" you have to tell you.

Don't let them shut you up.

I almost did. In that last post, when I typed in basically "I know people who should be dead" I thought "Omigosh, people will think I sound just like . . . "

Then I immediately thought "Don't fall into their trap." Sure, stupid people might think that. Crazy people might think that. And evil people who are trying to deceive people might try to make it sound like that.

I will not let my actions be dictated by how insane people interpret what I say or how evil people try to characterize what I say. I hope that I never say anything that those people approve of.

Maybe you gasped at the thought that I know people who I honestly wish were not walking around among the living. I hope you gasped. I hope what I said was dramatic enough, because I spooled it up to defy the evil people in this country who would run roughshod over my Freedom to Think.

But if you think I feel the need to make that happen, you missed the whole point. Whether because of stupidity or evil, you missed the point if you thought that. It's like the line from 3:10 to Yuma "Wishing him dead and killing him are two different things."

So yeah, I'm throwing my hat in the ring. If there is a board somewhere that decides which people die and which people get to stay alive, I have some helpful guidelines that I would propose to that board.

Beating a dead horse
For those who think I should tone it down, I have this to say:

I'm a straight shooter and aim to hammer home the point that you are dead wrong, you're playing with fire, and if you go to battle on this you're going to get slaughtered, 'cause this is a double-edged sword.

If that's too oblique, try this: "Get bent."

It's Thursday
For a more eloquent and convincing view on the topic read Ann Coulter's column.

Pilot Killers
Someone asked my close personal friend why he was such a nice guy. My close personal friend wondered "Why not?" My close personal friend doesn't consider himself any kind of standout in the nice guy department, but as he looks around the planets he realizes that compared to a lot of people he's fan-frefeaking-tastic. Why should my close personal friend's behavior be the exception rather than the rule? What do people get out of hurting other people?

This got me thinking about a (completely unrelated) experience I had back in junior high.

I heard a conversation between Coach Kloeppel and another coach about . . . well, let's just call him Bobby Horacek, you know, just to hang a handle on him. The coach said that Bobby Horacek was an outstanding athlete. Kloeppel disagreed, Horacek wasn't an outstanding athlete, the other coach asked how could that be? He was the best athlete we had at Franklin Jr. High. Kloeppel said that we had no outstanding athletes at Franklin Jr. High. Then it got into a philosophical discussion about what it meant to be outstanding.

I guess I've rambled enough now that I'm not going to break with tradition by getting to the point right about here.

The point is that a lot of things that people should do just aren't that hard, so why don't people do them? It doesn't take a capacity beyond the average human's to:

  • Create plurals without using an apostrophe. If you send me an e-mail with the word "photo's" I would greatly appreciate if it has something to do with something that a picture possesses
  • Put the lid on your hair gel, put it in the bathroom cabinet and the close the cabinet
  • Button the top button of my shirt when you put it on a hanger
  • Keep track of your keys, wallet and cell phone
  • Not slam my car door

These are what I call "Pilot killers." Not untying your shoe when you take it off probably won't kill you. But not paying attention to that sort of detail is exactly what gets pilots killed.

Now, to a completely different story, that I will artfully tie together with eighth grade coaches and nice guys, leaving you amazed at my narrative-weaving talents.

Every school day morning the road along the high school access road is filled with a constant stream of parents dropping off their kids. One car unloads kids then moves on, the line moves up, the process continues. The road is about three lanes wide, although it has no markings, but with the snow it is reduced to barely one lane in each direction.

This morning the line stopped. Enough time passed for kids to unload, then enough for more kids, then more . . . at the point that enough time had passed for 10 carloads of kids to unload the doors of the car ahead of me opened and the kids bailed out. In my engineer's mind (pronounced "insane") I was calculating the cumulative effect of the delays, with more cars coming into queue and not moving up. The line behind me was well out into the highway.

Then the cars behind me started going around. I tried, but couldn't with all the cars going around me (into the oncoming traffic lane). I finally got around and moved up past the car that was blocking. I looked, concerned that it was having mechanical trouble--it was the only explanation that made sense--but the engine was running and the lights were on and everything was fine.

Lest you think this is just using up valuable blog space with petty whining about being slighted by an inconsiderate driver, let me just say "This is bigger than me," which, if I'm not mistaken, is the battle cry of the petty whiner.

Is it just me, or is it not beyond the average human capacity to think "I wonder if someone else on the planet might need to use this only road to the school from this direction 5 minutes before school starts?" How amazing does a human being have to be to not block dozens of carloads of people?

See how artful that was? All perfectly tied together now. The fact that people don't think shouldn't make it astonishing to think. A person who is considerate is well above average in today's society. But is that so outstanding?

By the definition of "outstanding" I guess it is--that kind of behavior is far to the right on the bell curve of real humans, but on the bell curve of what humans should be it's smack in the middle.

What did you think? Was "Pilot Killers a good title for that last post? 'Cause I was thinking maybe "Miscellaneous Whinings" might work, too . . .

Watch your language
I was intrigued by the lady who called in to Sean Hannity's show today (Medved was on a commercial break) to express her 'concern' about some of the harsh rhetoric that Sarah Palin has used. She said that maybe to a reasonable person it was okay, but filtered through a disturbed mind . . . so, yeah, the right needs to be very careful about the words we use.

I was so intrigued by this lady's point of view that I used the iPhone's *69 the Radio Caller app and after she hung up I gave her a call.


Hello, is this Betsy in Wisconsin?

"Yes, can I help you?"

Yeah, my name is Frank and I was kicking around this . . .

"You were what?

Yeah, I was just kicking around an idea . . ."

"Ooh, Frank, I don't like the sound of that."

The sound, uh . . . what?

"I don't like your violent talk. Why do you want to kick things around?"

I mean, I was just saying, I heard you talking to Sean and it hit me . . .

"It hit you? You talking all this and kicking and hittin' I think I need to call some authorities."

No, I just had this idea I wanted to bounce off you.

"Don't you dare go bouncin' nothin' off me, young man!"

No, I mean to say . . . can I just bend your ear for a . . .

"Oh, so now you want to abuse my ear. You want to cut off my body parts next? Is that the kind of sick game you're . . . ?"

Could I just break in here for a minute . . .?"

"Break? You wanna' break in ? You gonna' break stuff? You need help, young man. You are a sick, sick individual."

Look, I'm sorry, maybe we got off on the wrong foot.

"And you stay offa' my feet, too! Go bending my parts, steppin' all on me . . . "

It's just a saying, ma'am, just a twist of a phrase . . .

"And donchoo be twistin' nothing on me, boy."

Look, if we could just cut to the chase . . .

"Who you gonna' cut? You get back with your cuttin' talk. I've heard about guys like you."

I've gotta' tell you, I was about ready to stick a fork it in. It was like pulling teeth to lay it out for this gal. I was biting my lip to keep from blowing up.
Maybe we're aiming too high for our first conv . . .

"Aiming? Son, you stay right where you are while I shoot off a call to the authorities."

Ah, see? You're using a metaphor, too. 'Shooting' off a call. See? It's common linguistic usage.

"Son, what in the hell are you talking about? Whenever I need the cops I just get out my 9mm and start shooting things up, and they show up."

The first thing I thought with this crazy lady starting talking to Sean was "So we need to base all of our behavior on what a crazy person might think?" The reason they're crazy is because he can't predict how they will react.

She was particularly concerned about the maps that had crosshairs on certain areas for increased attention during Republican campaigns. Sean asked if she wasn't upset, then, about the democrats' "targeting maps" for the same thing. She said, that no, because "targets" were also used for skydiving. Seriously. She honestly said that.

These people running the seminars are getting stupider by the day.

So Sean said that she must be upset that Obama had talked not bringing a knife to a gunfight, and asked her if she was angry at Obama for threatening to send someone to tear him (Hannity) apart. She wasn't too concerned about that, so Sean said that Obama had literally said (he didn't play the clip--it's part of his lead-in) that he was going to send someone to tear Hannity up, and he wasn't speaking metaphorically. Sean said that if he had said the same things about Obama, which he never would, the Secret Service would be knocking on his door.

She allowed as to how that was okay on accounta cuz Obama was the Prez-dent.

That's when it hit me . . . uh, so to speak. This had to be the same idiot that called when Mark Simone was hosting. Had to be. Either that or she attended the same seminar, but I would bet money it was the same idiot.

Either that or, perish the thought, there are more than one really, really insane morons out there.

I'm as tired of this as everyone else. But let's let it go on as long as the left wants. It's like I said before: It really exposes the insanity of those people.

And the other obvious aspect of it is that the left is projecting. They see violent talk everywhere because that's the way they think.

Elizabeth Edwards
Died on December 7th, I guess. I told you, I turned on Christmas music on Thanksgiving day and never looked back. Honestly, I don't know how my life would have been different to know a month earlier that the estranged wife of a cheating, lying scumbag had died. He was a cheating, lying scumbag before he ever doinked whatserface, by the way.

I happened to hear about the Tucson thing because I was taking the Z28 out for a Saturday spin to keep the oil flowing (it doesn't get driven much this time of year--a picture of snow on my phone in my pocket will cause it to lose traction) and three seconds after I started the engine the breaking story came on the radio.

It's Thursday
You know the deal. Read Ann Coulter's column.

Ann, like everyone else on the planet, is talking about the shooting in Tucson. But the story is not the shooting or the nutcase that did it. It has become all the nutcases on the left who seemed determined to use any incident to prove what idiotic asses they are.

In the liberal's perfect world a conservative could not utter a word, because that would be hateful, but a liberal can say anything hateful he wants because . . . well, I have to confess that I'm not able to interpret the logical of insane people, so that's all I can tell you.

Ann does it much more eloquently than I do, so I'll just let her tell you (even though you are going to read the full column):

President "whose asses to kick" Obama predicted "hand-to-hand combat" with his political opponents and has made such remarks as "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" . . .

It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.

The winner of the most cretinous statement of 2011 -- and the list is now closed, so please hold your submissions -- is MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who on Monday night recalled Palin's statement, "We're not retreating, we're reloading," and said, I quote, "THAT'S not a metaphor."

Really, Chris? If that's not a metaphor, who did she shoot?

One friend says Loughner never listened to talk radio or watched the TV news. Throw in "never read books" and you have the dictionary definition of a liberal. Being completely uninformed is precisely how most liberals stay liberal.

If any public figure influenced this guy, my money's on Bill Maher.

Just to remove any doubt about where Satan publishes his newsletter, The New York Times, pulled a Dan Rather by twisting one anecdote completely around backwards to make their (false) point. (That would be the equivalent of using record cold temperatures to prove global warming).
In the most bald-faced lie I have ever read in The New York Times -- which is saying something -- that paper implied Loughner is a pro-life zealot. This is the precise opposite of the truth.

"'A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,' Ali said."

Here's the Times' version: "After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a 'terrorist for killing the baby.'"

So that's how the Times transformed Loughner from a sicko laughing about a dead fetus to a deadly earnest pro-life fanatic. (Never believe a news story written by Eric Lipton, Charlie Savage or Scott Shane of The New York Times -- or for simplicity, anything in the Times.)

You can see why the liberals want to deflect the story away from what to do about insane people running loose in society. Just sayin'. . .

The more things change . . .
I am so furious at Lakers fans. When will America wake up?

This morning I started my car before I did the chores. When I got in it to go to work the heater still wasn't warm enough to be comfortable. Those *&#$ Lakers fans! I'm tired of the cold. I'm sick of it. If you hate the bitter cold as much as I do, it's time to do something about Lakers fans.

This isn't brilliant literature. It's not clever--it's not meant to be. It's contrived and forced and stupid. But not nearly as stupid and strained as the crap spewing out of the liberals' mouths.

(No, trust me, I totally intended it to be as clumsy, sophomoric and stupid as it sounds, and not just to avoid hurting Dave Barry's feelings. I could be brilliant--really, I could.)

I have no use for Lakers fans. That doesn't mean that every time a train blocks the cutoff road to work that I blame them for it.

Liberals hate talk radio. We get it. But you can't blame them. If I were trying to commit heinous acts of evil I would hate anyone that exposed me, too.

But to say that an insane drug addict in Tucson was forced to kill people because of talk radio? That's as ridiculous as believing that Michael Moore-on's behavior is affected in any way by the deodorant commercials he sees.

The most ludicrous one I heard was some moron whose name I don't even know (because he's an absolute nobody--and this coming from a guy who has a blog with 2-1/2 readers) who said he has family members who listen to Glenn Beck and they are appalled cuz, although his mom's not going to go out and shoot anybody, they hear every day that there's this black guy in Washington . . . wait! What the hell?

This racist prick has never heard Glenn Beck. No one this waste of skin knows has ever heard Glenn Beck. This imbecilic piece of trash couldn't pick Glenn Beck out of a lineup if he were the only one standing there.

Maybe they're right. Maybe what you hear on the radio can rile you up. Whenever I hear liberals talk I feel very, very angry.

Tone it down!
When you're playing football you play to win. That means the other team has to lose. Sorry, that's the game. If the other side gets what it wants you are denied what you want.

But imagine if the other team has put your quarterback in the hospital. Every time the official's not looking they get in a dirty hit--then they cry like a little Lakers fan every time you touch them. What are you going to say when they ask you to tone it down?

(Don't answer--this is a family site.)

Mark Simone was subbing for Sean Hannity (the first time I've enjoyed that show all year) and got some species of seminar caller.

Right off the bat the texture was . . . well, like a seminar caller. It wasn't a seminar caller, but it had the same feel. The lady was carrying on about the same old thing. She said that we needed to not oppose the President, we needed to just let him do what he wanted, and that opposing him was destroying the country and . . .

Simone asked "So you must hate MSNBC."

This caller is not in NASA's Rolodex. I'm just sayin' . . . "Oh, I love MSNBC!" she said.

Simone then proceeded to very politely tear her into little shreds. It was beautiful. It wasn't cruel, because this poor woman was way too stupid to realize she was being disemboweled in front of 12 million people. In that sense it was a victimless crime.

"So how did you feel when MSNBC was saying vile things about George Bush for 8 solid years?"

"Oh, I love MSNBC . . ." I think at some point in the (hilarious) exchange she said "Oh, but that's different."

"Tone down the rhetoric" means "Don't get in my way while I'm being nasty."

I have yet to hear anything said about Obama that comes close to the vituperative invective directed against George Bush. Or Sarah Palin! Holy freaking crap.

Wait, who was that conservative that said on Conan O'Brien that we should "stone democrats to death, go to their homes and kill their wives and their children . . . kill their families"? Hold on, I may be mistaken . . .

Liberals are greatly concerned with free speech when they're threatening conservatives, putting crucifixes in urine, defacing sacred things, and calling for George Bush to be assassinated. When people on talk radio express an opinion they have a little different take on it.

Did you just hear that? That was the sound of my enthusiasm for this topic hitting the wall.

If you get it I don't need to tell you. If you don't get it, I can't help you.

The Rule of Law
You know where I land on this. The Rule of Law is Sacred. It's what enables our country to be what it is. And what it is is exceptional (dig intended).

So I was thinking about the way I feel about silly laws. I'm in the commuter lane, there's a solid white line, I need to exit. I'm breaking the law and crossing the line. It's a stupid law. I don't pay any attention to stupid laws.

So how does that reconcile with my feelings about the Rule of Law?

It's absolutely consistent.

Silly laws undermine the Rule of Law; they cheapen it. Silly laws are to the Rule of Law what people who perpetrate rape hoaxes are to rape victims. People who falsely cry 'rape' chip away at the credibility of true rape victims.

The same thing holds true for people who cry "Racist!" at anyone who doesn't blindly agree with their idiotic opinions. The word 'racist' means nothing anymore. That's a shame, because racism is a horrible, ugly thing.

A dozen paragraphs in, time to get to the point. Tolerance. Tolerance is a good thing. It's an honorable thing; a laudable thing. But liberals are wrecking that, too. "Tolerance" is kinda' like the English word "Pride" which is one word that covers a sense that is very good and another, very different sense that is very bad. Tolerance means . . . hell, you know what it means. You also know what it doesn't mean, and that is putting up with evil.

It's fashionable to try to end debates with "Well, I'm not a hater." I am a hater. I'm damn proud to be a hater.

Your professed love for flowers is suspect if you don't hate weeds.

Better late than never
You know the deal. I don't get paid to post to this blog. Nobody benefits. That's why I don't do it a lot.

But, as long as you're here . . .

I can't even remember the date this happened. Some judge in Virginia ruled that the gummint can't force you to buy something.

What follows is my carefully considered legal opinion on that judgment, based on my years of studying the American system:


Here's a little trip down memory lane. Pelosi was to point out where in The Constitution Congress was authorized to order private citizens to purchase something.

Pelosi's eloquent response: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Next question.

SQ (Stupidity Quotient)
It's pretty easy to tell if a material is ferritic or not. Put a magnet next to it, and if it's sticks it's ferritic. The car insurance argument is the magnet for testing intelligence. Anyone who says "The gummint has a right to force you to buy something, just look at car insurance" is stupid. Couldn't be simpler.

If you drive a car, you have to have insurance. It's the exact same thing as the driver's license burka photo. The gummint isn't forcing you to not wear a burka. But if you want to participate in the privilege of driving on gummint-provided roads, you have to have your face on a driver's license and you have to buy insurance (unless you're an illegal alien, of course).

Danged ol' Neal Boortz gets it right 'bout all the time, man, tell you what. He took a little different approach to it, so for a minute I thought he had chewed on some stupid pills, too, but in the end it was probably better than mine.

Which explains why he's a rich talk show host and I'm . . . uh, I'm . . . I'm depressed.

I honestly feel bad--and this is a Rodney Carrington moment (I think I'm sharing too much with you people)--'cause what if someone actually comes here every so often looking for new material? They go away disappointed, then they quit coming at all.

So? Why should I feel bad? Problem solved. I don't have to post for them and they don't have to be disappointed any more. So why do I care?

The fact that I do speaks volumes about my . . . what? Losericity? It's tied to the reason I'm not the CEO of a major corporation with vast real estate holdings. I just get caught up in the little things that don't matter while the real opportunities pass me by. The idea that I'm going to disappoint someone causes me to fail a lot of people . . .

[End Rodney Carrington Moment]

Click "Prev" below to go to earlier posts

Leany Home Previous Month Next Month Articles