Handy Resources

Understanding the 2012 Election

My Sister's Blog New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files

Things you may not know about Sarah Palin

Amazing Grace on the Sax

Obama's Magic 8 Ball

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

Refresh to get latest blog entry

Counterfeits: An exhausting analysis
Not exhaustive. Exhausting.
3.25.15

You have been forewarned.

Okay, here's the concept. People buy into counterfeits because in some form the genuine article does exist. There are a million manifestations of this. Basically it could be titled a mischaracterization. It's just a lie.

The most recent illustration I used was Hillary trying to invoke sympathy talking about e-mails about her mother's funeral. That wasn't a good example, but you get the idea. Her implementation was klutzy and amateur and transparent and ineffective, but it was based on something somewhat valid. It's like when you've got a co-worker that's not performing up to par and you're pretty pissed about it until someone takes you aside and says "Hey, you do know he's dealing with a wife that has cancer, right?" So you cut him a little slack.

ADD Moment:
That's why political correctness and rape hoaxes are dangerous; they are based on valid concerns. They are perversion of valid concerns, but the underlying concept that is being hijacked is real.

The Clintons are famous for that sort of deal. They hijack something sacred to protect them from their due when they get caught in their sleaze.

Okay, here's a better example.

Thinking that conservatives losing elections is the same thing as people losing elections because they are conservative.

Obama won the 2008 election. McCain was a lackluster candidate (and I'll never forgive him and Huckabee for squeezing Romney out. That was a horrible thing to do to the country I love. Huckabee seems like a wonderful guy, but I'll always resent him because my country won't ever recover from the damage he did to it) (and I do realize that in saying Romney could've beat Obama in 2008 I'm somewhat undermining my own thesis about Obama's winning being inevitable).

Sorry, my inner James Joyce took over there for a second. Obama won, you know why. People were more interested in proving they were cool than electing a man who was up to the job (Mitt Romney had a much better chance than McCain--you've got to acknowledge that).

Then Obama beat Romney in 2012. So everyone starts analyzing what Romney did wrong. Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. Nobody voted for Obama for anything he did right, so why would they vote against Romney for doing something wrong?

One more time for those in the cheap seats: The only reason a man so astonishingly unprepared and unqualified for the job is President of the United States is because people wanted to vote for a black man.

ADD moment again. Obama happens to be worthless. That has nothing to do with this strategy. If the black candidate had been eminently qualified the idiots would have voted for him for the same reason they voted for a useless juvenile. That's the genius of this. It has nothing to do with Obama. If it did, it wouldn't work. Obama cannot screw it up because nothing he did got him there. It's genius.

Okay . . . anyway . . .

So the Republican party is all in a tizzy about you did this wrong, oh, yeah? Well, you did that wrong! When no one did anything wrong. But we are infighting and splitting ourselves apart.

Okay, is it too soon to get to the point of this post?

Every Republican loved Ronald Reagan back in the 70s. I was in Washington DC in 1978 and I talked to congressmen and senators and they loved Ronald Reagan

But . . . they didn't want him to be the Republican candidate. The conventional wisdom was that, while he had great appeal within the party, he was too conservative to be elected by the general population. He was so loved by Republicans they figured he would be hated by liberals.

Well, we saw how that turned out. Ronald Reagan creamed Jimmy Carter, then four years later humiliated Walter Mondale. America is a right of center country. We, as a whole, are more conservative than most people acknowledge.

Okay. So let's review. Reagan won, maybe not necessarily because of being conservative but certainly not in spite of being conservative. Conservatives can have broad appeal in American politics.

Review point the next (not a typo, being cute . . . because when I come back six months from now I'll think that's a typo and correct it). The idea is perfectly valid that even if you're exactly what the party wants you don’t do the part any good if you can't get elected. In the case of Reagan, they called it wrong,

But that doesn't make the concept invalid. You remember Sharron Angle. Great tea party candidate. Good conservative values. But she couldn't possibly win, and because they ran her instead of someone who could, we got . . . pardon my language . . . Harry Reid.

So that brings us to today. Don't make me review the whole Why Obama is President deal again (I'll do that further down). The Republican party is in an uproar and becoming factionalized. Some of the "Establishment" Republicans are going after the Tea Party faction, and some of the others (not necessarily Tea Party, maybe somewhere in between) are gunning for the "Establishment" guys.

I'm talking about the way people say Boehner is no good and McConnell is no good and they're no different from the democrats.

Bullcrap.

This is not a case of Ronald Reagan. This is a case of Sharron Angle. You don't do anybody any good losing elections.

Boehner and McConnell know what they are doing. They are competent. I don't like everything they do, but they are not the enemy. Glenn Beck is wrong. Ann Coulter is right--first you have to win. Glenn Beck is wrong. He's wrong and people who think like him are wrong.

It would be great if everyone were Tea Party Republicans, but it doesn't work that way. When we have such a clear enemy out there it doesn't make any sense--no freaking sense at all!--to make enemies of the people who are on our side.

I used to like Glenn Beck. I liked him because he was right. He figured things out and they made sense.

Now, as Glenn Beck likes to say, not so much.

I could almost forgive him for being such an ass toward Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Almost. I don't know how much of the national catastrophe called the 2012 election Glenn Beck was responsible for. If it's true what the really smart people said (which I don't believe) that two million Republicans stayed home that day, Glenn Beck may be responsible for Obama getting re-elected. If that doesn't deserve burning in Hell for eternity I don't know what does.

But I don't know that he can be held responsible for all of that (even if, like I say, two million stayed home, which, like I say, I can't believe).

But it wasn't for his lack of trying.

It was amazing the way he undermined such a phenomenal candidate. I kind of understood at first. I didn't want to jump on the bandwagon and be perceived as supporting Romney just because we are both Mormon. He had a higher standard than the other candidates at first. But I got over that. Glenn Beck didn't until much, much later.

What he would say was that (these are literally his words) he would vote for Romney because at least he wasn't a flaming Marxist like the President. He said that. That Romney was just one step better than that and he would hold his nose and vote for him just 'cause having a 95% horrible person in there was worse than having a 100% horrible person in there.

Did I say I liked Beck because he figured things out and he was right? Wow. What the hell happened?

He did eventually figure things out and even apologized. But he never was as enthusiastic as he should have been. One more time: Romney was a phenomenal candidate. Doesn't mean I 100% agree with him on everything. But he wasn't just the least of two evils. Against the very best candidate he was still a phenomenal candidate.

Okay, that was then. Now Beck's saying he's done with the Republican party. Who cares? Be done. But he's talking everybody needs to abandon it and form a third party?

Time for the guys in white lab coats to come out with the really long-sleeved shirts.

You split the Republican party and you don't end up with three parties. You end up with one party. The democrats. Did you guys learn nothing from Ross Perot?!

Beck hates McConnell and he hates Boehner and he hates Romney because he doesn't agree with them 100% of the time.

Okay, you want to invoke Ronald Reagan? Ronald Reagan figured that agreeing with someone 75% of the time put you on the same side. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. You won't find two more polar opposites.

By Glenn Beck's own standard I have to quit listening to him. Because he's wrong on some things.

Come one, Glenn! Now of all moments in our history we don't need to be fighting within our own ranks. For crying out loud, save it for the real enemies!

Okay, remember the deal with Barack Obama. The democrats ran him because his being black (or half-black) made him a popular choice with the American Idol crowd. But as long as you're putting in someone no one would otherwise vote for, you might as well install a radical.

You get this. Why would you run a black person who was qualified and measured and moderate? If you're running a guy who's only appeal is his skin color, you might as well get in someone who's too radical to get elected on his own.

(Hey, blame Starbucks. They're the ones who wanted a dialog on race. Don't tell me you want to have a dialog on race and expect me to just parrot your lies back to you. If you don't want to hear the truth don't freaking bring up the topic.)

I'm going to say it one more time, because Geraldine Ferraro is not here to say it. If it weren't for the color of Barack Obama's skin he'd be working the night shift at 7-11 with his skills. (And probably writing a dumb political blog nobody reads.)

Okay then. So when you're running a candidate that nobody would otherwise vote for, go big or go home.

Hillary is a flaming liberal. She's a progressive. She's whatever they're calling that viewpoint these days that believes the government should run your lives. But she is a pragmatist.

As long as nobody's reading this I don't have to worry about boring anybody. So I'll go through it again.

The one thing that Barack Obama has done for me is to make me appreciate Bill Clinton as he fits into the system The Founders developed. Bill Clinton is exactly who they framed the structure around.

Bill Clinton's political ideology is at odds with that of the average American. But there's one thing that Bill Clinton loves. That's Bill Clinton. He will always look out for his own skin. This is why the framers set up the system of majority rules and voting. The politicians are (in theory) answerable to the people.

So for his political survival Clinton had to do things that went against his personal ideology. He didn't want welfare reform. He didn't want don't ask/don't tell. He didn't care about a balanced budget. But once New Gingrich and the 1994 election forced him to do it, he's glad to take credit for it. He did it because to not do it would mean political suicide.

Bill Clinton does what's good for Bill Clinton, and the way the system is set up that's often what's good for the country.

Hillary is the same way. As horrible as she'd be as President, she wouldn't do what she wanted because she's a pragmatist and knows that it would spell political suicide.

Okay, we're way overdue for an ADD moment here. Barack Obama has no such constraint. He's an ideologue (as opposed to a pragmatist) but will never pay any political price for that. Nothing he did earned him his position; nothing he does can cost him the position. In addition, like the Islamists he supports, he doesn't care. He's willing to go down for his beliefs the same way they'll strap on the weed 'n' feed for the greater cause. But he doesn't have to. You cannot come up with a scenario where you can conceive of Barack Obama being held responsible for anything stupid he does. (So please, people. Cut the impeachment talk. It makes you look like idiots. No, it makes us look like idiots. So stop it.)

/ADD_moment . . .

Okay, where was I? Oh, Hillary. Liberal, nay, radical. But pragmatic.

I think the powers that be on the left would be content with Hillary as President. She's radical enough for them. But as long as you're putting in someone who is completely unqualified but will get elected because she's a woman, why not go for broke?

Why take the chance that she might bend to the will of the people she governs to ensure her political survival? Why not put in the most radical person you can, as long as she's only getting elected because of her gender?

Elizabeth Warren.

Is the left trying to take Hillary out? Are they behind the e-mail thing?

Don't know. Don't care.

When I was a kid my dad would often say in family prayers something about helping us to exercise good judgment. That's a good thing. Making good choices. Thinking things through. That's a good thing.

You saw this story about Planet Fitness being a "Judgment free zone." You can say that again. Nobody in that company is exercising good judgment.

Here's the deal: Penises go in one bathroom, vulvae in the other. Anything else is just plain stupid. Just stupid. Almost makes me wish I had a membership with them so I could cancel. They are pretending to be non-judgmental but they are in fact misogynist.

I've got to make an admission here. I had to look up what "transgender" meant. I'm not really ashamed, now that I think about it. It took me about ten seconds to figure it out, but that's ten seconds more thought than the topic deserved. I just wanted to make sure the "transgender" person they were talking about in the woman's locker room was a man before I bloviated about it. Had the person been a really ugly woman who used to be a man the story would be completely different.

Premise: I don't give a crap how you "identify." What gender you are is ridiculously easy to determine.* And from there what bathroom you use is pretty straightforward

If men are so willing to jettison their dignity to go into women's bathrooms and Planet Fitness is so concerned about it, maybe they should provide separate bathrooms for Gender Confused people. That would allow privacy for the rest of the people who have those backwards traditional values about who gets to see them naked.

Because if the privacy of those people is not important, isn't that a judgment that Planet Fitness is making? In violation of their own policy?

Just sayin' . . .

I should re-think this before I post. If a lesbian is a person who likes women and not men, then I am most definitely a lesbian, and I should stand up for my right to hang around in a place where women get naked.

Just stupid. Just ridiculously stupid. And I will never get back the seven minutes I spent talking about it.

---

*(If one in a million people are hermaphrodites that means out of the approximately . . . uh . . . one . . . people that read this blog exactly, let's see . . . zero of them are hermaphrodites. So I'm sticking with "what gender you are is ridiculously easy to determine.")

It's a funny thing how concepts tie together. Here's an example.

Ha ha! You thought I was going to tell you right away without spending twenty minutes giving background. Welcome to Leany on Life.

I can empathize with pain. You know those really hardcore guys that do MMA? The way you make them give up is get one of their joints in a lock that pinches the nerve. They will surrender the fight rather than endure the pain (if they're smart and want to compete again).

That's the kind of pain you have when you have an extruded disc pinching a nerve. But you can't tap out and no referee is going to step in and make the pain stop. That's the kind of pain that leaves you writhing on the kitchen floor screaming obscenities while your son rushes in to see what the commotion is. I know that kind of pain.

I'm not telling you that to brag about how tough I am (you already figured that out without me telling you). I'm saying that I understand pain.

Okay . . . are we ready to get to the point?

People are trying to push medical marijuana, and the ruse they use is pain alleviation. That's a pretty good argument, but it's a rape hoax. The people who want marijuana legalized want to get high and they don't give a crap about the poor people who could use cannabis to get relief from pain. They want to get high.

That's an example of things that people hide in. These hiding places are valid concerns--that's why they use them--they're just being used in a way that's not real.

This is what I was talking about with people do evil in the name of "religion." Nobody really believes they're doing God's will. They just use that as a way to rationalize the evil they want to do.

Nothing new here. Just another embodiment of the Rape Hoax. You see it in a million different ways. Race, environment . . . and now this bullcrap. Somebody wants to hang around in women's locker room, so he hijacks the idea that making judgments on how someone feels about their gender is too sacred to question.

But the new tie-in is the Reagan/Angle deal. That two things look alike, but this one thing is not like this other thing. The trick happens when people try to sell it as the same thing.

See what I've done here? I've taken these two concepts floating around here, the Rape Hoax and the counterfeit idea, and connected a string between them. And to the untrained eye I look like just an ordinary mortal.

While I was putting this together one more came up.

A few years ago I had the renter from Hell. She figured once she had her TV in the place she owned it and could trash it as she pleased and never pay the rent. I finally got sick of hearing her lies and evicted her. When we got before the judge she said "I'm a single mother!'

Really?

The judge was singularly unimpressed. He figured she owed me the rent money she tried to cheat me out of and also for the extensive damage she had done.

Single mom? Gimme a break. That sounds like Hillary telling us to buzz off because she's the only person in the history of ever who's ever had a parent die.

You see the tie-in. The idea of being a single mom would be a valid deal that would require sympathy and flexibility, but it was misused. Like trying to use a socket wrench to remove a Phillips head screw. Nothing wrong with the wrench, just doesn't fit the situation.

No, really, that's the reason I mentioned it. Not just because I can never get enough of bashing that waste of skin pile of crap piece of filth lying sack of drug using crap who squatted in my house.

Get off my lawn!

I told you Barack Obama is stupid. You might say "Shut up! So are you!"

You would be correct.

This is how I have such an in-depth understanding of the man. I'm dumb. I work with some very smart people, but I am dumb. I understand dumb in a way smart people cannot.

This is the same deal as Medved and Limbaugh et al assigning more intelligence and planning to Obama than he has. Those two are smart and hard-working. They plan and strategize and set goals and are constantly re-evaluating and positioning and putting in the efforts to plan their work and work their plan. To people like Limbaugh and Medved it's impossible to understand a slacker like Barack Obama. "Look at him sitting there doing nothing! It's brilliant! He's distancing himself!"

No, he's not. He would just rather play golf and hang out with celebrities. He's not chomping at the bit to get his hands dirty and using incredible willpower to keep his distance.

The man is just dumb. Dumb and lazy.

He tells the enemy exactly what he's going to do before he does it. Who's that stupid? To smart people it's unfathomable. It has to be some brilliant strategy. Omigosh, we need to solve the mystery of what he's trying to pull here. He's thinking way out ahead of us!

Obama flat-out says he has no strategy for ISIS. Not in some secret meeting somewhere. In front of TV cameras where ISIS heard it before most Americans did. Then we say "Really? You really have no strategy and you really just told the world that?" Then Obama tells us, well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. You can't go around thinking about strategies until . . . until what? Until it's too late?

Just stupid. The man is an utter fool.

But he's never needed to be smart. He's never had to work hard or earn anything. You saw that went he went over to Sweden to secure the Olympics for Chicago. He figured he'd walk out and let his personality take over, and bam! Done! It had always worked for him in the past. No effort required. Hey, it got him a Nobel Peace Prize!

But people who are really smart cannot understand that anyone can be that stupid. Especially someone in such an exalted position.

Hey, did you see that? Another connection! Immunity by absurdity.

You know this one. If you do something a little bad, people will believe it. If you do something ridiculously bad, people have a harder time believing it. Bill Clinton taught us that one. The things he was guilty of were so outrageous that the people accusing him looked ridiculous. They had to be making it up.

That's Obama. So ridiculously stupid that people figure he must be brilliant. They keep searching for some lens that brings it all into focus.

Here's the lens: he's stupid. I get it. I'm stupid, too. Michael Medved, Rush--I'll be your stupidity consultant.

And as to the exalted position . . . I explained that to you. Any other person that stupid (the word is getting old. Unqualified, unprepared, incompetent, incapable, inept, lacking in aptitude, lacking in background, inexperienced) without his skin color and personality would never get close to that position. You'd never have heard of him.

I'm guessing this dead horse is not getting up . . .

Years ago I was heading out to lunch with a friend and for some reason the name Sarah Palin came up. My friend said something about her being stupid. I said "Careful, there. You're talking about the woman I love." We both laughed and had a nice lunch together.

I like my friend. Neither of us is going to budge the other in the slightest politically. So why engage? Our friendship is much more important than politics.

But in a situation with someone who's not your friend the response is simple. "She's stupid compared to whom?"

Tell me a liberal who's smarter than Sarah Palin. John Kerry? Holy mother of . . . If that moron can count his testicles and come up with the same number twice in a row I'll buy you a steak dinner. John Kerry is what Raphie Wiggum looks like all grown up. I'll guarantee you he still eats paste. You know he picks his nose and eats his boogers.

Joe Biden?

I know you're laughing now. If you can find me a dumber person than Joe Biden . . . well, that'll happen about the time Eva Mendez gets arrested for stalking me. You don't get any more stupid than Joe Biden. "On this point there can be no dispute!"

Which brings us to . . .

Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is stupid. Yes, I just called a black man stupid. Which for some reason is so much worse than saying it about the two white idiots I named before. But Barack Obama is an idiot.

You know this. The man is a fool--a ridiculous little court jester. The media used to dedicate two news cycles to every time Bush said "uh . . ." when he was speaking. Barack Obama, with his death grip on his TelePrompTer security blanket, still spews gaffes about "57 States," mispronouncing corpsman (twice in the same speech), confusion about the "Austrian" language, 10,000 people killed by a tornado . . . all of which the MSM completely ignores.

For all his poise and stage presence he's an intellectual lightweight. You cannot give me a single reason to believe he's smarter than George Bush or Sarah Palin.

But I'm not talking about that. I don't care about that.

Barack Obama is stupid because he's just plain wrong about everything. He can't even differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.

Tell me one thing you would trust his expertise on. One thing.

Finances? Medicine? Military operations? Business? Relationships? Fitness? Manufacturing? Would you hire him to come turn around your company? Counsel your daughter about dating? Tell you how to get more horsepower out of your car? Would you trust him to set up a web site for you, or do your estate planning, or design the layout of your home, or . . . or freaking trim your landscaping?

Nothing. There isn't one GD thing the man has any skill in.

Okay . . . enough pre-ramble. Here's the point of this whole senseless post.

If anyone ever again says that any Republican is stupid, ever, you respond like this:

Mandatory voting.

I defy you to come up with a stupider idea than mandatory voting. Cannot be done. Cannot. Be. Done.

Stupidest thing EVER. And Barack Obama supports it.

That's the perfect snapshot of Barack Obama's brain.

Complete freaking idiot.

---

Bear with me for a second while I whine a bit.

I was on a business trip with my boss and the topic of blogs came up and he asked why anyone would waste time writing a blog.

Right?

If I had a dollar for every time I asked myself that . . .

I think maybe it's cathartic, maybe it's a way to unload, maybe it's a way to organize your thoughts by getting them down in writing. Maybe it's 'cause you hear really smart people who get paid a whole lot of money to talk about things on the radio and TV and you think "Hey! I figured it out better than them and before they did!" I have no idea. It's stupid. It really is the stupidest thing that I do with my time.

But I take notes of things I want to say. Then I never get around to saying them. Then Ann Coulter comes along and hits all the points for me.

Complete waste of my time.

Just so you know when you read this blog and think "Hey, I already read all of this stuff in Ann Coulter's column."

I really did think about it before her column came out.

So I'm going to leave the original dates on the posts that I didn't get put up.

So . . . pfffffft

---

Obama hates Netanyahu. He despises the man. You know why.

You know the concept. Some girls are vain but insecure. Those girls really hate girls that are attractive, fun and confident. So the insecure girls don't want the confident girls around, because they make them look bad in comparison. The insecure girls sit over in the corner of the bar making vicious comments about the ones they are jealous of.

Netanyahu is the confident got-it-together girl to Obama's insecure immature silly goose girl. Anybody who walks into a bar where Netanyahu is hangind out isn't going to give a second glance to Obama.

This will go down in history among the worst business ideas of all time. Right up there with new Coke.

Just in case paying $8 for a 1.50 cup of coffee wasn't enough to keep you out of the place . . .

You want to have a "Dialog on race?" Let's dialog.

67% of the people in Ferguson are black, and 80% of the people who are arrested are black.

The conclusion is that the cops are discriminating against black. Mathematically, what if the blacks are committing a disproportionate number of crimes? Wouldn't that be just as valid of a conclusion?

This is copied from down below, but here's where it fits.

If they really wanted to help the black population the way they are pretending to, don't you think they'd want to find out which explanation is valid? Again, the rape hoax. You identify the wrong suspect, you haven't solved the crime.

Since most of the people in that part of town are black, most of the criminals are black. So if a criminal gets shot, chances are he's black. And since most of the cops are white, chances are the cop is white. If you want your criminals shot by black cops, more blacks need to be cops rather than criminals.

What's that? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said you wanted to have a "dialogue on race." Sure, we can just go back to your "Americans are cowards" deal.

If you just quit arresting black people you leave them in their condition of low education and poverty and broken families and other things that's causing them to be involved in crime at the same rate that other races in that condition are committing it.

When they say they want to have a dialogue on race, what they mean is let's get Geraldine Ferraro fired and then call it a day.

Did you understand what I was talking about with my high school demographics? Yeah, me either.

Here's the deal. Most of the kids in my school were Mexicans. So if you had dealings with a person, chances are you had dealings with a Mexican person. Like Ann Coulter says, for some reason more of your ice skating injuries occur to ice skaters than to tennis players.

So when three muslims got killed, the idiots (The Obama administration and the media, hereinafter referred to as IDIOTS) immediately classified it as a hate crime. It wasn't. A waste of skin shot three people. Those people happened to be muslims. That's like my hometown newspaper saying that a Mexican got arrested in a bar fight. No, a person got arrested in a town that has a lot of Hispanic population. That's like watching the news around here, you don't hear on the news that a Mormon got his store robbed today. If a person who lives here got robbed, there's a better than even chance he was a Mormon.

So that's the one case. But when 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians were killed specifically because they were Christians, the White House called them Egyptian "citizens." Read that again. I don't want to re-type it.

Moral of the story, the IDIOTS are evil.

I heard a very smart person on the radio analyzing something about Obama and he said "People vote their wallet"

No, they didn't!

Nobody voted for Obama because they thought he could fix the economy. Nobody. That's one of a million skills he does not have. Nobody believes that Nobody thinks that Barack Obama is capable of handling foreign-policy. Nobody They voted for Obama because it was an American Idol competition

Ferguson. Wow.

So some waste of skin shot two cops in Ferguson. Who saw that coming?

How could the story have gone any other direction? When you take a bunch of morons and rile them up telling them that cops are the bad guys, then make it clear that cops are not allowed to defend themselves . . .

How could the story have gone any other way?

You know what? Screw it. I have things to do--really important things to do like . . . well, like . . . well . . . shut up! They're more important than this stupid blog. So I'm not going to spend another minute editing and cleaning up this format and tightening up the writing. (This he says to the imaginary person who he envisions ever reading this stupid thing). Here it is. If you don't like it I'll give your subscription money back.

'Hands up, don't shoot!' never happened. Nothing remotely like that ever happened. But the truth doesn't matter to the people telling the story.

You've seen this before. Dan Rather did the exact same thing. He had fabricated "evidence" showing that Bush didn't fulfill his duty in the Texas Air Guard. Bush had done his duty; the evidence was fabricated out of whole cloth. When that story was exposed as a fake, Rather said, "Okay, all right, so I completely made up the evidence and yes it's false. But the story that the fake evidence tells is true!" He actually said that.

So "Hands up, don't shoot!" never happened. But it's okay to tell the story that way. 'Cause what if it did? That would be bad. It doesn't matter because the idea of a cop shooting an innocent guy is so bad.

People seem to buy into the idea that it's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge So that's the story they're sticking to. Even though it never happened. 'Cause but what if it had?!

So it's okay to lynch Darren Wilson, because the seriousness of the charge. Even though Darren Wilson is completely innocent. The Obama administration gave a green light to shooting cops because it would be so awful if rogue cops were killing innocent people. Are rogue cops killing innocent people? "You're missing the point!" say the Obamaites. They say we have to shoot cops because the idea is so bad.

What if I say you're a child molester? That's pretty doggone serious. No, I don't have the first shred of evidence, but do we really want to take a chance on something as serious as that? I think we'd better lock you up because the charge is so serious.

Hey, here's a concept I might not have mentioned . . . more than a million times.

The Rape (kidnapping/racism/environmentalist . . . .) Hoax.

The hoax does damage to the genuine article. I wish I had the skill to graph all this out.

If it's true, don't you think you could find some evidence that's not fake? Because your fake evidence convinced me of the opposite of what you were trying to

There are bad cops out there. I don't know Darren Wilson. But I know he wasn't a bad cop. How do I know? Because you had to fake the story to make me think he was a bad cop. If he really were, you wouldn't have to fake it.

You remember that cowboy I hate? I think about him being a cop. Wow, what a dream job for that dipschlack. He loves to control and hurt people and make them bend to his will. He loves to terrorize people into doing exactly what he says. Can you imagine giving him a gun and a badge and the authority to make people do what he wants them to do? That would be a bad cop.

There are people like that. Some of them have to be cops.

What if Darren Wilson is like that? That would be bad. But regardless of what kind of cop Darren Wilson was, people with a brain will forever remember him as a good cop who defended himself against a criminal.

That's because everyone trying to convince me otherwise is a lying pile of crap scumbag. If he really were like that you wouldn't have to fake the evidence.

Open letter to the lying piles of crap scumbags in the press and in Ferguson:

You've convinced me--and everyone else with a brain--to strengthen our tendency to always side with the cops. So you've scored a win for bad cops everywhere.

Way to go, schmuckwads.

. . . that I'm always whittling away at and never able to fully articulate.

I had a brilliant illustration of this.

And I forgot it.

Now do you see why I take notes of things I want to say here?

This is a variation of counterfeit things depending on the existence of a real article. For example (and this isn't the brilliant one I thought of), sometimes we give people some latitude because of what they're going through. We cut them some slack. That's valid. But because it is valid, it can be used as a counterfeit. Like Hillary did.

I deleted 30,000 e-mails but you have to excuse me because I invoked my mother's funeral!

What an absolute pile of crap that woman is.

This also ties in--and here's where I wish I had the ability to graph this out--to the two-way sword trick. You see people use this all the time. It works great in the movies; much less well in real life.

You establish someone's position. Then use it to bolster your position and undermine their own.

Do you think it's okay to lynch someone because of the color of their skin?
No, of course not!
Well, that's what you're doing to Darren Wilson

And it also ties into conspiracy theories.

(Remember, I've abandoned formatting and editing and tightening up my writing. If I were in a hospital bed with nothing better to do, I could make all of this make sense.)

If I wanted to keep something a secret, I'd leak it to the conspiracy theorists Whatever they believe, you are going to believe the opposite because they have no credibility. So to convince someone George Bush is a good guy, "prove" he's a bad guy using fake evidence Your credibility is gone and everyone will believe the opposite.

Or it would be if I had the time or inclination to work it out . . .

Here's a tie-on to the Rudy Giuliani remarks.

Keep in mind the counterfeit deal--the idea that the reason a counterfeit can be employed is because a genuine article exists.

Rudy Giuliani said that he doesn't think Obama loves America. I 100% agree with him. Look at the crapstorm that came out of that. But it all happened backwards.

Remember the immunity syndrome that Clinton taught us? If what you do is bad enough, the person accusing you looks bad instead of you. So Rudy Giuliani is the bad guy, for saying Obama doesn't love America. Not Barack Obama for not loving America. Just like we were the bad guys for saying Clinton was a scumbag. Not Clinton for being a scumbag.

Check this out. So the cops are the bad guys for arresting black people. Well shouldn't it be the black people for committing crimes?

67% of the people in Ferguson are black, and 80% of the people who are arrested are black.

The conclusion is that the cops are discriminating against black. Mathematically, what if the blacks are committing a disproportionate number of crimes? Wouldn't that be just as valid of a conclusion?

I would bet that if you filter for education and other factors, that there is an identical proportion of arrest of whites. So what you'll find is that if you drop race completely out of the equation, there is a disproportionate number of arrests of people with low education and bad income who make poor choices. So that's a different question.

The question becomes why are blacks disproportionately lower income and less educated and have a higher fatherless children rates? Valid question, but it's not the question that the liars in the Obama administration pretended to answer when they gave you the statistic.

And . . . and!!!

If they really wanted to help the black population the way they are pretending to, don't you think they'd want to find out which explanation is valid? Again, the rape hoax. You identify the wrong suspect, you haven't solved the crime.

If you just quit arresting black people you leave them in their condition of low education and poverty and broken families.

So that's an Interesting loop around to the idea of the seriousness of the accusation. Remember, I'm not editing. Figure it out. You. You, the imaginary person who is not reading this blah-blah-blah blog. The seriousness of Giuliani's accusation was such that it shouldn't have mattered if it was true. Just like cops shooting innocent blacks. So why does it only work for the bad guys?

I thought of this--all by my ownself! I need a picture of a little kid with a big grin holding up a tiny fish he just caught. "I did this!"

You can debate whether Obama loves America, but there is no debate on this: He hates Republicans.

Is there anybody who could dispute that? He loathes us.

So whether or not he loves America, he hates half of the people who live here.

Let me just remind you that this whole e-mail "scandal" is entertaining, but will have no effect on anything. It doesn't change anything. No one thinks "Omigosh, I just found out Hillary Clinton is unethical!"

Nobody who is planning to vote for her is doing so because of her capability or ethics or anything other than which public bathroom she uses. (click on the link--it's really good) If she were a white male with the same nasty temperament and track record of failure and lack of accomplishment and sleaze, she would not be in the running. Not even close. Once again, the only reason you've even heard of that person is because she's more or less female.

Hillary Clinton is Nixon without the charm

Here's what you need to know about religious whackosity: Nobody is driven by their religious beliefs to do evil things Evil men use "religion" as an excuse to do horrible things.

I recently read a book about Ervil Lebaron. I don't think anybody believes that he honestly felt like God directed him to marry all those young girls and have all those people killed. He certainly didn't believe it. Same thing with . . . whatsisname . . . that Lafferty loser. Nobody does evil things because of their religious convictions. They use "religion" as an excuse to try to justify the evil that they want to do.

I mentioned my theories on things that inform our thinking. I'm not in the mood right at the moment to expound to that to my imaginary internet friends. But I did make a note, so I have to post.

The idea I wanted to cover was that it has two components. Mood, and structure.

The structure of the language and the software informs our approach to thinking. How we do things or thing about things. Other things affect our mood. Like the weather and music. How we feel about things.

Typed the post. Duty done.

It may sound awkward: The democrat party. But you can't call them democratic. Don't you dare.

Really? Democratic? The party who made a big deal about Scott Walker not being in an elite enough class for public office because he didn't have a degree? These are the people who would cleave the nation into groups based on who graduated from college and who did not.

Yeah, that's very democratic.

On that topic, I heard Hillary addressing a group of camp counselors saying that we need camps for adults. She said that we should have people with different political viewpoints get together and actually listen to each other.

Hah! Can you Imagine--can you freaking imagine?!!--Hillary Clinton listening to someone who didn't agree with her?! Yeah, right! That's as laughable as you can get.

Her idea of people coming to agreement politically is for everyone to come to her side.

Back in November of last year I was flapping my gums about voter ID. I was saying that we have the natural tendency to home in on how easy it is to show ID to vote, but I cautioned against it.

Because once you start saying how easy it is, you have stipulated that if they can prove it's not easy it doesn't have to be done.

Make me a list of things that you are excused from doing because they're hard. Work? Obeying traffic laws? Raising kids? Dealing with winter weather?

But if you do you want to have that discussion, let's make it universal. If you don't have to show ID to vote because that's too hard, then I don't have to buy your health insurance, because that's about 1,963 times as hard as getting an ID.

You might be wondering why I included that in here since you specifically remember reading it back in November because it was so amazingly insightful. I had to. I found it in a note I had made and I hadn't included that one sentence about " . . . you have stipulated . . . "

You know the rules. I had to.

Hillary Clinton will suffer exactly zero political fallout over this e-mail deal. None. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Just. Plain. Wrong.

What are they thinking? "Omigosh! We just discovered that Hillary Clinton is unethical!"

Nothing has changed; we haven't learned anything new about her. And anyone who was planning to vote for her was doing so for reasons other than her ethics. Or her ability or track record or experience or temperament . . .

I've seen this movie before. The people who want to say they voted for the first woman President aren't going to let her being unethical or unqualified deny them that opportunity.

I had to get that out there now. Because in two weeks nobody will remember this. It will amount to absolutely nothing.

As, by the way, will be the case for all of the legion other things that will surface between now and the election.

See above.