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

Or Maybe I'm Completely Wrong
3.29.16

You know the deal. I had it all figured out. I had worked out that Trump is like Obama in that it's about what he represents, not what he himself actually is. That's how I was able to explain that he never loses support no matter what loathsome thing he says or does.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm 100% 180° completely bass-ackwards wrong. Maybe it is about what Trump is.

Maybe Trump's not Barack Obama, but Kobe Bryant.

Kobe Bryant is a rapist. But people love him. Why? Because he scores points for their team. They don't care if he's a despicable human being. They don't care that he's a crybaby on the court, that he's a cheat and a scoundrel. Shoot, they wouldn't even care if he, I don't know, even if he raped somebody. All they care about is that he's got the ability to do what they want to see him do.

Maybe—in stark contrast to Barack Obama—what Trump is is so powerful that it overwhelms how despicable he acts. Maybe it is all about him (or at least his abilities) and people are willing to put up with his disgusting behavior because they really do think he's the man that can get it done.

Whether or not he's really playing for their team is a question for another excruciatingly boring blah-blah-blog.

---

You watched the ridiculous video of little Barack spouting his political theory that "Uh, you know, uh Capitalism, uh, Communism, whatever--they're both pretty much, uh, you know, uh okey-dokey." He hasn't grown up a bit since he sat on the floor of his little college dorm wearing his little beret and smoking and chatting with his little friends (and putting out his cigarettes in the carpet). He's still a sniveling little schmekel with no idea of how the real world works.

Just watch the video and try to picture that two-bit little prick as President of the United States. Can't be done. You can't watch that and still have any respect for him as a leader.

David Limbaugh wrote this column about Obama's love affair with communism.

In it he quotes Adam Smith, who I'm always flapping my gums about, who explained in Wealth of Nations how messed up people like little Barack are.

In "The Wealth of Nations," Smith wrote that an individual who "intends only his own gain" is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." He added: "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

You remember this? I'm always going on and on about how absurd it was for Obama to bluster about the jobs Mitt Romney created, saying "Well, that's not the reason he started those companies!"

Oh . . . so do all those people have to give back their homes and their kids' college educations and their cars and their vacations and all the things they got from the jobs Romney created because creating jobs wasn't his main goal in starting companies?

Just freaking absurd.

Vintage Obama thinking.

What a complete idiot.

Okay, so you might ask him, how do you know that's not why he started those companies?

And, actually, there's a very good answer, but Obama isn't smart enough to know it. Obama is mostly right about Romney's motives, even though it's not because he can see into people's hearts like he thinks he can. And the answer is: Because the companies actually thrived and created jobs! Solvent, profitable companies provide jobs.

You know Romney. You know he has a great and driving desire to make people's lives better. You know he did desire to create jobs, but you also know (in stark contrast to Barack Obama) he has a brain. He created jobs by creating solvent, profitable companies. And he treated people well because that's good business. It's also his nature, but you don't do well in business in the long term by not treating people well. And you're able to treat people well if your company is profitable.

It's like Adam Smith says. You're happy to pay the corner grocer 88 cents for a can of beans that cost him 50 cents. And you pay $3.48/lb. for your hamburger knowing that he bought in 1000 pounds at a buck fifty per pound. You pay your mechanic $220 to install a water pump you could buy for $75 so that he can afford to pay his guys and buy a lift and air compressor and keep his shop open to work on your car. You giving business a profit makes them able to stay open in your neighborhood and provide you groceries and car repairs. You want to give them money and make them successful because you want them to be there for you.

Okay. So we have our answer. Romney didn't create companies for the express purpose of providing jobs. The natural follow-up question is: So how many companies have you started driven by your sincere and passionate desire to provide jobs, Mr. Obama?

Exactly.

Shut the crap up, you sniveling little . . .

---

It's been four years since that miserable little pipsqueak said that, and it still infuriates me so much my scalp tingles.

---

As long as I'm being infuriated over thing the Snot-nose in Chief said four years ago, here's this unforgettable little nugget:

"Well, you know, starting and, uh, you know, running big companies doesn't, uh, you know, doesn't qualify you to be President."

As opposed to be being a community organizer?!!!!

Just beyond ludicrous. Alice in Wonderland on steroid-fed mushrooms.

---

A lot of people think that transgenderism is a fraud. You might be surprised to learn that I think they're wrong.

I was an 18 year old country boy who found myself at a large university where 10,000 beautiful women went to school. I was coming out of one of the men's locker rooms in the huge PE complex and saw a girl go into the women's locker room next door. It occurred to me that she treated the crossing of that threshold as mundane. In contrast, the very thing that would make me want to venture into that fantasy world of forbidden charms was the reason I couldn't. I thought it would be an interesting premise for a story to have a guy pretend to be a woman to gain access to a girls' locker room.

I'm not the first person to have that thought. I'm guessing that thought hangs out right there in that hallway waiting to jump into the next hormone-soaked 18 year old head that comes by. But those heads continue on to their English Lit class, because those heads prefer living in a society that respects privacy.

Fast forward 35 years. That same society became confused enough that the hormone-soaked teenagers moved from fleeting thoughts to actual pretending. All you have to do is "feel" like you're a woman, and it's a violation of your rights to prevent your access to the locker room of the opposite sex.

That's the way most people see transgenderism as a fraud. And, as I said, they are wrong.

Oh, transgenderism is a fraud, just not in the obvious way that people think.

The real fraud of transgenderism is that its whole premise is one of intolerance. It's the idea that what constitutes being a "man" and a "woman" is so narrowly defined you can't feel different ways without falling out of the category. Can you think of anything more close-minded and intolerant than that? Some would have you believe that if you "feel" like a woman, you are a woman, even if you're in a man's body; that being a "man" doesn't allow variations of the norm. If you don't fit their idea you are not a man. It's the height of intolerance.

Give me a break. You can cry in a movie, you can like cooking and shopping, you can even wear skinny jeans and that doesn't change the chromosomes you have.

On the other side, Ronda Rousey hits people. Ask any hairy legged man you know if Ronda Rousey is a woman. Prepare to wait while they drool a little bit.

So don't let yourself get drug into the wrong fight. Arguing that they are only pretending to be another gender can only end up down one road: Are not! Are too! Are not! Are too! Nuh uh! Yuh huh!

The heart of the matter is simple intolerance. Allow people to feel like they want without confusing them about what they are.

---

You remember that "Brad" was saying that the idea of bathrooms and nudity is not something so dramatic; that you don't have to get worked up about it. So the woman has no cause to be uncomfortable with the guy who's pretending to feel like a woman being in the bathroom with her.

Wait, let me get this straight. So the woman in the girls' bathroom shouldn't be upset with a man there.
"That's right."
So it's not a big deal?
"Not at all."
She has no reason to be uncomfortable?
"No, she shouldn't."
. . . because her gender identity isn't getting violated.
"Of course not."
So . . . just to be clear . . . it's irrational for a person to feel violated by the presence of someone she doesn't feel shares her gender.
"How many times do I have to say it?! It's not a reason to be uncomfortable and she's not being violated in any way!"
Okay, good. I'm glad you see it that way. So the man who "feels" like a woman has no reason to be uncomfortable being obliged to use the men's bathroom.
"But . . . no, but . . . but . . . no, that's not . . . "
Hey, it's no big deal. You're absolutely right. He's perfectly fine going in the men's room. Glad we could have this little chat.

---

Nature is in general kind. I'm talking about the way that nature makes dumb people dumb enough to not know they're dumb.

Except in my case.

In my case I'm just smart enough to live in the daily horror of how dumb I am.

If you have any experience with my gum flapping, you've skipped the first few paragraphs and ended up here, knowing what everybody who knows me knows, that I spend forever laying the groundwork for the point I'm trying to make.

Hah! Fooled you! Not there yet!

Yesterday I got in a discussion with someone who is smarter than me (that narrows it down! . . . to about 90% of the planet.) Just today I realized he had been toying with me. He was giving me the answer and laughing his carcass off that I wasn't getting it. He just kept pitching it low and to the outside and shaking his head that I wasn't knocking it out of the park.

---

This guy—and I'm just going to call him "Brad," you know, just to hang a handle on him so I don't keep saying "this guy"—was making the point that it's stupid to say you have to use the bathroom that corresponds to your genitals. His argument was "Why is eliminating waste seen as such a violent event that we have to protect one gender from another gender witnessing it?"

I was parrying with what I thought were brilliant arguments—that's the entertainment of playing with dumb people like me. We think that our dumb answers are brilliant. I said that it was a two-way street. If that person was so convinced that he "felt" like a woman and had the right to go into the women's bathroom, why was his right more important than my daughter's who "feels" like she doesn't want a guy with a penis in her bathroom no matter how he feels?

Then he'd pitch it right into my power zone again. "But why does society think that going to the bathroom is such a violent act that it can't be witnessed by someone of the opposite sex?" And again I'd let the pitch pass without knocking the sumbuck out of the ballpark.

Forehead smack!

"Brad's" main argument was the best argument against him.

Okay, "Brad," so if "eliminating waste" is not a violent or private act, why is it such a violation of the transgender* to make him go into a men's restroom?

Crowd goes wild.

Duh. What a moron I am. I feel good that at least I was able to give a fellow passenger on Starship Earth some entertaining moments.

---

*"Transgender" in this case meaning "guy pretending to feel like a woman"

---

The whole issue of transgenderism underscores how intolerant the left is. That's the bizarre thing. They posit these absurd ideas and scream and cry that we aren't open-minded and we do the whole "What happened to the other two dollars?" deal (You know, the three men in a buffet story in other posts of mine). We just completely let slide that their basic premise is a hoax.

The point is that people who can even entertain the idea of transgenderism have no tolerance. None. They have strict ideas about what a man or a woman should be (the exact thing they accuse us of doing) and allow no variations of that.

If you have a penis you are a male. I don't care if you cry in movies or like flowers or even wear skinny jeans. You are a male. And not all males are the same. Rhonda Rousey is a female, and she hits people and makes them bloody. Do these idiots think she's not a female? Every hairy-legged man I know is pretty convinced she's a female.

Just absurd. Just absurd that we give these idiots the attention to even argue with them.

. . . like I'm doing right now . . .

---

Wow-just-wow alert.

You have to watch Barack Obama explaining how communism and capitalism are both just pretty much okey-dokey. No, seriously. Watch it.

He can't even think of an insult to hurl at communists. And I love that he calls insults "intellectual arguments." (I know, he probably means the idea of the difference . . . I guess. Hard to tell. This is him without a TelePrompTer)

And he's praising Castro for education and health care. Which sucks in Cuba.

What a complete and total fool. What a complete and total tool.

Wow

---

Actually, and I throw up a little in my mouth to say this, Obama makes a good point that I have made. He basically says (after surprisingly saying something good about capitalism) that it has to have a moral society in order to function. I was talking about that exact thing a couple of days ago.

The problem (you knew I couldn't just give the guy unqualified credit) was that he already kind of contradicted everything he said. That's like saying "Honey, I love you, but . . . " Just discount everything you hear before the word "but."
"You're doing a good job, but . . . " Translation: You're not doing a good job.

Maybe it's just his disjointed and disorganized style of talking without reading a speech. But it could be the Clinton technique of making us hear one thing while being able to defend that he said something completely different.

(Which doesn't preclude the possibility of it being just his disjointed way of talking. His weenie personality makes him ramble around all sides of an argument which, coincidentally and not due to intelligent orchestration, allows him to deny whichever part of the argument he needs to later.)

You remember that three weeks after Obama knew that the Benghazi attacks were a coordinated terrorist attack he was still claiming they were the result of a stupid video nobody watched. But when somebody (cough Mitt cough) called him on it he was able to stomp his little feet and shake his little fists and say "No! I said they were terrorist attacks the day after!" Well, his little girlfriend stood up to Mitt for him. He was happy to hide in her skirts. Weenie.

Yep, he did in fact reference general acts of terror in a speech thirteen paragraphs before he specifically mentioned the Behghazi mob action, which he didn't specifically say was an act of terror.

ADD detour:

Let's say he did. Let's say he unequivocally declared the next day that the attack was a terrorist attack. Let's give him that lie (You lie!). Disputed as it is.

It is still undisputed that after that he reaffirmed that the attack was due to a video. Weeks after that.

Wouldn't you expect the latest information to be the best information? We thought the guy caught the football, but on further review we now understand that it touched the ground first.

Takeaway: President Obama is a liar.

So . . . anyway . . . I guess I'm done.

---

You're probably asking yourself, why is Frank posting this entertaining listicle of manliest quotes by Americans.

And you're probably answering yourself "Oh, crap. What's coming up is more vintage boring Frank.

---

I came up with a brilliant analogy to describe the position that Trump occupies.

The Pope.

You love the Pope. Everybody loves the Pope. But it doesn't matter what person occupies that office. You love the Pope, not John Paul or Benedict or Francis or whoever's in there.

Well, you kinda' do love the person, too, but use the lens I'm giving you to get it in focus, for crying out loud.

Like a lot of my explanations, you have to use it as one tool to understand. Joseph Smith offered helpful advice that he uses when trying to understand scripture: I try to think "What question were they answering?" ('Cause, you know, if this blog ain't scripture I don't know what is)

You use my explanations like you ride a dirt bike—loosey goosey. Don't get too tight of a death grip on the handles and try to micromanage every movement.

So that's it. That's what I was talking about that once he achieved that status—being in that position—he doesn't matter so much anymore. People still love the position.

---

My analysis, the one I actually prefaced with my trademark insult (I've got it all figured out!), does discount Trump's abilities.

I have addressed his appeal. I tried to paint the picture of one aspect of that when I was talking about scammers. You just get tired of evil people and wish you could break outside of the bounds of polite society and deal with it.

But . . . standard Leany on Life caveat applies: What I'm trying so hard to explain everybody already understands, and someone else has already done it better.

This time it was Rush Limbaush laying it all out. I know, I know, when I post a link here it's basically the same as hiding a democrat's welfare check under his work boots. It's never ever going to get followed. But really, you need to listen to or read this analysis.

Part of what you're going to feel is . . . persuaded. You know how much I bad mouth Trump. He is not the kind of person we want representing us as President of the United States. He just isn't. But Rush makes a pretty good case and you find yourself saying "Yeah! Heck yeah! That's what we need!"

The part that Limbaugh was specifically addressing was the myth that Trump is the one causing the violence at his rallies. He's stirring up people to anger.

That's not the case, necessarily. Oh, people are angry—or maybe it's righteously indignant. And, as I've attempted to describe it, Trump taps into the visceral desire to defend yourself.

But the case that Rush lays out is that the violence is coming from the left.

You know this. You've seen it playing out. But Rush states it in a very clear way.

Just click the link already. It's a pretty good analysis. I guarantee you the picture comes into better focus using his lens.

---

But you're not fooled. You know I'm still flapping my gums about the same thing.

As I said, my (spot-on) analysis discounts Trump's abilities at persuasion.

Scott Adams explores his abilities. He has some really good insights into this phenomenon (if you care). Apparently I am—or was—what he calls a Persuasion Denier. He lays that out in this article on How to Know Trump is in your Head. Surf around his blog. He has some really good insights into what's going on like this look into Hillary vs. Trump. Again, if you care.

Couple the education you get from him with some of the stuff you see about Trump on the Charisma on Command YouTube channel, and you might, like me, modify how you think about the man. Oh, you won't like him. I still think he's crass and a bully and a jerk and low class and completely unlovable. But I've factored into my Got it all Figured Out equation that he does have persuasion skills.

He's a demigod—a figure that occupies a space where he can do no wrong, but he got there as a demagogue. So, he is like the Pope, in the sense that they love what he represents, not the despicable clown that he is (not that the Pope is a clown—or a rodent or gum wrapper or whatever I said that could be in that spot at this point). But he had skills to get him there. Small words. Repetition. Tapping into emotion. Demagogue skills.

Okay, enough of my boring talk. Now read someone with a brain (Scott Adams) talk about Donald Trump the Con Man and try to decide whether he's using "con man" as an insult or a compliment.

Then read John Stoessel discourse on a similar thing (with kind of a similar slant. At what point do you know if he's for him or against him?).

Finally, as you know, Jonah Goldberg seldom disappoints. Goldberg lays out how the GOP is all done, no matter what. Really. Lays out various scenarios, some likely some . . . well, not so likely. And concludes that "This ends in tears no matter what."

But read it to the end. Really.

---

I heard Steven Crowder on Glenn Beck this morning. I really like that guy. He's very smart and funny. Anyway, he said something like "A lot of people might find it disingenuous for me to be bashing Trump using the same tactics I criticize him for. But I'm not running for President."

Yeah!

He said it much better, but you get the point. I've flapped my gums about this before. Michael Medved is the person I point to as a standard for how we should behave. But my behavior is much more like Mark Levin. I don't have a national audience -- heck, I don't have any audience. No one is going to alter their thinking or behavior based on what I say. So it's my party and I'll be a crybaby if I want to.

So . . .

Now that you've survived the insufferable warming up period that's unique to my so-called "writing," here's the post.

The point is that both of the things I'm going to talk about today are "Can you freaking believe . . .?!" pieces that have more the texture of bitter gossip than substantial policy discussion. As it turns out, I'm more of the whiny gossipy sort that likes being outraged and causing trouble, rather than the substantial solutions-offering kind of guy. It seems more entertaining to me, in a trashy tabloid sort of way, then I get to complain about how crass and trashy tabloidish the debates are, without any hint of irony.

But I'm not running for public office.

Oh. I guess I wasn't quite through warming up . . .

So today these are the things I get my jollies being torqued off about.

Donald Trump's media guy manhandled a female reporter then Trump said it never happened 'cause he didn't see it. This is a snapshot of why Trump is a piece of crap. But you've known this ever since his ex-wife revealed that he had raped her, and then his spokesperson said that it was ridiculous to say that a man can rape his own wife, and Trump said nothing to correct that statement.

And, after this commercial break, more of the Jerry Springer Show blog.

---

Welcome back. Next we're going to talk about that fetid pile of steaming excrement, Barack Obama (can you believe how childish Trump is, calling people names?!) Barack Obama was was whining about how Benjamin Netanyahu hurt his little feelings by lecturing him when he came to the White House. Since you never click on my links, I'll go ahead and post the salient points here.

The bad blood between Obama and Netanyahu dates back a few years ago following a testy meeting at the White House. The leaders simply did not get along. Now, in a new interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama is pinning the blame on Netanyahu. During their meeting, Obama claims the Israeli leader lectured him on the dangers Israel faces. Obama responded in annoyance . . .

“Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”

Barack Obama, the worst Foreign Policy President not only in history, but in your wildest nightmare imagination, was talking down to Benjamin Netanyahu, of all people, because he's "the African American son of a single mother." Well, if that doesn't qualify you to manage Middle East policy I can't imagine what would!

As astonishing as it is that he would say that, it's head-shakingly unbelievable that he would admit to being such a pantywaist crybaby non-sequitur-spouting idiot.

And a poopy caca.

But I'm not running for office.

---

Oh, and in the Crowder conversation this morning they brought up a point that I had made when I was scratching my head about Trump's continued support. They said something like "What, now we're trying to hit the milestone of the first orange-faced President?"

(As you recall, dear imaginary reader, since you memorize all of my epic posts, mine was something like "Look at me! I'm open-minded about bad toupees!")

---

Finally, along the same lines of childish making fun of people instead of being constructive, this video of "Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight" is entertaining.

And it's Hillary Clinton. She's an evil pile of scum, so it's a victimless crime

Last August I posted this cartoon, along with a very scholarly and flawlessly written explanation of why I was certain Trump was a flash in the pan. It was irrefutable.

---

Oops.

Here's an insult that I personally formulated. "Sounds like you've got it all figured out."

I think I probably got the idea from a high school teacher who who used a similar argument ender. "You're right. I'm wrong, you're right."

It's the indefensible curse. How's the person you're debating with going to counter that? He's ostensibly trying to convince you, you say "What? You're trying to convince me. I conceded."

My high school teacher's line, like mine, means "You're wrong, but I can see that I'm wasting my breath discussing anything with you." If I ever tell you that you get really annoyed, 'cause you know that I'm dismissing everything you say.

---

You remember I was scratching my head over Trump and his being able to say anything without it costing him politically. I understood Obama--people wanted to prove how cool they were by voting for the cool black guy. But Trump? What were they trying to prove?

A guy I work with explained it to me. Trump's anti-establishment. They aren't voting for Trump. They are voting to show that they are against "The Establishment." That's all. A rodent or a street sign could be up there in Trump's place, and it would still get their vote.

Duh, right? It's a protest vote.

But that's it. It's the same thing as people "supporting" Obama. They didn't support him. They liked the idea that they were proving they were cool and forward-thinking. A lot of Trump's support comes from people who are proving that they are fed up with the establishment. That's all.

That's why nothing stupid that he says or does can ever matter.