Leany on Life -- May 2010

I told you that I like novels that are metaphorical. They have to be entertaining on their own, but it's kind of a treasure hunt to discover the metaphor . . .

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

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

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.)

Dilbert.
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.

The symbolic novel
5/31/10

I told you that I like novels that are metaphorical. They have to be entertaining on their own, but it's kind of a treasure hunt to discover the metaphor. "Hey, the dragon is the girl's self-esteem issue and the guy kills the dragon!" Then the story ends before the damsel discovers the knight isn't as exciting as her old bad-boy boyfriend and he discovers that she doesn't really like monster trucks, she just pretended to so he'd fall for her. Anyway . . . you can read the Chronicles of Narnia as a fantasy, or you can see the parallels that make the seven books represent the seven dispensations.

In my book we're going to take democrat tricks and reduce them to office politics. For example, you probably remember this favorite trick of Bill Clinton's (pardon my language). He'd make a big press event out of some piece of good news "Unemployment Down by 1/2 of one percent! Economic indicators better than forecast!" When the final numbers came back and the unemployment and indicators were actually worse, that report got buried. What people remembered was the lie that had been broadcast from the rooftops.

So in our novel, we're going to have a character that blurts out facts in the meeting, knowing that the boss won't remember the data. "How many rock bits does the industry use in a year?" Everyone's sitting there thinking "Do I know the answer to that? Where should I go to find the right answer?" Todd blurts out "Twelve thousand! Twelve thousand every year, that's the industry average." The boss is thinking "Oh for heaven's sakes, this guy is on top of things. Why do I even have all these other useless engineers that don't know these answers?" In five minutes he won't remember the number—which is wildly inaccurate—but he will remember who came up with the answer.

Meanwhile, Todd puts one of his flunkies to work finding the answer so when he has to put it in written form he can say "Like I said in the meeting, the industry typically consumes about 900 rock bits per year, if you don't count surfacing application."

So you get the flavor. The story is simplified to an office setting, but the parallels that your subconscious will draw will be to political tricks on a national level.

We're going to have our (completely fictitious) story take place in a foreign country. This is to show the parallel to Obama, who is working in a culture that is completely foreign to his native Trashcanistan, where it's perfectly acceptable to beat your wife for displaying her wrist in public, or to sell your children to a rival clan for the price of a drug fix.

Our main character is going to be arrogant and clueless, just like Obama, and he's going to believe that the rules don't apply to him.

In our story Todd is determined to rent a car and drive himself around, in contrast to everyone else in the delegation who is content to use the public transportation. Todd's problem is that using public transportation doesn't allow him to drive all over Europe (with his daughter who he brought along), including Germany and the Netherlands, even though the meetings are in England. Renting a car with the company credit card does allow him to do that.

Todd is warned by someone who is from this country that he shouldn't try to drive himself around. This person tells him that it can be very confusing for someone not familiar with the streets. This person has obviously confused Todd with a mere mortal; someone who hasn't been gifted with the superior abilities that Todd has. The person warns him that even the locals find it confusing, suggesting that he travel with the rest of the group, but Todd says that no, he'll be fine. What Todd views as confidence is seen by everyone else as a combination of arrogance and ignorance.

In our (completely fictitious) story, everyone is assembled at the meeting at 9:00. Everyone, that is, except Todd. Todd has never been on time to anything, so everyone is more irritated than concerned. The entire group is assembled, and it's a very high-priced group, but they are waiting to start until Todd shows up. Finally, at a quarter after someone suggests that they call Todd to see if he's going to make it.

Frank calls Todd, who explains that he's hopelessly lost and can someone help him. Frank hands the phone to the guy who warned Todd against driving himself around and they begin the process of trying to figure out where Todd is. "I'm looking at a field and a building . . . is that helpful" Todd offers.

In this foreign country they have something called "rising bollards," which are posts in the road to prevent cars from going down streets reserved for buses and taxis.

The buses and taxis have a transponder that makes the bollards drop so they can pass. Cars have no such transponder.

Todd finds himself behind one of these devices. He tells the guy on the phone who is helping him "I'm behind one of those post thingies and there's a line of taxis behind me honking. What do I do?"

Completely out of his league and still as arrogant as ever. You see the parallel. It's easy to create these kinds of metaphorical stories when you can just make up things and aren't limited to just reporting the actions of real people that you might work with. You have the freedom to have the characters do ridiculous things that rational human beings operating in polite society would never be clueless enough to do.

Obama is eager to delve into every and any aspect of your lives. No corner of your existence is off limits to Obama's sticking his nose into it. Obama says "At some point you've made enough money." Absolutely none of his business.

To illustrate the outrageousness of that tendency we'll go into an area equally as sacred—people's relationships. We'll have the group visit a drill bit plant in Norway. The manager of this plant we'll make a man who is not married, who instead has chosen to be monogamous with his girlfriend of six years. Then let's have Todd start lecturing this guy that he has to get married and doesn't he want children and when is he going to make a commitment? Over lunch in front of the rest of the group Todd tells the GM that his girlfriend is going to leave him if he doesn't get off his duff; he has to get married and the sooner the better.

I understand that is really pushing credibility—that no real human being would ever be such an ass, but remember that this is fiction.

A related characteristic of Obama's that we have to investigate is his willingness to offer advice in places he has absolutely no experience. He has the gall to lecture financial firms and auto companies on how to run their business--businesses which have one thing in common with every other business in the world: Obama has zero experience in them.

Todd could be taking a tour of the bit plant and see a machine for torquing bits to crossover subs. This is a machine that he has never seen, much less used or built. Todd could start in telling the GM (the same one he lectured about getting married) all the things that are wrong with the machine and what he should do to fix it. "You should put torque sensors here and here and here," he might say.

Since Obama is self-centered and everything is about him, we need to make our (fictional) character that way, too. When Obama talks about the oil spill he doesn't talk about fixing the problem. He talks about how he's in charge and he feels this way or that and we shouldn't think that he made any mistakes and he did everything right and it's all about him and how he's going to look after it's over. The damage to the environment is nothing. The tragedy is that his credibility got tarnished.

In our (make-believe) novel Todd will respond to everything with something about himself. He'll play the classic one-upmanship game. Every story anyone tells he will respond with something about himself (or a neighbor of his) who did something similar but more amazing. After every single statement the GM giving the tour of the bit plant makes, Todd will respond with "Well, we . . . "

This is where we store our graphite. "Well, we store our graphite, actually, what we did, we, what we, we LIT-rally built a separate building to store our graphite." This mill is used to cut the 3D profile of the bit blades. "Well, we have one of . . . actually, we have two, we actually . . . we LIT-rally, we have three Mori-Seiki mills that we use to do CNC machining." We'll need to put on safety glasses to go into this next part of the lab. "Well, we, we have safety glasses . . . "

It goes on and on.

But my favorite line, that I just came up with completely from my own imagination and without any reference to any co-workers presenting to any real groups of scientists on any business trips, is this: Todd is talking about variable turbine blades and the placement of the pivot. He makes the amazing observation that putting the pivot forward of the balance point will bias the blade to the back and putting it in back of that point will bias it the opposite direction. As if to explain to the astonished group how he was able to solve that complex riddle he explains "I did aircraft design before I went into engineering."

I still haven't decided how many characters that I, as the author of this tale, am going to have blow snot out their noses and asked to be excused from the meeting.

I just got back in the country last night. I intended to post while I was gone, but you know how that works. By the time you get back to the hotel you just don't feel like doing anything, even if you did trust the network connection.

Anyway, when I checked my notes today I was shocked, dismayed and appalled to notice that I didn't post this before I left. Apparently I was waiting to finish up the rest of the notes I had with it.

I didn't mean to leave you with such a dry spell. Sorry.

Just to whet your appetite . . . my imagination worked like crazy while I was away. I seemed to get all kinds of interesting (fictitious) ideas about a ridiculous (make-believe) character who is an incredible complete putz (although completely made up and not based on any real person that I might know). It's as though being on a business trip with other people made the creative juices flow.

I'll post that material as soon as I can organize the notes.

Until then, here's the missing post.

Let me share some very wise words that were recently given at a graduation ceremony.

What Jefferson recognized, like the rest of that gifted founding generation, was that in the long run, their improbable experiment –- called America –- wouldn't work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy who those -- to those who didn't have the best interests of all the people at heart. It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged; if we held our government accountable; if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship.

The success of their experiment, they understood, depended on the participation of its people -– the participation of Americans like all of you. The participation of all those who have ever sought to perfect our union.

Amen, brother. A-freakin-men. In fact, I would have to say, there's not one thing in the entire speech that I would say I disagree with.

The problem comes when you find out who delivered those words. They were spoken by a man who doesn't believe them at all. In fact, the purpose of the words is to introduce a concept that's 180° opposed to what is said in those paragraphs.

Obama said that the electorate has to be informed, the trouble is that with the internet and such they might get informed about things that he doesn't approve of. "We" have to make sure that we're using the technology "correctly." And who better to determine the correct usage than the entity that makes decisions about your health care?

It kind of had the feel of when you talk to your dog in a soothing pleasant voice "You're an idiot, oh, yeah, aren't you? Aren't you a worthless mutt? Yeah, you are, you are a worthless, smelly mutt." All the dog understands is the pleasant voice. Obama figures we'll listen to the pretty words and be lulled into adoration of the man.

The problem is, we know this guy. We've seen who he is, and it's not someone who believes an informed populace should hold its government accountable. It makes sense if you read earlier in the speech where he says he doesn't understand modern technology, like iPhones, etc. He doesn't realize that we can record the things he says. He figures the audience listens to him in a vacuum and doesn't realize this is the same guy who uses sexual pejoratives to describe people who disagree with him.

In the comments section the first post is something like "I support and agree with Mr. President." Throughout the comments section are fawning remarks about how brilliant he is. Keep those remarks. Delete all the rest. That's what an internet comment page is going to look like after Obama gets his "net neutrality."

Since I won't have access to the internet in the gulag, I will tell you now: I told you so.

I was looking on Google maps and using the street view. It was a map in Italy. It occurred to me how huge this Google thing is. Can you imagine what it costs to put together that kind of information—driving cars around every street in the world? I don't know how they do it. I've never paid them a dime and I use the heck out of their service.

What I'm saying is, how can I make a buck on this stupid blah-blah-blah-blog? I waste countless hours putting together posts no one will ever read. How does Google do it?

If I could get paid for the piles upon piles of posts that are in process I'd never have to work again. One of those is a takeoff on a concept that I clued in to as a kid. I was fascinated by the metaphorical novel like Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies.

So I'm working on a similar thing--a post that uses the parallels between the evil administration that we live under (that has complete immunity to rape us) and a completely hypothetical, unethical, cheating, thieving, lying (fictitious) engineer working for a (completely fictitious) company. This guy is often in error but never in doubt, but has complete immunity . . . for various reasons that may be too psychologically involved to get into.

I would make this (fictitious) engineer blame others for his mistakes and take credit for the triumphs of others. I would make him openly berate people then sadly moan to the boss about the incivility with which he is treated. I would have him project, big time, making detailed and intricate accusations about others that are deeply insightful into his own character.

26° this morning. That's well below freezing, for those of you in Trashcanistan who might be reading it. And 5/07 means that it's May—as in springtime—the 7th.

They say "Global warming!" We say What? No it's not.

They say "What? Wanna' bet? Huh? Wanna' bet? Dude, I'll freakin' betchoo!"

Okay, sure, that's a bet I'll take.

Then they say "Global climate change! Pay up. Global climate change, come on, pay up. Global climate change, you lost the bet, pay up!"

Desperately looking for Arctic Warming.

Consider these two admonitions:

Americans never refer to their government as a regime. Even if we’re “mad as hell and won’t take it anymore,” we don’t have regimes here. A regime is something run by a Kim Jong-il, or a Castro. It strikes the American ear as something fundamentally illegitimate. Not only illegitimate, but foreign.

and

But we can't expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. Throwing around phrases like "socialists" and "Soviet-style takeover" and "fascist" and "right-wing nut" that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes.

Can you see the difference between those statements? They seem to be sending the same message, but they most certainly are not. The difference is that the first one was made by a good guy trying to make America better. The second was made by an evil person who is trying to lure you into helping him look for his lost puppy.

The first excerpt is from an article called Whoa, friends, hold the regime talk. He's advocating the same kind of approach that Michael Medved talks about in maintaining our credibility by maintaining our civility.

The second is from some graduation speech Barach Obama gave where he's dictating to us what words we can and cannot use. Here's the full text just in case you think I'm quoting the Maoist in Chief out of context.

To fully differentiate the two pieces you need to consider this quote that Bill posted on the feedback page:

"I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.

As Bill said: Oh, really?

This duplicitous claptrap is coming from the master of . . . holy crap, you know what? Never mind. If you haven't drunk the Kool-Aid you are already gasping in disbelief. If you have, I can't help you.

This is a trick. Plain and simple this is a trick, and a very effective one. This drives me so insane because, again, he's using the same "values that we cherish as Americans" trick to foist some evil on us. How can we oppose it if it's one of our sacred principles?

In a word Obama is saying what he has said since the beginning of his campaign: "Shut up!" But he says it in a very appealing way: "It's great to disagree, it's an American principle we cherish. We have to maintain open public debate."

Oh, for heaven's sakes, isn't that just sweet? Uh, Mr. President, can I ask you about the provision in your bill where you are legally required to buy insurance?

"Okay, now you're just being uncivil. That's unacceptable."

I think the most accurate way I've heard it described is the Borking of America.

If the Republican party followed Medved's advice they'd never lose an election. Well, at least they'd be much better off.

When you bash Obama you only hurt yourself. Obama is personally popular even though his policies are very unpopular. So it makes no sense to attack the man. It's much more effective—and less damaging—to focus on his policies.

When you start trying to support the argument that Obama is evil, that can only hurt you. Medved says that "People don't vote for what inspires them, they vote against what scares them."

Medved says that "Politics isn't about winning arguments, it's about which arguments to have." He make the great point that you don't have to debate whether Obama is evil. It's unnecessary. It's enough that he's wrong.

That's your charge. That's how you make America better. I'm asking you, please—please—follow Michael Medved's advice. You have to if you want to survive.

Me? I can't do it. I won't do it. I don't have to.

I am not the face the Republican party. I'm not even the closely cropped nose hair in the face of the Republican party. I have about as much influence on the politics of this nation as Keith Olbermann does . . . well, maybe not quite that bad, but still, it's not like anyone pays any attention to what I say. Half the people that read this blog got here by Googling "naked midget" (good choice on the title of my post on "the naked truth about NASCAR's midget and sprint series").

Obama's call for a civility is a Trojan horse. "Don't call me a socialist! That's not polite." Oh, but it's okay to be a socialist?

I can't call you a socialist but you can call me a racist? You can call me a terrorist? It's okay to call Arizonans racist, call police incompetent and say they're acting stupidly? It's okay to bluster to McCain "The campaign's over, John, okay? You're not president, Okay? I am. The campaign's over. I'm the president. You're not, okay? I am. I'm the president. Not you. I am. Okay?"

But, hey, fair enough. I'll take Obama at his word. I will be exactly as civil as he is. Hah! That was easy.