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

Ergo is not French, therefore you are wrong
12.31.15

I wanted to clarify something I said. In one the of the 317 times I explained how we came to have an incompetent President because everyone who voted for Obama did so to prove they were cool, I said something like "But he didn't have to be a bad President." Or something.

In the context of what I was talking about that may have sounded confusing and contradictory. I know you've been stressing about that all this time.

There's a principle of logic that says just 'cause the proof you use to support an idea is false, it doesn't mean the idea is false. I don't care about it enough to look it up, but you get the idea.

---

Argument from Fallacy, or the Fallacy Fallacy. I looked it up.

You can say nitrites are bad for you because they come from alien blood. It's not true that they come from alien blood. But that doesn't mean nitrites are not bad for you. (It just means you're stupid for using that argument. And, btw, even if it did come from alien blood you haven't shown that alien blood is bad for you.)

So . . .

Barack Obama was only elected because he is black. Half black, actually. But the fact is—and it is a true fact—that he was not elected based on his ability to do the job.

That fact doesn't mean that he had to be a bad President. If you choose a quarterback because he is handsome for the press, he could still be a good quarterback. But you didn't choose him for that. Being handsome doesn't qualify someone to be a good quarterback, but it doesn't disqualify him either.

That's what I meant. Everybody who voted for the man did so for the wrong reason. But that didn't mean he had to be a bad President.

Only in this case, the Case of Barack Hussein Obama, it means exactly that. There would have been no reason to run a black guy if he were a good candidate for the job. The only reason they did is because the man could not get elected any other way, and they (the omnipresent and ever-mysterious they) needed a useless socialist radical in there.

Hope that clears things up.

This is a follow up to what I posted a few days ago below, which you already read because you check back here every single day longing for your life-giving dose of Leany on Life.

Nancy Pelosi is evil. How do I know she's evil? She told me herself.

She said that the only reason a person would not have health insurance is because he intended to steal health care services.

You know the rule. An evil person will always always reveal their evil intent by accusing others of it.

She honestly couldn't think of one other reason a person would choose to not have health insurance? Out of the thousands of reasons?

Window directly into her soul. That's the way she thinks.

Trying to type with my buffalo hooves leads to some interesting combinations of letters ("comibinations of letteres" is how I typed this originally. Yeah, I am that bad).

But the other day I accidentally came up with one I am going to keep.

Presidebt Obama.

Once upon a time there was a woman who was married to an abusive prick. He was emotionally and physically abusive to her and their kids. And he raped her.

Despite what Donald Trump may think, it is possible for a man to rape his own wife. If you have sex with a woman who doesn't want to have sex with you, that's rape, I don't give a good G*ddam what your relationship with her is.

Here's a picture of what kind of man we're talking about here. First let me say that I have nothing against hunting, really. Further I have hunted rabbits for sport.

If the thought of me shooting animals for sport appalls you, I can like you for feeling that way. I can respect that. I would certainly prefer you feeling that way versus approving of what I'm about to describe.

This guy was a hunter, but he tortured rabbits to death. He tortured them to death so he could record them crying (and they do cry; it sounds just like children) to use the tape to lure in coyotes.

If you're okay with people torturing animals to death, please leave my web site. In fact, go kill yourself now. You have nothing to offer this planet.

Now, nothing in my experience has taught me that people ever change the fundamental way they are. But they can modify behaviors if properly motivated. So, the wife in this parable tried to persuade the man to change some of his abusive behaviors. And what if I don't? Well, then I'll have to leave you. Hah! You'll never do that!

The man didn't even try to change anything, so the woman took the kids and left.

The man explained to her how bad it was for the kids to grow up in a broken home. She needed to come back for the sake of the kids. They deserved to have a stable family.

Notice that the man made no promises, not even insincere ones, about changing his behavior--the whole reason the family got broken up in the first place.

The woman agonized over the decision. What the man said was true. So she went back and tried again.

The man didn't change anything. He was still as abusive and mean and evil as ever. The woman was determined to make it work. After all, she reasoned, what was her own happiness, really? Wasn't it better for her to sacrifice for the sake of the children she loved so much?

Finally, through experiences that are none of your business, the woman realized that the situation as it was was not better for the kids. She took the kids and left again. She took them to a safe house--a secret shelter that is set up so abusive husbands can't track down woman and harm them. This is the kind of man we're talking about here.

But the man had regular court-mandated time with the kids every week. Every week without fail he would take the kids. And the whole time he was with them he would explain that they needed to come live with him. If they all lived with him, Mommy would come back and live with them, and they would be a big happy family. Didn't they want to be a happy family all together again?

Over the months, one by one the kids bent to Dad's pressure and went to live with him. Finally the last one left Mommy and went to live with Daddy.

But Mommy didn't go back.

So the evil ex-husband ended up raising a bunch of kids all alone--something he never counted on. It was hard. It was very hard on everybody. He had to work, the kids were left alone a lot, they got into trouble.

Anyone who grew up in that situation doesn't need me to explain how bad it is to grow up like that. And every time it was hard, the man would be sure to explain to everyone whose fault this all was. Mom left. It's her fault. She doesn't care about the pain that you children are going through.

Anyway, the kids grew up and realized their old man was a waste of skin. All his talk was just talk. As kids they were easily manipulated, but as adults they realized what a piece of crap their dad was and how horribly hard it had been for their mother to do the right thing.

You know I'm not talking about divorce. You know I'm talking about demorats. In this story, the demorats are represented by--of course--the evil waste of skin.

The demorats say "You have to do it our way!" The Republicans say, but your way is the wrong way, and it's not good for the country. The demorats say "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you going to do about it?! Ha ha hah!" The Republicans say that it is important enough that they are willing to fight for it . . . well, Ted Cruz is. The demorats explain that if the Republicans don't knuckle under to their bullying, the government will shut down. You don't want that, do you?

Explain to me why we have a two-party system if one party always gets its own way?

Just stupid. The country is populated by fools. Two sides disagree, both sides stick to their guns, and the government shuts down. Omigosh, it's the Republicans fault!

How do you figure? The democrats could have prevented it by agreeing to the Republicans' proposal as easily as the other way around. Again, why have two parties if one always gets its way?

In the case of a government shut-down threat, unlike the woman who didn't knuckle under to the bullying, the Republicans caved in when the kids were taken hostage. They let the bully have his way.

Which means the bully will continue to have his way again and again and again and again . . .

One of the greatest lines ever uttered was when Josey Wales said "Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining."

Another term for that concept is "Liberal Speak."

I've been more or less engaged with/interested in politics since 1978, but I am still amazed at the way they say things that just plain are not true, and they name things names that just plain do not fit.

I remember when Bill Clinton got elected after promising to cut taxes then immediately implemented a huge tax increase, just as everyone on my side had warned he would do. Then I remember him going in front of the American people and saying "We are going to ask the middle class to contribute in the amount of . . . "

I remember thinking "Contribute? Oh, if you call it that then it's totally okay." This was Bill Clinton, the man whose very name is a term for "lying." And even he seemed embarrassed at the delivery.

But that pales at the tactics of the administration of the most unprepared, unqualified human ever to hold the office of the Presidency.

I got a notice in the mail saying that I owed money for my "Shared responsibility payment." Maybe you think I didn't scream and shoot blood out of my eyeballs. In 2014 I paid life-shattering amounts of money for the health care of my family. In addition I paid the exact amount the government required me to pay as a penalty for not buying their stupid insurance. All this after Obama raised the threshold for deducting medical expenses by 67%!.

Then I get a notice from them that I haven't taken care of my "shared responsibility?" Really? Well, what share of my medical expenses were everyone else's responsibility?!

Wow.

Wow.

Blood shooting out of my eyeballs.

Then . . . they call their socialized medicine program . . . wait for it . . . the "marketplace." You can't get more opposite of a marketplace.

Typical liberalspeak. Look at what they say they're protecting and it's the exact thing that gets destroyed in their process.

Apropos of nothing, try this: For one day take everything you hear or read and assume it's a lie. It's interesting.

Just everything. Like if someone on Facebook says something just imagine it to be not the case.

Okay, you've got a couple of radical Muslims, the wife is from the Middle East, she's pledged her allegiance to ISIS, they are both being investigated for their ties to radical Isalmists groups, and they commit a terrorist act. The FBI said today that it is an act of terrorism. It's pretty clear what this is:

Workplace violence.

I guarantee you that a year from now when this is brought up this useless administration is still going to be saying "We need to be very careful before we jump to conclusions about this." Three seconds after someone reported they thought they'd heard about shots being fired at a Planned Parenthood clinic the same administration was releasing statements claiming that the shooter had a shelf full of Rush Limbaugh books and was a blood relative of Dick Cheney.

You've seen it before. A muslim shooting up a military base yelling "Allahu Akbar!" or whatever the crap those soulless savages yell, and it's workplace violence.

Just ridiculous.

It's workplace violence or they say that the terrorist was a tea party zealot (remember that?). And how can we forget the classic of all classics? It was all because of a YouTube video.

Then you have Loretta Lynch threatening to arrest people for expressing an authorized opinion about muslims. Or as some people refer to it: Free Speech. I know you know about this. I just put this here because a year from now I won't remember and I can look it up.

But even right now I can't find the one I wanted to save here. The Obama administration official who said we can't call it a "Jihad" because that refers to a "Personal journey of discovery" or some such rot. Like he's some kind of expert on Islam lecturing us.

(Was it head of Homeland Security or Secretary of Defense—a search doesn't find it)

And the same group of people that are saying we have to be very careful with the rhetoric are making sure that we get the message that they don't really care if something bad were to happen to conservatives.

Honestly, you need to get familiar with the concept of Phil Hendrie. It's just surreal to hear people that are supposed to be in charge talking like complete idiots. Just not at all real, like it's a SNL parody. Really. The texture of the guy . . . whoever it was who said we aren't allowed to call it a Jihad . . . Just . . . "Why are you even telling us this?" It's like going to a boxing class and hearing about poetry.

See what I did there? In my last post (next, in the upside-down geography of this blog), I just got through saying "There's enough real fodder for hating Barack Obama without making stuff up," and then I asked if he was capable of doing something despicable that he didn't do.

But let's make sure we're clear, I didn't say that he did or even suggest that he did. I posed two questions for you to consider.

I asked if the reason he didn't do it was because he didn't have the capability to do it. Or, I asked, did he not do it because he was morally superior to doing it?

There is one other reason the people on the other side would not set up something like that. The two questions I asked covered Skill and Will. But it left out one element of the Mind, Body, Spirit formulation. Call the first two body (skill) and spirit (will). But the mind is thinking self-preservation. The other reason—if they were capable of doing it and evil enough to do it—is the understanding that if they got caught it would not be good for them.

One more time. He didn't do it and I didn't say he did. He was responsible for the shooting because it was muslim terrorists and he is a pantywaist and is completely incapable of dealing with muslim terrorism. But he didn't orchestrate a mass shooting to further his anti-Second Amendment agenda.

I would still like to think that Obama, although he is definitely evil, is not that evil

Side note: Although in his mind, if he were that evil, he would think it was being virtuous (little bit of stupid combined with his evil). You orchestrate a horrible crime using guns and you kill a dozen people. But, in his mind, you save an unknown number of people by taking guns out of the hands of Americans who can't be trusted with guns. It's a tough executive decision to save lives, like Winston Churchill not preventing the bombing of that city because the Germans couldn't know that he had cracked their code. Sacrifice lives to save lives.

Anyway. Three questions. I asked the same questions about stealing the election. You'd think that democrats don't steal elections because it's morally wrong. But, really? Has that stopped . . . name your democrat . . . Hillary or Obama from doing things like that in the past? So, if they are evil enough to do it, and you don't think they did, was it because they wanted to but didn't have the capability?

At the time I posed that particular question I didn't consider the third element. They can and they didn't have any moral compunctions against it, but they knew it was illegal and were afraid of the consequences.

So . . . three questions. That's what keeps people from doing bad things. Usually it's the Spirit part of the equation. Sure, they could but they know it's wrong and they just have no desire to. Or a combination of Mind and Spirit (it's not right and besides, I'd get caught).

There's three minutes of your life you'll never get back.

.

Really, it's just bizarre to listen to the news and try to reconcile it with reality. I feels exactly like a Phil Hendrie bit that's gotten to the point where they pull out all the stops so you can't possibly fail to understand you're listening to a farce.

Obama standing in Paris, France. Right after they had just had a mass shooting. "This just doesn't happen in other countries."

Wow. How do you do that? You'd think that someone like that would be too stupid to golf. And that's pretty stupid.

Then he continues that comic line about Imaginary Global Warming being the biggest threat we face. And about what it says to terrorists that he's worrying about that instead of them, he say "What a powerful rebuke!"

*Shaking my head

I think you know I don't buy into a lot of conspiracies. It's not that I don't think any exist. It's just that
1) I don't think that way (I can't plan further ahead than lunch) so I don't ascribe those attributes to others, and
2) You don't know about the conspiracies. That's why they are conspiracies.

I've heard enough ridiculous crap that I've developed a pretty good nose for the basic hoax format that these crazies always use to sell their theories.

Having said that . . .

Plants. Democrats do it all the time. All. The. Time. They plant people in Hillary's audiences to ask questions, then she says "I've never thought about that!" then she delivers the policy speech on that very topic that she's been polishing for months.

And they plant people in conservative groups to make us look racist or hateful. They plant their own people carrying outrageous signs or saying ugly hateful things and they point to us and say "See?! See?! Hatemongers!"

Democrats do it all the time.

Now . . .

Obama wants to take away our guns. What is his best ammunition (so to speak) to take away our guns?

Mass shootings.

Okay, I'm not saying that Obama orchestrates mass shootings. I'm not ready to believe that. I don't believe that.

But I'm going to ask you two questions I want you to think hard about.

Understanding that mass shootings give Obama the leverage he needs to do what he wants to do that we don't want him to do . . .

1. Is Obama not capable of orchestrating a mass shooting from a technical standpoint with the resources at his disposal?

2. Are Obama's morals such that he is above doing something like that?

Again, Obama didn't orchestrate the crap that's going on. But he definitely benefits politically from it (as Clinton acknowledged he did from the Oklahoma City bombing).

So why would he not do it? Is he constrained from doing it because of one the above considerations?

Have you heard of Phil Hendrie? He does a radio show where he has "guests" that talk about some issue they're having. It starts out sounding reasonable enough. But gradually the position the person is defending gets crazier and crazier. People call in to try to talk sense into Phil Hendrie's "guest." The first time you listen to it you're thinking "Where does he find people who are this out of touch with reality?" Then, about ¾ of the way through the program, you smack your forehead. "Good one! It's a setup!" After you realize you keep listening to the show because it's hilarious to hear real people calling in to argue with a fake person.

The person is fake, on two levels. Number one, the character is an invention, but the genius is that Phil Hendrie does the characters himself. It's kind of like radio ventriloquism. It's great entertainment. The very best part about it is the real people who call in believing the scenario is real. They'll state their credentials: "Listen, I've got a Master's degree in microbiology and I can tell you that you can't get herpes from a door handle!" Or whatever. The guy is telling us how smart he is and he's arguing with a fake character.

The dumbest radio programming move in history was when they took him off the air in my market. He's back on, but he's at 2:00 in the morning. Just stupid. Good gravy, like I want to listen to that lame-o local chiropractor talk about government conspiracies in the drive home time slot?

Which kinda' segues us into the topic.

The dope that's on the radio now is the same shtick as Phil Hendrie, but he's real. He is ridiculous enough to be a Phil Hendrie character, but he's real. But his whacked out conspiracy theories are not as crazy as what's going on for real. I don't know why he bothers making up stories when the truth is more entertaining. More on that later.

I don't know what Phil Hendrie does for material these days. Nothing that he does is any crazier than real life. You cannot get crazier than real life. You just can't.

I used to do a page summarizing all the real stories that were crazy enough to be Phil Hendrie skits but I couldn't keep up with them. Just impossible.

Phil Hendrie gets a little impatient when people say he "does voices." He creates characters. He really is an artist—a genius. It's amazing to behold—or it used to be before some mindless moron (probably a liberal and a closet Lakers fan) took him off the air. Part of his genius is the rhythm—just like the backbone of any good comedy. He gradually builds to the point where a new listener is going to smack his forehead and say "Good one! You got me!" It just amps up until no one can possibly still think it's real.

Some people—we call them idiots—might have thought Obama was real to begin with. But we are at the point in the program where Phil Hendrie is practically yelling into the mic "Heads up, people! This is not real! Not. Real. The top of the hour is coming and I've got to sign off. Time to clue in!"

Obama was asked about the Planned Parenthood shooting at a press conference. He said . . .

"[chuckle] I say this every time we've got a . . . one of these mass shootings. This just doesn't happen in other countries."

He said that. Maybe you could still think he's a real character, not a comedy shtick. But he said that standing in Paris 10 days after a mass shooting that killed 130 people. In Paris. Right after a mass shooting.

That's Phil Hendrie screaming "What do I have to do to show you guys that it's fake?!"

He's a comic character, people. Wake up.

Here's the funny thing about the Phil Hendrie show: He never runs out of people who haven't figured it out. Even after he started explaining the gag after every show. People still call in to argue with a fake character.

Here is something you never ever thought you would ever hear ever. Just beyond ludicrous. "Phil, I'm a long-time listener and I just had to call in to set your guest straight." I swear someone said that. A 'long-time listener' who still hadn't figured it out. I swear.

This is what we're dealing with people.

In his 2012 inauguration speech Obama said he was going to focus on people being able to love who they wanted (what?) and the global warming hoax. You heard it; it was ridiculous—as in meriting ridicule. Just silly. Other Presidents have grand visions about War and Peace and exploring the moon. And Obama?

Global warming.

If an Obama term is a Phil Hendrie show, that was your opening of the radio show just after the top of the hour news. You figured you'd listen. Maybe there was an angle you weren't seeing. But after the first commercial break Obama said that the purpose of the military was to combat global warming. At about that point you were starting to clue in that it was a ruse. Then his little girlfriend John Kerry said that global warming was the biggest threat the world has ever faced. You knew now. You were onto the shtick. You thought that was a nice touch—bringing in another silly character.

Then, after the news at the bottom of the hour Obama takes up the cry. In the face of an out-of-control terrorist organization running rampant across the Middle East he says that the worst problem we face is global warming. You've figured out the prank by now, but you keep listening. You just wonder "Where can Phil take it from here?"

Oh. Terrorism is caused by global warming.

Seriously? Okay, Phil, you're a great talent. I didn't see that one. Bravo. Very, very imaginative. But all your listeners have to know at this point. Who is going to call in to argue with this nonsensical character? You play the part of the host and the characters. Are you going to start doing the callers now, too?

Is there anyone on the planet that takes this moron seriously still? You know ISIS certainly doesn't.

I talked about the way that Phil Hendrie gradually amps up the ridiculousness. It seems like a very well-choreographed sequence. But maybe it's not genius as much as just the way the universe is structured. Maybe it doesn't matter what you learn about the person first, just the amount that you're learning. So you can start putting the puzzle together at any place—the place you start with doesn't determine when the picture becomes clear.

We always just give a person the benefit of the doubt and whatever information comes first it's incomplete . I'm saying that maybe it's not that hard to do—it's just a question of volume of information which comes over time, not a complex dance of which information you get first.

Take Obama, for instance. We didn't know him early on. Anybody with a brain could have figured out that he was bad news, but I'm going to allow liberals a little bit of leeway. He was their guy; they were going to give him a break on the stuff that seemed iffy.

But gradually we got to know him until no one can deny that the guy is a joke. Maybe it doesn't matter whether we found out first that he was a complete moron with finances or with Foreign Affairs.

Or maybe it does. Maybe some of the concepts are best kept hidden to draw the process of realization out the most.

---

Yeah, upon further consideration I've determined that certain information too early is toxic to keeping the character hidden. Sequencing is definitely as important as volume.

What I'm saying is that Phil Hendrie is a genius. You can't just randomly spew out stuff from these characters.

And . . . the analogous character of Barack Obama has to be carefully managed, too. Even though we could have learned certain truths about him early on that would not have been toxic alone, but only after they become part of a pattern, certain other things would have been a show stopper, even by themselves, and had to be held in reserve.

All the effort was wasted on those of us with our eyes open, of course. Neither he or Clinton (pardon my language) had us fooled even early on. But it came as an education to some people when they continued to watch those guys operate.

Okay . . . anyway . . .

You've figured out this section is just cleaning up a couple of loose ends from the other two. If I make any section too long you won't read it (he says to his imaginary reader).

So, the next thing is that . . . Mills Crenshaw. I think that's his name. The guy on the drive home who replaced Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt.

So you've got this guy who is talking about this government conspiracy and that government conspiracy. He's like a Phil Hendrie character, but he's a real guy. He really believes that crap. The financial world was going to collapse October 15th, or September 15th, or something. He had it all figured out. On the 16th it was just on to other topics. Not a word.

Anyway, I have a close personal friend who works with a guy who's never seen a conspiracy theory he didn't like. I'm just going to call him "Ron," you know, just to hang a handle on the guy for literary flow. So "Ron" sent around this e-mail about "Did you know Obama was planning to . . . ?" some durn thing. I don't even remember, but it was just crap.

I just deleted the e-mail, but then "Ron's" uncle replied-all saying "This is a hoax. There are enough legitimate reasons to oppose Obama without making stuff up."

Exactly.

This is the Rape Hoax deal I'm always flapping my gums about. Who benefits from hoaxes like the one "Ron" was sending around? Obama. Because you get enough fake stuff out there and people stop listening even when it's real.

I'm not saying that Obama is smart enough to orchestrate it. If he were smart he would. But I think it's just nature and clueless people doing what they naturally do. Either way, he benefits.

Years ago I watched a comedy panel on PBS with Buddy Hackett, Tim Conway, and a few other comedians. I think this might be it. Another link about it is here.

It was great. It was a breakdown of comedy on a kind of intellectual level, but when you get funny people together to discuss even something cerebral, it becomes very entertaining.

The point, for our purposes here today, is that one of them said that he didn't do political comedy. The reason was that it is so time sensitive. Something that's funny today will make no sense in two weeks.

That’s what came to mind today when I found these old notes that I never posted. See if you can figure out what was going on at the time these cartoons made sense.