When will they ever learn?
Remember when Bill Maher talked about crying wolf? He said they cried and moaned about George W. Bush being the end of the world, and Mitt Romney being the end of the world. And he actually said that they were crying wolf. He said either one of them was just fine.
But Trump . . .
Whoa, Trump really would be the end of the world. No, really.
He was kind of begging us to give them another chance even though they didn't deserve it because they cried wolf.
Then Trump got elected. You've heard me flap my gums about why Trump got elected. It's not as simple as the protest vote, and we weren't being listened to, but that's close enough.
What you need to remember is it's the democrat's fault.
Did they learn nothing?
Now Hillary's crying wolf. She says that if Obamacare is repealed 685 million people will die in the first six months, and polio will return and the oceans will rise and flood cities and . . . I don't know, maybe I'm getting my left-wing false alarms confused. All I hear when they talk is blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
You know the deal, when you think something is so serious that you have to bring attention to it by using superlatives, you actually take attention away. You're essentially lying about it, so people figure "Hey, if it's not bad enough that you can just tell me the true facts and I'll think it's bad, it's not bad.
The trick's not unique to demorats. Obamacare is a disaster, that's true, but I get concerned when Republicans play the same games trying to attach loaded terms to things. Not because they don't fit often, but because it sounds choreographed and canned.
So the demorats ran off Mitt Romney. Whew! Dodged that bullet!
There's a 'This is not That' here, as well. You've heard me flap my gums about this--the immunity through absurdity trick. We say that premiums have "skyrocketed." That sounds like emotional rhetoric. But it's true. Much of what happened during the Obama years was so absurd that to accurately describe it made you sound like a nut job.
Which got them Trump. Really, when will they ever learn?
They find themselves in a hole and keep on digging.
When the (pretty lame) Republican health care plan was doomed (thank you, Mike Lee. No, seriously, thank you.) Trump twitterpated (or whatever silly eighth grade girls do) that it was fine, just repeal it outright.
That's actually one of the smarter things he's said (even though he said it through his Barbie doll sequined pink cell phone).
Okay, but the segue from the post above is when Trump said something like "Just let Obamacare fail." You know the dangers of analyzing anything Trump says. Trump was just talking . . . or tweeting or whatever. He was kind of just saying the same thing as talking about repealing it outright, but the words sounded like "Just let it implode under its own weight."
See, if the demorats would just shut up, Trump would look silly. They should have learned that from us going after Bill Clinton (pardon my language) in the 90s. If no one is attacking him, no one has to stand up and defend him, and he just kind of collapses under his own stupidity.
But Trump has immunity, because they've screamed about him so much.
Think about the nutty stuff he does. No American President is like that, has ever been like that. Just crazy, nutty, childish stuff. But it's gotten him immunity.
He doesn't have any reputation to protect. "Omigosh, I have to protect my perfect record of no scandals!" Nope. Got that out of the way five minutes into the campaign.
Trump just doesn't care. He says crazy stuff, he does all this crap, but he just plain does not care. It would have been a major scandal for any other President. And a lot of the blame has to do with the media losing their little minds over the guy.
Anyway, yeah, just an outright repeal is best. You've heard me go on and on about this.
If I have a knife in my back I want to "replace" it with no knife in my back.
The Republicans got tricked into talking about "repeal and replace." The demorats kept screaming about the "party of no" (The demorats were screaming this--the ones who are calling themselves "the resistance.") and the dumb Republicans took the bait. What? No! We want to repeal and replace.
I wish one cotton-picking Jello-spined one of them would have gotten in front of a camera and explained how stupid that is. I would have even given him permission to use my brilliant line (If I have a knife in my back I want to "replace" it with no knife in my back, in case you forgot).
If I'm so smart how come I'm so broke?
I gave you the line!
Okay, I'm a total armchair quarterback. As long as I'm playing Michael Savage ("I gave John McCain the line that would have won the election!") I'll talk about this.
I'll often spout off my opinion without checking the sensibilities of my audience. And I've developed a standard response.
Omigosh, those freaking Lakers fans are so stupid.
Uh . . . well, as it happens, I'm a Lakers fan.
So then I'll respond with my prepared answer "Oh, so you know what I'm talking about."
No, seriously, I've been that stupid. Spent an entire day driving down to a campout with a guy talking about how evil democrats are. On the way home I asked him what his experience had been like in the state legislature. He said, you know, it's a little hard being a democrat in Utah . . .
Anyway . . . during the primary debates Ted Cruz was hammering on New York values, as a way of undermining Trump (who is not a Republican by any meaningful definition of the word). Cruz said that everyone understood what he meant talking about that. One of the moderators said "Well, I'm from New York."
Cruz responded "Well, maybe you don't know."
In my head I was thinking say "Oh, so you know exactly what I'm talking about." But I thought, Cruz is smart, that was a good answer.
But the more I thought about it the more convinced I became that my answer was better.
Ted! I gave you the line that could have won you the election!
Locking up the wrong suspect
Okay, back to health care reform. Or, more accurately insurance reform
Because on that topic, you'll remember during the 2000 election Al Gore went after George Bush in a debate, quoting some nonsense about what percentage of Texans didn't have health insurance.
George W. Bush was brilliant. He said "Al, you're asking the wrong question. Every single person in Texas gets health care."
Health care is not insurance.
And what the demorats are after is not that everyone get proper health care. That doesn't benefit them. They want the power and the money from the insurance.
You know that the 22 million people in the CBO estimate are people who chose not to pay for insurance they don't need. You know this.
Okay, to continue the crying wolf motif, what Don Jr. did was clearly wrong, but nobody cares.
His defense is that the meeting was a waste of time.
Really? If you buy baking soda from an undercover cop thinking that it's coke, that makes it okay?
But nobody cares. We're so tired of them seeing ghosts that we wouldn't care if they had video of Putin driving people to the polls at this point.
Trump has no virtuous reputation to protect, and the media have achieved the impossible making us think they are more buffoonish than Trump.
The other night at a concert in the park the announcer told a really dumb joke. Not only was the joke dumb, but he told it badly. It was met with tepid laughter.
After which he explained the punchline. No, seriously, he did.
But then he kind of chided the audience. Like it was their fault.
It occurred to me that was like the "Oh, I wish people wouldn't say democrats are evil" deal.
That's not the audience's fault. If you don't want to be seen a certain way, don't be that way.
That's a manipulation tactic you'll see a lot. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head. So you get a bad example. It's like the girl who dresses like a slut, then it's your fault for thinking she looks loose.
I've told my kids that you should . . . what? Welcome? . . . not get upset about criticism. If it's valid you've been given an insight to something you can improve. If it's not, the person making the observation is a schmuck, and that's good information to know.
But if you manipulate someone by scripting the answers you'll accept you deny yourself the opportunity to see the world in a way that might be beneficial.
You correct someone and they come unglued. Well, I guess they're going to miss out on being corrected.
It's kind of the same concept as the M. Scott Beck deal. "Love is not when two people can't live without each other. That's parasitism. Love is when they are perfectly capable of it, but choose not to."
I think I've probably flapped my gums about that a lot somewhere. "Should we ban low-hanging jeans?" Oh, to the hell, no! If someone is a loser I want to have warning of that.
When you dictate behavior you deny yourself the insight of seeing what behavior the person would choose.
The Missing Brass Link
I know you probably think about this as much as I do. Transposing instruments.
So you pick up your Bb trumpet and you look at the fingering chart and you play a C major scale. Cool. But then when you play with the piano you have to have a separate piece of music. 'Cause the C on the piano is a different note than the C on your trumpet.
That's 'cause you've got a Bb trumpet, meaning when you play a C it comes out as a Bb really. Your buddy who plays the Eb alto saxophone blows a C and it comes out as an Eb--a concert Eb (meaning what the piano plays).
Well, it's nice of the guys who write the music to have the elementary kids learning the C scale for their first notes. Save explaining all that sharps and flats stuff in the first lesson. When they blow a note without pushing any valves you just call what comes out a "C."
But the saxophone doesn't have an open note. Yes, but it does have a complete sequence of fingering that makes logical sense that they call the C scale.
But I'm like you. I always just wondered about the possibility of teaching from the get-go that the note you're playing is a Bb.
So the new player looks at the music and the scale he's playing when he starts with an open note has two flats in it. If you don't want to teach him sharps and flats you just teach him the concert C scale which starts with a fingering that's not open and is the scale that in the current system has two sharps. But the music he's looking at has no sharps or flats (which is what he's playing, really).
Oh. You mean like the trombone?
The trombone is the missing link in transposing instruments. Because it's not a transposing instrument.
The common trumpet or cornet is a Bb trumpet. The most common trombone you see is a Bb trombone. Oh. Just like I explained, right? When you blow an "open" note, it comes out a Bb.
It does, but you call it a Bb.
Isn't that crazy?!
(Maybe I'll tell you the "Isn't that crazy?!" story sometime)
And you notate it as a Bb in the trombone music.
So the first notes a kid learning the trombone learn are a Bb and an F. He's just stuck with the fact that when the slide is all the way in the note he's playing has a flat on it (well, not if it's an F, obviously, but it's still not a C). And even though it's called a Bb trombone, it plays the music in the concert pitch like the flutes and the pianos do.
I guess it's because every note on the trombone is "open" since you don't have any valves. But . . but . . . you still have a standard default kind of position (I forget the musical term—they use it to describe which side of a French horn plays without the thumb valve, maybe base or something).
Next week's question we'll just never know, why did they start on a "C?"
French Horn Harmonic Series and Fingerings
Things I wish I had known when I was learning the French horn
This tool is to help you (or your student) understand harmonics and fingering of the French horn.
I've included a pdf file of a movable graphic you can use if
you'd like. I have done another graphic for the Bb trumpet, but the French horn
is particularly tricky because of the "partials" that occur because the harmonics are so close together in the range the horn is played.
Both of those are available in the Excel file here.
To start it helps to have a basic understanding of the concept of the harmonic series. There are a lot of good resources for this on the net, but
I’ll just summarize the basics here as it relates to this tool.
“Harmonic series” isn’t as scary as it sounds. It's just the set of notes an open tube can play.
Imagine the long, straight horns the guards at a medieval castle (or angels) would play. They don’t have valves so they can only play certain notes.
You can actually grab any long tube (like the hose on a shower massage—really!) and play those certain notes. If you take that long tubing and roll it up so it’s
easier to carry you have a bugle. That bugle can’t play all the notes in a lot of tunes—just some intervals. Think Taps, or Reveille, or the kinds of things you hear
a bugle play.
Again, the notes that an open tube plays are called the “harmonic series.”
To play the notes in between those tones they installed valves. All a valve does is to route the air through another length of tube to make the overall tubing longer.
The longer a tube is the lower the tone it plays (it basically shifts the harmonic series lower). The middle valve shifts the note 1/2 step lower, the first valve shifts
it one step, and the third valve shifts the note 1-1/2 step lower. Combinations of those add up. So, for example, the first and second valve drop the note by 1-1/2 step.
Those steps are represented by the blocks on the center part of the graphics below. The first one is open, then (moving to the left, down the scale) middle valve,
first, and so on, as valves are switched to lower the pitch of the harmonic.
Using the tool
For example, with the open (0) block aligned with the E (5th partial), the pitches go down from there with the valve sequences as illustrated below.
You know all this. But typically you would start from C and go up. What I didn't take time to understand when I first learned to play (the trumpet)
was that when moving from C (open) to D I was jumping up to the next partial and lowering the pitch with the valves (I wasn't raising the pitch from C with the valves).
Next let's jump to the 8th partial, C. You can see how the fingerings go down from there, same as from any other partial. But here's where it gets interesting.
If you are playing C and push the thumb key on a double horn, the note doesn't change. But you are in a different partial on the Bb side. With the open index on
the 8th harmonic on the F horn you’ll see that it lines up with the “G” on the Bb side.
I hope this helps graphically illustrate what’s happening as you move from one harmonic (partial) to another. By seeing how the Bb side of the horn relates to the F
side you can see why the fingerings are the same in that magical area from G#/Ab up to C.
Typically beginning at that Ab you start playing the Bb side of a double horn, and in that register it's easy. The fingerings are the same.
Until you move to C#.
Now notice that you jump up to the next partial, so instead of fingering C# as 1-2, you finger it as 2-3.
With the index aligned at the next harmonic on the Bb side and you’ll see why they aren’t anymore. You’re basically playing the fingerings that you would be if the
“C” were a “G.”
I hope this graphic can help to make sense of why certain pitches are coming out of your horn. When I first picked up my double French horn I was lost. I played
it in the store and I could get the tones out of it, but the notes made no sense. I could play intervals of a second without changing fingering. I paid for it and
left having no idea what notes I was playing.
The first trick with getting your bearings is that the music is notated a fifth higher than concert pitch, so when you're looking at a note on the music you're not
playing a pitch you might expect. Then you have the partials. Oh, those partials. Throw in a thumb key that sometimes changes the pitch and other times not . . .
pdf file on card stock.
Cut out the gray areas and the slider (red dotted lines)
(Click on image for full size)
and fold on the lines where it says (heavy black lines). You're folding the envelope (stationary part) around the slider.
Secure the outer envelope with tape or glue.
You might want to trim the ends of the slider and bevel the corners a little.
(Only don't use ugly filament tape like I did)
The notes that are highlighted on the stationary part of the tool are the notes in the harmonic series. Those are C, G, C, E, G, (Bb), C . . . Notice that they
get closer together as the notes get higher. We’ll get back to that. F has a block around it because it's the Bb concert tuning not (C is blocked out on the Bb scale).
To use the tool align the “open” block in the sliding scale with a harmonic on the fixed scale. The other blocks will show the fingerings for the notes as they go down
from that harmonic.
Now, you’ll notice that as you move the slider up and the harmonics get closer together, the fingerings cross lower harmonics. That’s why a French horn is so tricky.
It basically starts on the fourth harmonic whereas a trumpet starts on the second. It’s harder to know exactly which note you’re playing (especially since, as
I mentioned, the Horn in F is tuned a fifth off concert pitch so your ear isn’t as helpful to locate where you are).
To save space I’ve only noted one naming of the black keys (Ab, C#, etc.) and I’ve gone with the version that’s closest to C major on the circle of fifths.
I’ve made notations to show which harmonics are flat and sharp. The 7th is extremely flat and the 11th is worse than that. In fact, it falls between F and F# on an equal
On the back of the fixed scale I’ve put a chart of the frequencies of the concert notes . . . just for reference . . . in case you’re interested. The numbers above the note
names indicate the octave. For example, Middle C is “C4” and the 440 Hz A is call “A4.”
I know, I know, I should be putting my effort into putting this all on an app instead of something you cut out of card stock.
If you care you could open the native
Excel file that I made the .pdf file from and mess around with the relationships there.
Just sticking this here as storage, since apparently Wikipedia was updated after Hillary did not win the election.
Hillary Diane Rotten Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒtən ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947)
is a corrupt politician and Demorat Party nominee for President of the
United States in the 2016 election, graft-taking United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, carpet bagging United States Senator, from 2001 to 2009,
First Lesbian of the United States during the presidency of her sham husband Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001.
Born in Chicago and raised in the suburban town of Park Ridge, Illinois, Clinton had serious daddy issues. After growing up as a Republican she discovered her
lesbian tendencies, became a demorat and attended Wellesley College to prove to Daddy she had a mind of her own, graduating in 1969.
She earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After securing her liberal bonafides pursuing the Watergate scandal, the high point of her
legal career was portraying a twelve year old victim of violent rape as a stalker. Hillary married Bill Clinton in 1975, whom she saw as a vehicle
to power, and moved to Arkansas with him. It was there where she began racking up scandals in earnest.
In 1977, she co-founded Some Blah Blah Blah Advocates for Ya-de-yah Group or Another, the beginning of a lifetime of farcical entities designed to enrich her, give her
power, and deflect attention from the fact that she is a heartless hater of all humans. In 1979 she became a partner at Rose Law Firm, employer of Chelsea's father Webb
Hubbell as well as another of her lovers Vince Foster. As First Lady of Arkansas, she alienated all of the public servants whose job it was to take care of her as well as
offending the vast majority of the citizens of Arkansas with her insufferable personality and despicable radical ideas. During this time she took $100,000 in payoffs from
Red Bone under the guise of trading cattle futures and was involved in the Whitewater scandal, in addition to countless others. She also took kickbacks from several
corporate boards that used her to get political favors from her husband the governor.
As First Lesbian of the United States, Clinton's primary role was to destroy the lives of the many women Bill was constantly sexually assaulting, while laughably
pretending to espouse women's rights. Her attempts to keep the public from finding out about the Lewinsky scandal confirmed to the public she was untrustworthy.
Meanwhile she continued her campaign to alienate those assigned to care for her while keeping the secret service busy trying to prevent her from killing Bill by
throwing vases and lamps at him.
Upon leaving the White House "dead broke" Clinton stole everything in that national shrine that wasn't bolted down, and several things that were, and immediately
bought a multi-million dollar mansion in New York, a state to which she had absolutely no connection whatsoever.
Clinton was elected in 2000 as senator not from New York, in a transparent effort to set herself up to run for President of the United States.
This after her opponent, the universally loved Rudy Giuliani suddenly came down with a case of temporary cancer, dropped out of the race, and was
replaced by Rick Fazio, who Hillary was able to successfully portray as a bully of weak females for having a debate with her.
Following the September 11 attacks, which her husband brought about by attending to his juvenile sexual needs rather than matters of State,
she worked energetically to turn the tragedy into a political advantage. She voted to approve the war in Afghanistan as well as for the Iraq
Resolution, a vote she continues to lie about. She pretended to investigate the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders. She even ridiculously
lied about how Chelsea was right there when it happened and she was worried sick about her, part of a continuous pattern of lying out of force of
habit about everything, like "landing under sniper fire." She voted against the Bush tax cuts, the tax cuts which were universally acknowledged by
people of both parties as wise economic policy.. She was re-elected to the Senate in 2006, an indication of her ability to somehow get in office in
spite of the will of the voters, a technique Donald Trump would later refer to as "rigging."
Running for president in 2008, she deviated from her track record of miraculously getting into office in spite of voters' wishes, losing the
Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, a candidate horrifyingly unqualified for the office who pantywaist voters installed out of fear of being
exposed as racist for not voting for the black guy.
As Secretary of State in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013, Clinton created chaos in the Middle East, advocating the U.S. military
intervention in Libya which everyone knew was a mistake of epic proportions, and which directly led to the rise of ISIS. After denying the
Libyan ambassador the increased security he requested, Clinton slept through the "3:00 am phone call" while terrorists attacked American
installations in Benghazi, killing four Americans. She woke up to lead the cover-up, spreading the story that the siege was because of
some silly YouTube video, despite hard evidence that she knew from the outset it was a coordinated terrorist attack. This lie continued
long after the fabrication was exposed even to the point of her lying to the families of the fallen.
During her tenure as Secretary of State she mainly used her position to grant political favors to foreign nations and multi-national
corporations in exchange for obscenely ridiculous bogus speaking fees and contributions to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. In an
effort to conceal these and other atrocities Clinton violated federal statute by conducting her business on an unsecured private e-mail
server, exposing state secrets to enemies of America. Leaving office after Obama's first term, Clinton resumed speaking engagements at
exorbitant fees in exchange for promises of paybacks as President, which promises she set out to fulfill by announcing her second
presidential run in the 2016 election, running on the platform that she is a woman and a grandmother.
Clinton, who has a granddaughter, won the 2016 Democrat primaries, coordinating with corrupt DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Shulz and others
to shut out all other candidates. She formally accepted her corrupt party's nomination on July 28, 2016, with vice presidential running
mate and infamous imbecile Senator Tim Kaine. Clinton, who is a grandmother, faces fake Republican Donald Trump, whom Bill Clinton
convinced to run against his wife (who, by the way, has a granddaughter), because Donald Trump may be the only person in the country
who could lose an election to the likes of a crooked, depraved, despicable reprobate like Hillary Clinton (who is, I believe, a grandmother).
As part of her 2016 platform, she has emphasized raising taxes, being a grandmother, furthering Socialized Medicine, having a granddaughter,
and further destroying the economy by forcing unwarranted mandates on businesses (oh, and having a grandchild). In addition, she pretends to
advocate for the downtrodden and disadvantaged, laughably proclaiming that "Every accuser of sexual assault has the right to be heard" in
spite of her lifelong efforts to destroy the victims of her husband's sexual assaults. This is done mostly just to prove that truly, as she
famously said, it makes no difference at this point. She is the ordained candidate and will be the next President of the United States.
God help us all.
Click on image for full size version.
More F. Leany quotes
So I'm mowing the lawn one day and this thought comes into my head:
"The trouble is that liberals are pantywaists, and nobody ever calls a pantywaist when they have a problem they need to solve."
Still trying to find a good place to use it.
(In the meantime I'll just store it here in my secret diary where no one ever looks.)
Why you gotta' be so mean?
I still have no idea what I was trying to say with all that malarkey on violence. I think maybe I was trying to investigate the word as a
storage place for a mental state. Violence. Everyone knows what the word means. But I want to expand it beyond the action or activity into a spiritual state.
So I have a word that I was trying to attach a concept to. And I'm left with a concept that I'm still trying to attach a word to.
What I came up with was "killer instinct" as a working title, with all kinds of orbiting words like confidence, guts, spunk . . .
Here's another word: Mean.
That seems to work just as well as any foot that I've tried the slipper on.
You know people who are mean. They may not necessarily be big or skilled (but they could be), but they just don't have qualms about hurting people.
In fact, mean people often like hurting people. These are the people who will get back at you. You play a prank on them and they will escalate it.
They don't care. If you escalate back they escalate more.
Das Waham Sein
I used to work with a guy from Nairobi. He was an accomplished, intelligent guy with a good English vocabulary and syntax.
When he was writing.
His e-mails were better crafted and more grammatically correct than most of the native English speakers in the company. But his accent was so
thick you could barely understand the man (he could have worked in a call center). The guy who shared an office with him would sometimes interpret
for him in meetings. John, I'm just going to call him John,
would make a point and everyone would take a second to try to figure out what he was saying, then if they couldn't they'd look at Joseph
(I'm going to call his office mate Joseph). Joseph would say "He wonders if we're going to send someone out to monitor the field test."
One of "John's" tricks was to come to a conclusion, then when someone (typically the boss) would dispute that he would object that he was
misunderstood and the boss's conclusion was exactly what he was saying.
John: "But if we make more of them they will each cost more money."
Boss: "What? No they won't. The volume discounts will make them cheaper!"
John: "Das waham sein!"
So . . . last post I said that that killer instinct quality—whatever we're naming it—was typically the deciding factor in a fight.
You know that's not always the case. You've seen it go the other way.
Me: Killer instinct always prevails.
You've seen the video of the big crazed black guy, enraged, his girlfriend in the purple hot pants trying to hold him back. She tears his
shirt off trying to hold him. He crosses the street with that walk, you know, that walk? A swagger. And you know what's coming. A skinny white guy is about to get slaughtered.
You: What? No it doesn't!
Me: Dat's what ahm sayin!
The big mean guy never lands a strike. The skinny white guy uses his skills to deliver a roundhouse to the head that knocks the mean guy out.
Which is exactly how it should be.
There's nothing more satisfying than a mean guy getting decidedly put in his place.
In a society operating in a stable control loop—call it a Darwinian society—the mean guys, the uncivilized elements, would lose more often than not. Much more often.
As I think about it I wonder if what I was trying to say is the exact opposite of what I actually said.
I kind of came across as saying don't bother building skills or fitness. Be mean. Be violent. That's the way to win.
That's not what I want; that's not what society wants. Violence makes me sick. It's not fun, it's not glamorous, it's not the world we want to live in.
I was more advocating for the good guys to be in a position to win. Whether they are able to tap into that "violence" in their spirit
(mean, confidence, guts . . .) or through skills or fitness or overwhelming asymmetric force.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck
(I wish I could take credit for that quote)
Wrong turn already
So we're discussing what factors determine the outcome when a violent confrontation happens. That's like discussing what to pack for a trip when you're already on the road,
When you get to the point where those elements have to come into play, that's the problem. What needs to happen is a change in society so people don't have a propensity for violence.
Well, I know, that's never going to happen, and even if it were to happen, in the meantime you've got to beat up bad guys. But you know what
I mean. When you get to a good guy and a bad guy face to face there have already been several breakdowns that have taken place.
The point that I was making with all that verbiage was there has to be more good guys with power than bad guys with power. A lot more.
Actually you probably didn't watch that karate kick knockout video I referenced, because you're not violent. You don't enjoy disgusting things like that.
I'm not violent. Those videos make me sick. Which is why I did watch it. I am deeply concerned that we live in a world where we are
going to be more touched by violence, and I'd like to figure out how to prevent the sociopaths that are comfortable in that world from affecting my family.
It's like the Rush Limbaughs of the world say about left-wing news shows: I watch them so you don't have to.
Second, it occurred to me that I said disparaging things about the black guy in the video that I happened to pick to reference. Sorry,
maybe my whiteness caused him to be enraged and violent and be the bad guy.
Since you're reading this you probably didn't notice. If you had noticed that I racististically said a black guy did something bad, you
wouldn't have read this far. You would right now be posting to all the left wing kook sites about how your whacked out world view is
validated and all is well and you're open minded and I'm a racist and that makes you happy.
Not happy enough to venture into the neighborhood where those fights happen, I'll bet.
If you're all excited about your open mind you could go on YouTube and search street fights, then come up with a percentage for me on
how many of those videos star black street fighters. I honestly don't know what that number is.
Who knows? Maybe people in black neighborhoods have more cell phones. Maybe the racists at YouTube delete videos of white street fights.
Bill Cosby (before he was in the news for the wrong reasons) talked to the black community about that very thing. If you want jobs
and respect you might try pulling up your pants and not talking like mongoloid idiots.
This is the exact same thing I was talking about. If you don't want people coming to the conclusion that you're a certain way you might consider not being that way.
Irony: If I don't want to be called racist, maybe I should find a video of a white bad guy getting his just desserts. "If."
Maybe I like playing wild weasel to get the SAM sites to reveal themselves.
But who determines who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?
Short answer: I do.
Ha hah. That's funny. But, no, seriously . . .
Longer answer: People who intentionally hurt people are bad guys.
A co-worker came into my office one day, I'm just going to call him "Joe." While we were talking I got an e-mail. I glanced at it
and told "Joe" it was my lucky day! Someone needed my bank account information so he could deposit a bunch of money for me.
Then I accidentally hit the sequence of keystrokes that permanently deleted the mail and blocked any future mails from that domain. Darn.
As I turned back to "Joe" I said "I hate evil people."
Then "Joe said "Well, aren't we all evil?"
I laughed out loud.
Poor "Joe." He was all caught up in the deep philosophy of flawed human nature and the fluidity of morals. And I laugh at him.
Academic self-loathing works great at 2:00 am in your dorm room when you're having a BS session with your little beret-wearing roommates and
putting your cigarettes out in the carpet.
But in the real world evil isn't academic. In the real world bad guys have to be beaten down so that good guys aren't.
Oh, here's where the quote I came up with would fit:
"The trouble is that liberals are pantywaists, and no one calls a pantywaist when there's a problem to be solved."
Pontificating about "Well, aren't we all evil?" smacks of Zeno's dichotomy paradox.
Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway
there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
That's the philosophical description of it. I believe the engineering description is: Bullcrap.
This requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.
So here's a shorter longer answer: Go screw yourself. You see a couple walking down the street and someone jumps out and punches the woman and
knocks her out. If you can't call somebody a bad guy in that scenario, you might be part of the problem.
Now run along and discuss all that in your safe space and leave the grown ups to run things out here.
As some of my imaginary readers know, I sometimes like to make up stories. These are entirely fictitious, just pulled out of my imagination
without any reference whatsoever to people that I might work with. If you've ever read
them you'd see that it's obvious—no real humans would ever behave in the ways my active imagination makes these fantasy characters do.
Frank got it, he really did. When you work on the road you feel a little displaced. Brady Hampton worked for Teknolix, but he didn't have an office—he had a truck.
During the time that everyone else spent at work looking forward to going home, Brady spent driving around looking forward to going to a hotel.
Brady referred to his wife as a Teknolix widow.
What that meant in Frank's life was that when Brady called it was never a quick conversation.
That morning was a typical call.
"Hey, Brady, how's it going?"
"Good. Say, I'm calling about the parts for Industrial Specialties. Did those get done?"
Frank reiterated what he'd told Brady in the e-mail the day before, the parts themselves were done but the bolts for them had been delayed on the vendor's end.
They would be shipped Monday.
"So, they're going out Monday?" Brady asked.
"Yep. The bolts came in this morning, but shipping and receiving isn't in on Friday. So they'll go out Monday."
"Okay," Brady said, "So the parts are leaving there on Monday."
Frank reaffirmed that that was the case.
"Well, I guess that's all I needed to know."
"Okay, well, I'll talk to you . . ." Frank started.
"So, Monday, then."
"'Cause Don out at I.S. wanted to install them by next weekend," Brady said.
At this point Frank put his phone on his desk and put it on speaker. He looked around for his Bluetooth headset. "Yeah, they'll be there for sure by the weekend," he said as he
turned back to the design on his computer.
Five minutes later Brady had explained that Don was the foreman, but the equipment manager Wade really called the shots, and Brady had seen that dynamic play out in more than one company, but
Wade understood the business and Don was better with people and if the parts left on Monday they should be there in plenty of time for the installation, 'cause Industrial
Specialties was a good company and we wanted to keep them happy.
"Yeah," Frank agreed, they had been a good customer.
Frank really didn't mind those calls. The thing was that Brady had some good ideas and insights, and the view from the field was vital to the work that got done back at the plant.
Brady could talk, Frank would multi-task, and the cosmos stayed in balance.
"So . . . they'll ship out on Monday," Brady clarified.
"Monday," Frank reaffirmed.
"Well, that's all I needed to know," Brady repeated.
Frank didn't try telling Brady okay, bye, he'd talk to him later. He scowled at the way the design software had regenerated the contour on the part on his screen.
"Well . . ." Brady said. Frank wondered if he was about to hear more insights into the personalities of construction foremen. But Brady was done. "I'll let you go, and I'll look for those parts."
A few minutes later Brandon poked his head in the office. "I'm a jerk," he said.
"What?" Frank asked.
"I heard you on the phone with Brady. He tried calling me first and I sent him to voicemail."
Two days later Carson came in Frank's office. He was carrying his phone and it was on speaker. From the phone Frank could hear Brady's voice.
"Brady? Brady, hang on a second," Carson said. "I'm here with Frank, tell him what you were telling me."
"Yeah," Brady said, "So the hardfacing costs us, what? Ten bucks?"
"It's six," Frank said, "But you have to add shipping onto that."
"Well, so let's say, whatever, eight bucks, but we charge a margin, and the dealer does, too. Point is, I wonder if we shouldn't offer the part without it."
"But Brady," Carson interrupted, "You have to remember that it doubles the life of the part." Hardfacing was a super-hard coating that was applied to parts to prevent wear.
Not all products had it or needed it, but the Hyper-Median pick was a different configuration and didn't do well without it.
"I know. I know," Brady said, "I'm just saying, I wonder if it wouldn't do to run a test to see if . . ."
Carson put the phone on mute. To Frank he said "None of those parts without hardfacing have lasted at all. I don't think they'll work. What do you think?"
Frank agreed that they didn't do as well in the standard applications.
"So you don't think we need to run a test without hardfacing?"
"I guess I don't really see the point," Frank said.
"Well, I want you to tell Brady that." Carson took the phone off mute.
When Brady finished making his case Carson repeated that in their experience the non-hardfaced parts didn't work. He looked over at Frank.
Frank looked back at him. Oh.
"You know, Brady, the tests that we have run seem pretty conclusive. I don't know what more we'd learn from trying the same thing again."
"Well . . . okay, I just . . . maybe we could just bring up the possibility with Larry tomorrow in the engineering meeting."
Carson agreed that they could do that, and then wrapped up the call.
The next day the group assembled for the engineering meeting. Larry was sitting next to Carson at the round table. Frank walked in and took a seat across from Larry.
"Do you want me to get Brady Hampton on the conference phone?" he asked.
"Yeah, in a minute. I was just telling Larry about Brady wanting to run some non-hardfaced parts," Carson said.
Carson said to Larry "Frank and I both independently told Brady that we didn't think that was a good idea."
Frank said nothing as he dialed Brady's number.
What Does it Mean?
You know what always intrigues me? How stupid a lot of smart people are.
You get good grades in high school, you go to journalism school and kill it there, then get a high-paying job for some big shot newspaper . . .
So far so good.
Then Trump says "Comey better hope there were no recordings."
And you prove that for all your education you're dumber than a box of rocks. People are running around saying that Trump
disclosed that there are recording devices all over the White House.
What? No, he didn't!
Crap falls out of Trump's mouth. The man is an fifth grader (apologies to the average fifth grader). He says crap. He tries to be funny. The only person
dumber than the person who says that ridiculous crap is the person who tries to assign any meaning at all to it.
Trump never called for gun owners to assassinate Hillary. He never cleverly asked Russia to hack her e-mails. He opened his mouth and crap fell out.
The man is a child. His mind is putting a lot more energy into scoping out the skirts in the White House than to crafting coded messages. He is a child.
Listen, I get it. People who work for high-powered media organizations are highly accomplished. They got where they are by hard work and planning and t
hinking and strategizing. It is outside of their frame of reference to not do that.
Trust me. Trust me, not them. I am a loser. I don't think, I can't think, when I try to think I mess things ups. Trust me to give you insight into how the disorganized mind functions.
Accomplished people have absolutely no way to understand Trump. It's not their fault, they just aren't wired that way. You can't pick up CB chatter with an FM radio.
A Fine Foundation of Nothingness
The trouble is, when smart people say things people accept it as fact. Then every future fact has to be based on that made up "fact."
Somebody comes up with a SWAG. Maybe they believe it, or maybe they're just throwing it out for examination—a thought experiment. But people accept is as
established science and all future research and science has to fall in line with that. Ptolemy's epicycles. Global Warming/Cooling/Climate change. The idea
that Hillary might be a female.
The best example is archeology. You will never hear more unadulterated bull-puckey than from an archaeological dig.
Again, maybe the guy really believes the nonsense that he's spouting, or maybe he's just saying "I have no idea, let's just throw out every theory we can think
of and examine them."
I remember a program where they invented an entire religion that never existed based on a skull they found. The guy was talking about how it was obviously a wealthy
villager because of his teeth, and he was obviously ritually killed because of his wealth as a sacrifice to a god that he had no basis at all for believing the society
believed in. Just writing fiction as he went along.
Hey, who are we to say he's wrong? If I find a penny on the sidewalk you can't prove it's wasn't put there by a three-headed falcon who used it to mark the landing path
for his entourage of falcon Guardians of the Galaxy who were supposed to follow him to the city to find a lost McGuffin.
I was just listening to an (excellent, by the way) audio book about a lost city in Honduras. In one sentence the guy cautions against speculating, then he immediately
launches into this ridiculous speculation with absolutely no basis at all. Some carving looked like it might be a vulture, and the vulture might be a symbol of man's
soul making a transition to a spiritual plane represented by the vulture, that, oh by the way, they probably worshipped as the centerpiece of their religion.
The carvings on a pot were of someone bound for sacrifice, or maybe for a funeral, or maybe it was a half-man half monkey deity. Really? They honestly said that. Or
maybe it was a recipe for armadillo jam. Maybe it was quetzacoatl for "Please do not put trash in this urinal."
And they found containers that were broken, which obviously were ritually broken as a means of releasing the evil spirits from them.
I am not making this up.
Then we get to petroglyphs. Oh, geez. This carving represents the cycle of life from conception to ascension and this line is obviously a whatsamagiggit for the
whojumuwhatsit, proving that they worshiped turtles and were transgendered.
You know what happened there. Some cave mom was at her wits' end with her kids. The brachiosaurus bone fidget spinner was broken and the old man was out hunting mastodons.
"Here, take this piece of quartz and go carve pictures on that sandstone. Just get out of my hair, for crying out loud!"
I'm guessing daddy caveman was torqued when he got home. "Who carved on this wall?!"
"Really?! You try keeping track of a bunch of savages without even a written language much less a school system, and I'll go out hunting with your buddies!
Pedicures aren't even going to get invented for another two thousand years!"
That's what happened there.
But that open interpretation deal works for me. Last month I rented a cabin at a campground. It had some hieroglyphic on the door, looked like maybe a dog with red circle
around it and line through it. Who knows what it could mean? As I settled my dog into the cabin I acknowledged that I'm not educated enough to figure it out.
Here comes the boring part
You know. That whole part under the Leany on Life header.
This is the part I can't help myself and I try to make sense of the world. I try to name concepts and tie them together.
Remember back when the guy getting beat up on United Airlines was a thing?
Back then I posted something about . . . I can't even remember and it's not worth looking up. But I said something about you were going to see everyone all of a sudden
remembering they were wronged by United Airlines.
And it happened. You watched it. The most bizarre was when that woman claimed United Airlines forced her to pee in a cup.
This is what I was talking about, as long as the window is open people are scrambling to get through. Right now is the time to fleece the airlines,
'cause they're scared of the bad publicity.
So there is a "This is Not That" deal here. If a company is negligent they should be held accountable. But because it's such an important concept,
it makes targets of companies. I know a guy who is a very successful homebuilder. The town gossip told me he was being sued for sexual harassment.
Well, that didn't sound like the guy I knew.
It turns out he was being sued for sexual harassment. But he didn't do it. He had a gold-digging secretary working for him who thought she should
share in some of his money.
That story is a good vehicle for examining the concept. It's a target for abuse or hijacking because it's a big deal. If someone really is sexually
harassing people they should get their ding dong whacked off. But if he's not guilty, the false accusation hurts future victims and the accuser is
the horrible person. The very accusation ruins lives, but the lives of the guilty should be ruined.
You remember, dear imaginary reader, my quintessential representation of this.
It's the guy kneeling over a bloody body holding a knife. Well, obviously, he just stabbed the guy. But he claims he came upon the guy stabbed and
was trying to help. Well, of course that's exactly what he would say if he had just stabbed the guy.
Both explanations fit the observed scene.
What is the truth? That's the difference. Is it a powerful businessman taking advantage of a lowly secretary? Or is the businessman getting scammed
because he's a target for being rich and successful?
I'm still flapping my gums about the exact same thing, but I put in a break to give you a breather; to fool you into thinking that we've moved on to a
fresh, new, exciting topic.
You know, like the one-page chapters in a James Patterson book.
Speaking of Patterson . . .
So some guy locally here named Patterson just killed a girl he dated a couple of times. She was running from him and got a ride with someone trying to help.
The psycho rammed the car, killed her, killed her child, shot a couple of other kids, including those of the good Samaritan, and then killed himself.
Oh. Warning to my imaginary readers. Keep your imaginary kids away for that last part.
Horrible thing. Sad. Tragic. Just a waste.
Why couldn't he have just switched the order and killed himself first?
Wow. You just wish someone could have killed the guy before he took out actual humans with actual worth. See? It's an emotional issue.
Remember what I said about emotional issues like that? (You never said there was going to be a test!)
Because it's very important and highly charged, it becomes a target for hijacking.
The radio host talking about story brought up the domestic abuse hotline. Told everyone to take advantage of the resources to prevent that in the future.
Where do I sign up for that detail? I'd love to be one of the guys who goes out and hammers on domestic abusers until they quit bleeding. See? Emotional.
So it got me to thinking. It's a great thing that the resources are there, there should be more, I wish there were enough to have prevented that tragedy
(if you know about the story you know about that angle—that someone did raise a warning and nothing happened).
But I was thinking about that hotline and my twisted version of how it would work. Because a man abusing a woman is such a horrible thing—charged issue—it
opens things up for abuse. So if you've got some crazy chick, and there are some crazy chicks, they could use that resource to ruin some guy's life for nothing.
Side bar: same topic but this breaks up the boring rhythm (he says to the imaginary reader who has slogged through this far).
It's a variation of the Race to the Courthouse tactic.
Remember the guy who snatched up a girl from the park and a passerby saw him taking her into a motel room and called 911?
I wanted the guy killed immediately. I wanted the cops to break down the door and kill him "trying to escape."
As it turns out, so did his fiancé. See, she's the one who called him and told him to pick up her daughter and take her to the motel, and she's the one who paid the
"passerby" to call 911 and get the cops over there.
I guess in the country she's from that would have saved her telling the guy she didn't want to get married 'cause the cops would have just taken him out.
You can't make this stuff up.
So let's not do it my way.
Which still leaves us with a society full of really crappy wastes of skin.
Okay, on to what comes next, as my faithful imaginary readers know.
When you take a charged topic, and you hoax it, what do you do? You undermine the credibility of the authentic article. You've cried wolf.
You have lawyers (pardon my language) who claim to be on the lookout for the consumer. But they're not. They are using their law degree to buy a lifestyle their
mediocre intelligence doesn't warrant. Their lies and misrepresentations actually hurt the people they are claiming to advocate for. Landlords are so gun shy
about these scams that renters have an increasingly hard time getting into places.
The rape hoax. It hurts rape victims
So lawyers aren't in it to help people, they are in it to get rich.
Don't they incidentally help people? Isn't that how Capitalism works?
How is that different than Mitt Romney helping people by giving them jobs when the he set out to do was make money?
I have some ideas, but I'll spare you them for now.
You can thank me later.
Okay, next topic
First, who cares what a sports team thinks about politics?
So Steve Kerr doesn't want to go to the White House. Fine, stay home, just don't bore us with your views on politics.
. . . says the guy who is boring you with his views on politics . . .
Hey, you're the one sitting there in my imagination reading this slop.
And Greg Popovich. He has to tell us every time there's a microphone in his face how much he hates Trump. We don't care, we're asking about your team and your sport.
Greg feels like a pall or a cloud is hanging over America. That's actually a pretty good description. It's kind of the way I feel myself.
But there's a reason Popovich is coaching some lowly NBA basketball team and not raking in the wealth and fame from writing an insightful political blog.
He's missing the entire point.
The point is that Trump is not the problem. Trump is the solution.
Trump is the invasion of white blood cells that happened in response to a disease.
You've got a fever, you've got inflammation, I know, that's miserable, it sucks. Maybe you shouldn't have done the stupid thing that got you infected.
'Cause New Headings are Free
Wow, Frank has a lot of topics to cover today.
Right? It's not all the same boring deal just broken up in sections.
This is that deal I'm always talking about where the democrats are wringing their hands over being called evil.
Oh, they don't care that they are evil, but how dare you call them that! Same thing as the criminal blaming the
cop because he's in prison.
Okay, so you hate Trump. That's fine, but you got Trump for a reason. You picked the road, that's where the road leads.
What you want is to choose the road then choose a different city than the road goes to. You see this manifest in a hundred different ways.
"Don't judge me!"
Oh . . . so you want to do something that casts you in a bad light, but then you want me to ignore what I know when I make assessments. Okay.
No. I get to come to logical conclusions. Maybe you'd be better off by behaving in a way that supports the conclusion you want.
Whining about Trump is the same thing as whining about bad publicity about a murderer. This is another one you see all the time.
"Don't call my son a monster!" You mean the one who [fill in the blank for the heinous crime that got him on the news]?
Quality vs. Time
This is the age-old dilemma. Do you want it fast or do you want it good?
Someone says something that requires a smart-aleck retort, but it's time sensitive. In a couple of seconds nothing you say will be funny.
But if you rush it you'll say something stupid and it won't be funny anyway.
So I've got all these notes, but I'm trying to work them out before I post them, but I'll never get them all put together so they make sense.
These are the issues you struggle with when you run a high quality blog like this. I've created a reputation I can't live up to!
Oh, geez, I slay me.
I started this when that "comedian" with the bloody severed head was still a thing, before that whackjob shot up the Congressmen practicing baseball. But it's a timeless topic.
Any time you happen in here there will be something going on that makes the discussion relevant. Sadly.
Kathy Whatsergrffiname was aghast that anyone could have seen a bloody severed head as violent. She said that she's not violent and had never done anything violent.
I don't believe she's violent. Most people are not. This post has nothing to do with whatsername and the severed head. That was just a segue into the topic.
What we're talking about is anti-social behavior. It's interesting because it's foreign to most of us. We simply are not wired that way.
Think about the knockout "game" videos. Those worthless wastes of skin are not humans. What violence entails is crossing outside the confines of humanity,
those boundaries where you care about how another human being feels. That's the first level of understanding it. Bad guys live in a different world than we do.
They are missing the conscience chip.
I'm reading a book that claims one in 25 people are clinically sociopathic, meaning they do not have a conscience. I'd like to say I can't believe that's true,
but the more experience I have with people the more inclined I am to believe it.
Violent people, or criminals in general, whether violent or not, don't care if they hurt people. That's difficult to wrap your head around.
I feel blessed that those ratios don't hold for people in my circle of acquaintances. But in the world at large I might be persuaded that it's that high.
The second element is that violent people don't care as much as we do about getting hurt—or they don't believe in the possibility as much as we do.
You're not violent, I'm not violent. Even people who hold bloody severed heads as a joke are not violent, apparently. But we certainly have violent elements in society.
The trouble is that we, the portion of society that is not violent, have to try to solve that problem.
We want to live in a society without violence, yet there are violent people in society? How do you deal with that?
One way that we do it is with guard dogs. We have to enlist good guys who are comfortable in that arena to combat the bad guys who are comfortable in that arena. That's the thin blue line.
And what we try to do is give the cops a marked advantage so they don't have to be violent. It's a little bit of a paradox. The more firepower you have, the less "violent" you have to be.
The average guy who wears a blue uniform to work is not a street thug or a brawler. He's going to go to his kid's little league game after work the same as you are.
So we give cops tools so they mix it up as little as possible with people who are comfortable with violence. Rather than getting in there and breaking joints and
windpipes they outnumber the bad guy three to one. stand back, fire a tazer and slap on the handcuffs.
A minimum of violence.
Years ago local deranged lunatic Dell Schanze (he was wealthy enough at the time to classify as "eccentric") got into a confrontation with a
bunch of tough guys who were unhappy about him speeding through their neighborhood. He ended up in front a judge because he pulled a gun on them.
So when the cops are armed heavily enough that it's not a contest, you avoid the violence. From there we branch off into how to
control the situation where you have a very powerful police force.
He told the judge that by pulling the gun he stopped anyone from getting hurt.
Actually, that makes an awful lot of sense. (That awkward moment when your common-sense doctrine is being preached by a crazy man)
In a fight everyone gets bloody. If you avoid the fight with a preponderance of force, no one gets hurt.
(They just get sued)
I honestly have no idea what I was setting out to say when I started this. I think it might have been to draw a contrast between
civilized society and people who are comfortable with violence. And to make the observation that sadly we are going to have to
learn to become more comfortable with it in the future the way society is going.
The Philosopher F. Leany
Last month I went to a handgun training course. At the beginning of the training they asked "Why are you taking this course?"
It's interesting; I hadn't really thought about it in depth.
I found myself answering that I didn't particularly feel in danger, but I thought it was important that more good guys had guns than bad guys.
(Add that to the large and growing list of brilliant Frank Leany quotes.)
And that's it. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. You saw that this week in Alexandra, Va. You can argue it's not true, you might even believe it.
You can also expect to get a unicorn for your birthday. But until you figure out a way to have a world without bad guys in it, believing anything different is pure fantasy.
As long as there are bad guys in the world, people are going to die. Society's job is to make sure it's the bad guys that die, not the good guys.
A punk walks into a convenience store with a gun. He has decided that someone is going to die; he has created a situation where someone is going to die.
You can't credibly claim to love flowers if you don't hate weeds.
In my view I would much rather it be the punk than the father behind the counter trying to feed his family.
The math is brutal, but it's real. Once the situation has moved into the zone where a person is going to die, the best scenario is that the punk dies. No apologies for stating that.
- Frank Leany
You're still here?!
I was going to sort through this and make it make sense. But you don't care. I certainly don't.
This is a compilation of stuff I posted on Quora (Dudemol) in response to questions like "What one technique can I learn in an hour to make me invincible in a street fight?"
Or something like that . . .
There are 12 things that determine the outcome of a fight between two unarmed combatants
I should find a better way to phrase “killer instinct,” but I think you know what I mean. Some people are just willing to hurt other people and don’t freak out when they’re in the crap.
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Killer instinct
- Size and strength
- Trained Skills
Other terms for "killer instinct:" Courage, spunk, heart, guts, confidence (maybe?) . . .
It's like Yogi Berra said: "Baseball is 90 per cent mental. The other half is physical."
Propensity for violence.
It’s whatever the person has who will stand up for himself, even in the face of odds that seem insurmountable. Imagine the big scary guy in the bar who is bullying people. It’s whatever
you have that would make you mouth off to him.
Hey, I never said it was intelligence.
This is the pivotal element of physical confrontation between human beings: It’s all psychological. Some people have the ability to tangle with a human being, knowing that they will be hurt
and knowing they will be hurting another human being. Some people even love it. Others can’t cross that line.
That’s what makes a fighter. Period.
There are a couple of things at play here. First, society conditions us not to hurt fellow humans, even when that person is a useless punk who wants to hurt us. Second, and carrying more weight,
for some reason we have a sense that if we fight back we make the bad guy fight harder. Not having those psychological burdens is “killer instinct.”
Adrenaline dump is part of it, just plain pants-filling fear is part of it, and lack of confidence is part of it. Being trained can mitigate those.
The warriors on the island of Crete are said to have had a philosophy about bravery: "The art of the hero wasn’t about being brave; it was about being so competent that bravery wasn’t an issue."
It’s easy to debate academically from the comfort of our mobile device screens, but I would have to add this caveat: That competence has to include mixing it up with an opponent. The only
people who are psychologically capable of fighting are those who have fought.
Interestingly, there are those who study martial arts precisely because they don’t have that un-nameable quality. Some kid is getting bullied at school. so he signs up at a McDojo so he
can defend himself. Building skills does build confidence, but having skills is not the same thing as having . . . Factor X, whatever that is.
Most people can learn it, but probably not within an hour. Others can’t after years of martial arts training. That element that I’m not able to attach a name to can be learned, but I don’t
think it can be taught.
And you can probably cross into that state of mind if someone you love is threatened or you are enraged enough. But more likely in the face of a conflict you’ll melt into a quivering puddle.
Preparation in techniques helps, if you have that killer instinct. Fitness helps, if you have that killer instinct. It’s mostly useless if you don’t. (‘Killer instinct’ is a charged term,
used here to mean 'the ability to not freak out while you’re trying to hurt someone who is trying to hurt you.' Maybe confidence is a better term, understanding that the right
combination of arrogance and ignorance can look like confidence (which, in this case, is just as useful).)
Part of the idea behind martial arts is that it requires discipline, and the common street thug doesn’t have the discipline to follow through with that accomplishment.
So in a trained martial artist, in general, you should have a better human being—meaning, one who isn’t inclined to fight, but who is trained to.
And, theoretically, that would mean that in a fight the good guy wins the confrontation.
That would be true if skills were the first nine things on the list, but they are not.
Killer instinct is.
Or being comfortable with violence or whatever you choose to call it.
Anybody See a Matrix Around Here?
I have no idea who Kathy Griffin or Griffith or whatever is. And I don't feel like my life is any more empty for that.
So her 15 minutes came in the form of holding a bloody severed Donald Trump head. She said she had no idea that anyone could possibly have seen that as violent.
As a faithful imaginary reader of this blog you know what's coming next. She did a bad thing. That puts her in the lower half of the . . . whatever I
named my dumb matrix. So her choice now is: Did I knowingly do something bad, or can I claim stupidity?
She chose stupidity. ("Incompetent" on the graphic above)
Which isn't all that stupid, actually. What she wanted to do was to secure her bonafides as a hater of Donald Trump, a good career move given her target audience (imbeciles, 14-82 demographic).
And they completely understood that she had to offer a bogus apology. This is going to be a huge bump in her career. Hey, now I've even heard of her.
Makes me think maybe I ought to look up her comedy. She's got to be pretty funny if she delivers lines like "I had NO earthly idea someone might find a severed bloody head of a US President in bad taste!"
Two more things. Her lawyer was getting all worked up and righteously indignant. "As an American citizen she has every right to express herself with whatever art she wants!"
Art? I guess it only makes sense that the lawyer of a comedian would try her hand at comedy.
But the funny thing is, she has a God-given American right to offer up the severed bloody head of an American President. But anyone who has an opinion about
what she did is way out of bounds. That's how these people think. When they disagree with you, it's Freedom of Speech. When you disagree with them, that's oppression.
Thing two: You would have never heard a whisper of outrage if I weren't a woman.
I . . . it's just . . . really? I guess I should just let her comedy stand on its own.
What's that? Yeah, this is quite a pile of cartoons. Tt's been awhile since I posted them and some are ancient history.
I put a .pdf file here of a lead sheet for a song that I did. I just stuck it there so I'll have a link to it.
That's the beauty of being unknown. The most private place I can hide stuff is on my public blog.
Say, it seems like it's been awhile since I posted.
I honestly just haven't felt like it. That's actually an improvement; better than feeling driven to post opinions that don't matter for people who don't care. Almost like I'm maturing or something.
Interestingly enough, it seems like my last post was right after the inauguration . . .
As I think about it I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not a coincidence. I really have kind of lost interest in the whole bizarre thing because I still can't accept this is the world we now live in.
If anything, the situation has become more important than ever, but I feel like . . . well, you know that junior high stunt when someone's chewing their food and they open their mouth to show you?
"Train wreck!" I've gotta tell you, I've had to look away.
The election of Donald Trump was a much more historic event than that of Obama. Donald Trump is a far greater departure from the norm than Barack Obama was, in spite of Obama's whining assertions to the contrary
("They'll say I don't look like other Presidents!" Wah.).
The logical flow of prose would dictate that this paragraph outline the ways he's different—his background, experience, personality, style. But you don't need a paragraph. It's freaking Donald Trump. That's your explanation.
ADD Moment: Have you gotten to the point yet where you hear "Today President Trump . . ." and you don't feel like you're listening to a parody?
The man is crazy. If you know someone who disagrees with that assessment, you need to be very careful of that person. He is a lunatic.
But here's the deal: it just may be a lunatic we're looking for . . . in the words of the philosopher William Joel.
A lunatic is exactly what we're looking for. We tried sanity. It didn't work.
And that's what pisses me off. The disgusting thing about the whole absurd situation that the United States of America is in, is how we got here. Why have we come to a point where we actually need a Donald Trump as President?
It was a choice of starving or eating a crap sandwich.
I've been over this more times than you care to read about. Yeah, once. You know the deal. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The majority of the population of this right of center country got
sick of being shut out of the process, got sick of being played for a chump, said "Enough." The democrats gave us Donald Trump.
Okay, just to clarify, sentences like "Donald Trump is a lunatic" or "The man is crazy" might give you the impression that I think Donald Trump is crazy. But I am really glad he's President. I really am.
I just can't watch.
I've always been proud to be an American. It means something. America is power and dignity and goodness. It's decorum and class. It's not that crappy sand-cast machinery that's manufactured in India. It's
not that soggy cardboard that smells funny that they make in China. It's not the gritty germ-infested food you get in a grocery store in Mexico. Or mobs marching in the streets in Venezuela.
Call it patriotism, call it xenophobia. I like living in a place that's clean and classy and safe and orderly.
Does any of that sound like Donald Trump?
Donald Trump is a mess.
He's like someone you see rise violently to power in lesser countries, wearing a thrift store military uniform, crazy and unpredictable. No offense to Lech Walesa, but Trump reminds me of him; not the
refined, experienced Senator or Governor who has a press secretary instead of tweeting his every emotion like an eighth grade girl.
Barack Obama, there's the image of an American President. Seriously. Dressed well, looked good, spoke well, good sense of humor, kind of a sense of boundaries and decorum. Too bad the guy was a crybaby
and a socialist and a narcissist and inept and incompetent. Unprepared. Close-minded. A liar. A coward. An America hater. He looked like an American President should look. But he was a whited sepulcher.
And he gave us Donald Trump.
Once you finish this riveting blog post, go get a copy of The Empty Land, by Louis L'Amour. And get a highlighter. Read the book. Highlight passages, and put notes in the margins. Write a term paper on it as a metaphor
Here's what's happened in the little Old West town called America. The bad guys took over. They ruled by bullying and intimidation. We wanted a sheriff who would reason things out, be soft-spoken and friendly,
not used violence or gunplay. But the bad guys figured out that the citizens were chumps, and they could do whatever the Hell they pleased and no one could stop them.
We wanted a sheriff who was polished; we needed a sheriff who didn't play by the rules that the bad guys made up.
That's not the kind of town we want, but we couldn't sit still for the kind of town we had. The hope is that once the sheriff cleans up the town he'll move on, and we can get back to our quiet little town with
schools and churches and a sheriff who sits on the jailhouse porch with his boots up on the hitching rail.
A guard dog is great to keep the bad guys away, but you always worry it's going to bite the kids.
Read the book. Quit wasting your time on a stupid blog. (That would be good advice for me to heed)
Careful What You Wish For
I'm starting to remember why I haven't blogged in a long time. Something to do with being incapable of distilling my thoughts into coherent writing.
So Bill O'Reilly gets ousted from Fox. Don't waste your money on that crystal ball advertised in the back of the comic book, you know what happens next. Like zombies rising from a swamp you get people coming forward saying
"Oh, I remember that I was sexually harassed, too!"
You know the deal. The rape hoax. Sexual harassment is never acceptable. Roger Ailes is probably a huge pile of crap. I've heard some pretty reliable stories about his scumbaggery.
But we're not fooled. We know exactly what's going on here. Nobody who's pushing these allegations gives a flying crap about sexual harassment. They want Fox News gone. Sexual harassment is a very useful tool. You've seen
them play this game. Global warming, poverty, women's rights . . . the left gets off on starving children and pestilence and misery because they're phenomenal tools for them to garner power.
Fox News is a threat to the left's monopoly on information, and their ideas can't survive inspection or debate.
Geez, if you need me to tell you this you've been in a coma for a long time. Thank you so much for choosing my blog as the first thing to read from your hospital bed once the ventilator came out.
Take Chuck Shumer (Please, take Chuck Shumer) (Geez, I slay me). The man's picture is in the Wikipedia entry for "Fool." Pick your own favorite from his greatest hits; the man would kill to have an IQ as high as Forrest
Gump's. "This legislation shouldn't be rammed down people's throats without debate or bi-partisan support! That's not how we do things." Uh . . . it's exactly how you do things (you freaking moron).
Or Maxine Waters, talking about how we don't need a President who's not prepared for the position with no experience or ability to do the job who spends all his time golfing. Yeah! right! Wait . . . uh, who are you
talking about? (You freaking moron).
These people are idiots. They are not misguided or subscribing to a different worldview. They are brainless freaking idiots, incapable of rational thought, and the last thing they need is a network that questions the
absurdities they spout.
So, it's clear to everyone what's going on here. They got O'Reilly, they're going after Hannity. Then they're going to go after the next guy . . . and the next . . . and the next. And every time there's going to be a
bunch of people coming forward saying that they all of a sudden remembered they were wronged, too.
You saw this with the guy who got dragged off the United plane. For three days everybody and their grandmother's dog had a story about how United had done them wrong, too.
Okay, for those of you who are not my imaginary loyal readers, let me explain the This-is-Not-That here. If someone is sexually harassed the person who did it should be punished. Like Hillary says. (See what I did here?)
I can't even remember what I was thinking when I had the brilliant idea for this post . . .
But people shouldn't embellish a situation to try to get it more attention.
But wait, if it's a serious problem shouldn't we exaggerate it to give it more attention? Nope. Because that has exactly the opposite effect.
But the boy who cries wolf damages real victims.
That's people. They want to hop on a bandwagon before it leaves.
It's a funny thing—Remember back when Bill Clinton was being accused of all the bad things . . . that he was guilty of? The fact that he was such a scumbag worked to his benefit, because there was an
endless stream of disclosures. A reasonable person watching would say "Oh, c'mon! Now you're just piling on."
This is not that. The Clintonista types who are trying to take down Fox News are not smart enough to understand these concepts, but it won't hurt them. When they really are piling on in this case it won't evoke
sympathy for the ones they are attacking.
I may not have that all fully figured out yet.
Okay, case in point. "Clintonista" is a perfectly apt characterization of the type of people who for their own nefarious reasons would support a Clinton. But it has the sounds of a third world situation, like
Peronista Argentina or Venezuela or someplace where the President wears a military uniform from the costume closet of a comedy show. That's what those peoole have done to this country. That's what pisses me off.
But I will make this point one more time—for my imaginary readers who are wondering why I've only mentioned the This-is-not-That concept 23 times so far in this post.
The reason a counterfeit can work is because there's an authentic article to mimic. Like piling on. In Clinton's case we werren't piling on; he really was that awful. But piling on is a real concept, so they were
able to masquerade it.
Anyway . . . back to the laser-focus analysis of . . . whatever I was flapping my gums about.
So the left wants Fox News gone. But we already established that those on the left are idiots. In fact, that's why they want Fox News gone-because they can't survive the examination of their idiocy. And, being idiots, they aren't able to think through the consequences of their actions.
It's like the guy who was overrun with spiders, so he exterminated all the spiders at this place. Now, this guy didn't have the extensive and comprehensive background in biology and zoology that you and I have. Had he known what we know, he'd know that the Bleeb-jiggered fobble womp is the spider's natural prey. And after getting rid of all the spiders he found himself overrun with Bleeb-jiggered fobble womps.
America is full of conservatives. They go to Fox News because it gives them an alternative to the fake news that causes them a cosmic dissonance to listen to. It just obviously isn't right. America needs an alternative to the lies that are being foisted on us.
If you get rid of Fox News you're going to get something you like even less.
I'm not sure what it looks like, but I do have a basis for predicting that it won't be good.
Those of you thinking it would be utopia if Fox News were gone: Remember how getting your dream socialist in office got you Donald Trump? Do you like Donald Trump?
Well, that was your doing. You have the thanks of a grateful nation.
. . . from the animal kingdom.
Years ago I was mowing the lawn and came across a deposit my dog had left for me. I shut off the lawn mower and was grousing while I cleaned it up. My little girl went over to the dog and whacked her on the nose. "Bad dog!" The dog had no clue what was going on.
Dogs have very small brains dedicated to sniffing out disgusting things for them to eat. Unless you administer the punishment right in the act of the crime, they don't have the capacity to make the association. Even then, it has to happen multiple times.
Life is like that. Consequences are delayed so that only intelligent people can benefit from the association.
Democrats are not smart enough to see that they gave us Donald Trump. They aren't smart enough to see what would happen in the alternate universe where they were able to take down Fox News. They don't get to benefit from that understanding.
And second . . .
The spiders and their prey. I was going to use wasps as the example, but they serve no useful purpose in the ecosystem.
Years ago when I bought my farm I decided I would live and let live. The wasps where there when I moved in, I would leave them alone. They would go about their business and I would go about mine and we'd be just fine.
Then my little girl was walking past a window, far away from the wasp nest in the window, and one stung her.
Change of policy.
Any wasps that I knew about died. I would wait until they were asleep or too cold to defend themselves and I'd kill them. I would kill their unborn young. If I knew about a wasp nest I destroyed it and killed all of its inhabitants.
Why? Because wasps are too stupid to know I mean them no harm.
I could live side by side with them, but they saw me as a threat when I was not. So they have to die.
I may have figured out a marketing strategy to get more readers, (cause, you know, it's such a benefit to me to have readers. "I lose money every transaction, but I can make it up in volume!")
My daughter once asked why God created wasps. I told her it was to satisfy Daddy's need to kill things.
Liberals may start reading this because that's the kind of line that they think precedes a headline. Then they can point back to my "hate-filled" blogs and pine about how terrible it is that people are allowed to have their own opinions.
They aren't smart enough to understand that the cruelest act I'll ever commit is being a nice guy, so their screwed up little worldview doesn't get validated.
Note to any imaginary liberals reading: The best is about to come.
(Oh, it gets better. Read on.)
Islamists are the wasps of the human world. They don't produce anything but pain and carnage. And they attack because they are stupid and evil.
Bees produce honey. They'll sting to protect their home and product of their labor. Wasps don't produce anything. They sting because they are evil creatures and they are too stupid to understand they aren't being threatened.
Now go run to Media Matters and tell them how horrible I am. And spell my name right. It's "Keith Olbermann."
These have absolutely no relevance anymore, but I saved them to post, so . . . you know the rules.
So apparently Obama is leaving office with a 273% approval rating . . . according to the reports I'm hearing.
But he also has a 45% disapproval rating.
Someone wondered what portion of that 45% were "racists/bigots who are still seething because a black guy was elected."
If you are one of the deranged lunatics who believes that the opposition to Barack Obama is because of his race, I'm never going to convince you of anything different.
So why do I keep beating that dead horse?
Because idiots keep making ridiculous statements characterizing opposition to the man as racism and bigotry from people seething that a black guy was elected.
Well, this is the last day. After today I won't. this is the last time I'll have to mention it.
Sweetest words: On the radio they described Obama getting on the helicopter and turning to wave. Then the commentator said "His tenure as President is over."
So I'm explaining the way it is one last time. But I'm not trying to convince you of my position. Either you already understand or you never will.
(I'm obviously a racist.)
But if you believe we are "seething" because a black guy got elected, my talking about it just convinces you all the more that you are right. And righteous.
comments saying that "I hate that Obama is black." You read that and you go all
social justice warrior and spend all night in your mom's basement typing up passionate retorts to all your little friends on the social media (dude, I'm all "the social media").
See, you don't have the intelligence to understand the concept, and you further don't have the intelligence to understand how stupid you look defending an absurd premise.
So my continuing to talk about my position makes you screech your position (I'm seething, you're screeching).
Then everybody looks at you and your unhinged arguments and realizes I'm right.
Hang on . . .
Mom! Wait a minute! I'm typing up retorts to imaginary liberals! Oh, can you come down and get my laundry?
Okay, so . . . I know I'm not going to convince you I'm right. But your caterwauling is going to convince everyone else I am.
'Cause I like saying #ByeFailicia.
. . . and today's the last day I get to say it.
. . . except three years from now Obama is still going to be running around the country doing his Final Goodbye Tour.
Okay, so here are some extra points that go with the last post. Except they would have messed up the flawless flow of
the prose of that post.
I'll concede that there are probably about 12 people in the United States have a problem with a black man as President. Racism isn't dead. Especially not after the left's
frenetic efforts to revive it over the last 8 years.
But . . . two things.
1) the left has pushed race relations back a half century with their rape/race hoax. When everything is racism, nothing is.
2) The ridiculously low number of troglodytes who might have a problem with a black man as President certainly has no bearing whatsoever on our national politics.
Except for the other side trying to make it an issue (point 1) which then would prompt me to have you refer to point 2 and around and around.
Okay. Some of the deranged lunatics who are talking about people still seething about a black guy being elected President are not stupid enough to believe it.
They are smart enough to understand it's not true, but have an agenda to push.
Let me 'splain
You, dear imaginary reader, have seen this Evil/Stupid matrix a hundred times. So I won't put it in a matrix . . .
'cause I'm too lazy to create a table.
Here is a fact: Mustang is manufactured by Ford.
Now, if someone says that Mustangs are manufactured by Ford, the reason he's saying that is because . . . well, it's true. It's the way things are.
So we've dispatched that whole side of the matrix. (I really should make a table. Nah. Why?)
Moving to the other side, the wrong side. If someone says that Mustangs are made by Chevrolet, well, that's just plain wrong. It ain't so.
So why would someone say that? Well, he might be stupid. Excuse me, ignorant or misinformed. He may truly believe that, gotten bad information, heard the right thing
once and doesn't have the mental capacity to remember it.
Maybe he doesn't care enough to know. Is that a Chevrolet Mustang? Dude, Mustangs are Fords. Whatever.
Maybe he knows, but for some reason he's trying to pull one over on you. Maybe he knows you want a Mustang, but he's trying to sell you some crappy Chevy Nova. You sure this is a
Mustang? Of course. Well, what's with the Chevrolet emblems on here? Sure, it's a Chevrolet Mustang. Oh . . and how come the word Mustang is spray painted on here?
Maybe he's trying to be funny. You know what would be freaking hilarious? If I said that Mustangs were Chevrolets. That would be funny, right there.
Or maybe he's trying to use humor to make a point. Obama is a great President. Yeah, like a Mustang is a great Chevrolet.
The only other thing I can think of is that he's delusional. So on the one end he's not educated enough to know. On this end (of the matrix you're imagining in your head) he's
not intelligent enough to understand it, but he is educated way beyond his intelligence. "Chevrolet is from the Gaelic word meaning running water and the alignment of the constellations
that start with the letters in Chevrolet and and blah blah blah blah a Mustang is a steed so therefore, technically any Mustang has to be a Chevrolet."
Point is, whatever the reason, if he's on that side of the matrix he's wrong. I forgive him if he's trying to be funny. I never personally have, but I understand that there are people who do that. So . . .
Other than that, beware of anyone operating on that side of the matrix.
Like people—idiotic, delusional, manipulating, or anyone not trying to be funny—who say that if you oppose a socialist amateur who happens to be black you are seething.
'Cause I like saying #ByeFailicia.
So Obama is out and Trump is the President of the United States.
And people are rioting.
Like all the bigots/racists who were seething when Obama got elected.
Oh . . . wait. That never happened.
The people who are rioting in Washington are racists. They are bigots. They hate Trump because he is white. And the people who boycotted the inauguration
(Oh, stop! You're breaking my heart! Please come to my party!) are racists and bigots.
No, it can't be because of his personality or his policies. You're just saying that to cover up their racism. Why are you such a racist, you racist?
Sucks when someone mischaracterizes your position, doesn't it?
Okay, so wait, you're saying you have legitimate opposition to Trump (that warrants destroying property and committing other crimes—I'll let you
explain that to me another time) but it has nothing to do with his race?
Bullcrap. The only thing you can possibly oppose about him is his race.
So, wait, I couldn't be opposed to Obama's policies or personality or preparation or temperament? Only his race?
You've reduced him to nothing but his race. You did that, not me. If I can only oppose him because of his race you can only support him for that same reason.
You've posited that he has no other significant characteristic.
Oh, but we've have other white Presidents. You mean like those useless morons Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter? Yeah, you didn't see any conservatives opposing them.
Like, for example the way people opposed Bush.
And show me any opposition to Barack Obama that holds a candle to the crap that Trump has already taken two hours into holding the office.
I'm done here.
One last time, the link to one of many incendiary pages about Obama's race and
a great explanation from the Dennis Miller show about why Obama won.
Read this article called
Do elections matter to Obama? Just do it.
Yesterday Michael Barone wrote an article called Free Advice for the Democrats (You'll notice with relief that I didn't link to it. You
can ignore it guilt-free (dear imaginary reader)).
My advice to the democrats? Keep going just like you are! No self-examination or correction necessary!
Among my vast reservoir of original advice, free for the ignoring, is this nugget:
Try to look at all criticism of yourself as useful. If the person is right, you have an opportunity to improve. If he is wrong, he's a
schmuck, and that's good information to have, too.
You remember (dear imaginary reader) that in the autopsy following the 2012 election the Republicans did a massive analysis of what they
had done wrong. And they were wrong. In this election the Clinton camp is doing a massive analysis of what everyone else did wrong. And,
you guessed it, they are wrong.
Spoiler alert. Mitt Romney didn't do anything wrong, it was a cultural deal. Hillary dismisses it as a cultural deal when it was totally
her philosophy and lack of appeal.
It feels good to lock up a suspect, closure and all that. But the danger of locking up the wrong suspect is that the criminal is still at
It's like the sagacious observation by Frank Leany in his imaginary book Philosophy or Something Like It. "If you choose the easiest answer
instead of the correct answer you haven't solved the problem."
A correct diagnosis is kind of important, because if you're getting the wrong treatment you keep getting sicker.
So . . . yeah . . . a quotable and two analogies all saying about the same thing.
Anyway . . .
It's intriguing that Hillary suffers from the same problem as Barack Obama. Maybe it's a democrat deal.
I penned a brilliant piece some time ago about how Barack Obama (Praise-ed be His Holy Name forever) is a loser and would always be a loser.
I said that's an interesting observation about someone who has attained the highest office in the land, but he would never advance because he always see his failures as someone else's fault.
Today Brent Bozell wrote an article that somewhat echoed those sentiments. Yeah,
I did link to that one. Click and read or suffer the guilt.
In the Dead Horse Department
Tell me you didn't see this coming (dear faithful imaginary reader). This all ties in to the Rape Hoax and This is not That.
Gimme a minute while I try to remember how . . .
Interlude: I keep a store in my mind of stupid things that I've done in the past. Whenever my brain refuses to function I refer back to
them to placate myself into believing that I've always been an idiot and it's not a horrifying degenerative condition.
Okay, so you've got Hillary viewing this as the voters are idiots and culturally opposed to voting for her. Setting aside the logic of that
for a moment, let's look at the This is Not That aspect of that. You remember I've called it the counterfeit and the masquerade and other
things. The idea is that for the counterfeit to work there has to exist the authentic article.
And it does. It exists in the defeat of Mitt Romney for exactly that reason. People didn't elect him because he wasn't the cool black guy.
Okay, so now the people who were so anxious to vote for a guy simply because he was black refused to vote for Hillary because she's a woman?
This is not that.
This is Not That is Hillary's main game. She's always trying to play on counterfeits, like the "vast conspiracy" that was trying to take
down her husband. Yeah, that would have the same outcome as the two of you being skunks and the people rejecting you at the grass roots.
But Hillary doesn't believe in grass roots. Everything she does is astro-turfed. Plants in audiences with questions, being fed debate
questions, all that.
The other one, the one that best demonstrates the piggy-backing onto a real concept, is when she tried to say "You can't look at my e-mails
because my mother died!" Yeah, that sort of hardship does afford someone a little extra leeway. But when you fake it . . .
Did you see that? Rape hoax.
When you try to hijack (that was the other term. Masquerade, counterfeit, hijack—remember past idiocies, Frank. You're not having a
stroke . . . ) a concept that is valid, you undermine the concept. Sure, your mom dying is a horrible thing and it merits a little
compassion—unless you clumsily try to use it to get away with a crime. Then all of a sudden we're suspicious of other people when
they use the technique.
But honestly, and I hope that the Hillary campaign is too busy to read this blog today, because this would give her the information
to turn it all around (unless Michael Savage has already given her the key to winning), Hillary is so incredibly wooden in her delivery.
She is just so fake in her performance, precisely because it is a performance. She's just a bad actor, literally a bad actress, and people
see through her stiff and stilted delivery.
And now . . .
. . . a story with only tangential relevance. Because I'm old and I get to tell pointless stories. Hey, if I've got to have hair growing
in my ears I'm going to take advantage of what little benefits this stage affords me.
A close personal friend of mine was visiting a relative once to return a bassinet. This relative had kind of a thing for my close personal
friend's wife. The guy had some health troubles and was sitting in the kitchen with a blanket on him when my close personal friend arrived
with his wife.
They dropped the borrowed bassinet off in the front room and the relative said "Who is it? Come closer so I can see who it is? Who is it?
They went in close and chatted, the guy said his eyes didn't work, they told him they were bringing back the bassinet that they left in the
front room, and then the relative looked up and said "Oh, I see you brought back the little blanket with it."
So, the point is, if someone is playing games like that –like Hillary invoking her dead mother to steer us away from her corruption, for
example--there are two ways to deal with it. First way is to just let them do it. If it's worth it enough for them to trade their dignity
for it, just let them have it.
The other way is simply to call them on it. Really? You can't turn over your e-mails because your mom died?
You'll find a lot of situations like that.
The perfect example is the race card. Just identify it. Wait, did you really just tell me I'm not allowed to point out behavior in bad
taste if the actor is black?
Next time you come across that crap, you'll know. Either simply identify it, or if it's harmless and costs you nothing understand it
costs the player his dignity.
Moving into a Most-Racial Period
I can't stand listening to used car dealers yelling. That's my excuse.
Okay, I was listening to NPR, all right? The other stations were on commercials. (ADD moment—and it was a rare moment that NPR's commercials weren't in sync with them. They have just as many commercial time outs as stations that aren't paid for with my taxes.)
I just find it entertaining sometimes—like watching a ridiculous cartoon. But, just like watching a ridiculous cartoon, you can only take it for so long. (What? Yeah, I did rent Neighbors, and it was painful to sit through the entire show just for that 10-second funny part where the airbags launch him into the ceiling.)
Somebody from The Atlantic wrote an article titled
My President Was Black. Someone on NPR was interviewing him and he said that Barack Obama at his core is an unflagging optimist. But he underestimated the deep-seated racism that is America.
I'm not kidding.
It's a funny thing. We weren't racist until we elected a black President.
That's what . . . intrigued me? Confused me? . . . about that exchange when the douche from the cast of Hamilton was bloviating to Mike Pence. I'm commenting on the guy's manners and all of a sudden someone's screaming "Racist!"
I asked the guy "Is that still a thing? I thought calling someone racist for disagreeing with you went out with the flip phone."
He said "Oh, racism is still a thing. Racial prejudice still exists."
Yeah, only nobody cares anymore. Nobody cares because of all the snowflakes running around screaming "Racist!"
It's like a car alarm. It's just annoying. It never means there's any threat or danger.
My daughter was in a music class and they were talking about the pitches of the strings on a guitar. She named them the way her father taught her: "Easter Bunny Gets Drunk At Easter." The class laughed, but one girl said "Racist!"
Uh . . . against bunnies? Easter? Drunks?
Obviously, "racist" only meant "You said something edgy that some people might be uncomfortable with." So . . . what do you call the despicable human being who judges other human beings based on race? The word has no meaning.
It's just lazy language substituting for real thinking. But it's a shame that the consequence is that the car alarms only make people turn away, so the "burglars" are free to wreak destruction.
The Boy Who Cried Rape
The rape hoax. Or in this case the race hoax. You know, dear imaginary reader, this deal I bore you about over and over (and over) again.
Just last month some girl got raped in the parking garage at the U of U. I was ready to drive up and lend my imagination to the authorities to torture to death the guy who did it. (And you know what an imagination I have, typing a blog for my imaginary friends).
Only they never caught the guy. The reason they never did is because it never happened. They went through surveillance video and spend hundreds of man hours on the case and they concluded it never happened.
Okay, let's think about this. What is the consequence of that? Now, there are some out there who think that rape is such a horrific thing that they help by inflating the numbers. You know the deal, four out of five college girls will be sexually assaulted. They figure if the real number is two out of five, or whatever, they need to make it sound much more alarming than that so it gets the requisite attention.
But does it have that effect?
When you do that you undermine the credibility of the whole deal. So the girl who cried "Rape!" committed a crime against the victims of rape, the same way that rapists do. She undermined the credibility of real rape accusations.
"Oh, racism is a thing. Racial prejudice exists." Yep. But the villagers aren't listening anymore 'cause they're tired of chasing your imaginary wolves.
It's all good
Apart from the cultural destruction that the new meaning of "racist" has, the laziness drives me crazy. That's what I hate most about the new language. It's just so sloppy. Sloppy language from sloppy thinking.
"He's, like, totally, like, you know?"
No, I don't. As the speaker you have the responsibility to paint the picture for me with words.
Just bizarre that a vocabulary is so desperately inadequate that, like, someone would like, you know, like say, like, racist, for like something that was like, you know.
When I heard that guy describing Obama as someone completely different from who he is, a scene from Star Trek, the Next Generation came to mind.
Jean Luc Picard is being tortured and he's shown four lights. He's told that all he has to do for the torture to stop is say that he sees five lights. He refuses. As he's being drug away he defiantly screams "There are four lights!"
That's the opposite of these people (like the NPR guy). They are looking at one thing and seeing something completely different.
Obama (and the left in general) have stirred up racial tensions to a level you have to go back to the 60s to find.
The election of Barack Obama has set race relations in this country back at least a half century.
And the country is full of useful idiots running around adding to the chaos. Sure, whatever, five lights, six, whatever you tell me to say.
These people are so incredibly delusional. Absolutely incapable of seeing what's in front of their face.
The article in The Atlantic featured a . . . whatchamacallit . . . like, you know . . . a sidebar dealie . . . that screamed
"Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 were dismissed by some of his critics as merely symbolic for African Americans. But there is nothing “mere” about symbols."
You can say that again. Not when serious issues were affecting us that required more than a symbolic President. Wow. Whatever race the guy was, he was incompetent, and now we have ISIS, open season on cops, economic stagnation . . .
The delusional crap you'll read if you click on the link (dear imaginary reader) (I could secure the nation's nuclear codes by posting them on a link here—it would guarantee not one person would ever see them ever) included this nugget.
Whiteness in America is a different symbol—a badge of advantage. In a country of professed meritocratic competition, this badge has long ensured an unerring privilege, represented in a 220-year monopoly on the highest office in the land.
Seriously? The man who holds that office only has that privilege because he's not white. How many lights do you see?
OMG. I can't. I just can't.
You Made Your Bed
Oh, yeah. And Trump. That's the other thing that electing a man because of his race got us. Now we have an insane person headed to the White House. From incompetent to insane. Frying pan/fire.
I know there are those who don't understand how the democrats are responsible for Trump. The argument that they are has three levels, on a continuum.
The democrats chose Hillary Clinton as their candidate. In addition to being politically completely out of sync with America (which voters don't give two craps about) she is a despicable human being and a crook. She may well be the only person in the known universe so horrible she could lose an election to someone as childish and unhinged as Donald Trump.
Republicans didn't make them pick her. That's all on them.
2. True, but disputed. The pendulum effect. By installing someone as radical as Obama, and by using the "racist" argument to make sure that anyone with civility and decorum won't oppose him, what do you think you're going to get? When people are discussing, people discuss back. When people start swinging, they get swung on. The tactics that work on sane people don't work against Donald Trump. That's his appeal. You bring a knife to a debate, we'll get a gun.
This is the crux of the argument and the part that Obama was whining about. "I uh I've been uh blamed for uh a lot of things, but, uh, I don't see how, uh, how this is uh, my fault." You don't need to make radical corrections unless the car is careening out of control. No one's surprised that Obama can't understand that. He doesn't understand much, as we've seen.
3. Whacked out conspiracy territory, but not necessarily untrue. Bill Clinton (pardon my language) convinced Donald Trump to run, some kind of mysterious voodoo happened and he got the nomination. The voodoo included democrats voting for Trump in the primaries and the media pushing him hard as the their favorite—the same media who had all kinds of trash to release on him once he got the nomination.
All this because Hillary was so horrible (see number one) that she had to have an opponent who was crazy, and unhinged, and childish and . . . how many thesauruses have been worn out between Hillary and Donald Trump? He was ordained because anyone else would easily beat Hillary Clinton (did you know she has a granddaughter?). The conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that he was somehow installed by the democrats because he was the only offspring of God who Hilary could beat.
But, as we saw, she couldn't even beat him.
But, hey, they've got it all figured out. It's because we hate women and we're deplorable. Just like we were racist for electing Barack Obama.
They've got it all figured out and good on 'em. They don't need to change a thing. They should plow ahead the same way they've been doing. No correction needed here. Keep it up, democrats!
Click "Prev" below to go to earlier posts