What about it? Do you know what it is? Why, it is entertainment, that's what.
If you were to generalize things a bit, you can say that most things on TV, the internet, and sports, are all not much different than porn in that each are just a venue for entertainment. Porn is the type of entertainment, as sports is, you see. Blogs can be like porn too.
I recall my brother, Wishbone-T, telling me in the early days of this blog that it was "too dry". In other words---BORING!!! Not entertaining enough.
What's the blog all about? Not about entertainment. That's why nobody reads this blog. It's taken me that long to figure it all out. Nobody gives a shit about solving problems. They want to be entertained and I'm not doing it---so they don't come here. That's unless something about my blog is entertaining them in some way. That's not what I'm trying to do, but that's all these people care about.
Update a little while later:
People get it. The people who made this movie get it. It's all about bread and circuses. They had a scene like that in that movie. Bread and circuses. Entertainment. Here's a scene in which the gladiator's big problem is staying alive while entertaining the audience.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
ParaPundit: War Is Great: Increases Material Well Being
ParaPundit: War Is Great: Increases Material Well Being
comment:
This same pundit sharply criticized the Iraq War under Bush 43. Some wars must be greater than others./snark
comment:
This same pundit sharply criticized the Iraq War under Bush 43. Some wars must be greater than others./snark
Led Zeppelin - Over the Hills and Far Away - Acoustic Guitar lesson - How to Play
Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. Would I had loved to have this type of instruction on how to play a gitfiddle when I was in high school. Man, I spent hours trying to figure out how to play stuff on my own. And not making much progress at it, either. Something like this would have been a big, big help.
Why did I practice so much on a gitfiddle? Oh, just a fantasy at being a big time rock n roll star. What a joke. Even if you were any good, it doesn't guarantee anything. Lots of talented people out there.
Why did I practice so much on a gitfiddle? Oh, just a fantasy at being a big time rock n roll star. What a joke. Even if you were any good, it doesn't guarantee anything. Lots of talented people out there.
Rick Perry indicted
For threatening a veto. I guess for taking the oath of office, he should have been executed.
This is Travis County Texas, which is a liberal stronghold, okay?
If there's any abuse of power, it is in the District Attorney's office in Travis Country, which brought the indictment against Perry. Perry is accused of an abuse of power for threatening a veto of this DA's office.
What's going on here?
There's a DA in Travis County who got busted for DWI right here. She served 45 days in jail for a DWI conviction. She is shown in a video below:
Breitbart has a pretty decent write up here.
That DA is still in office over there and it appears that the Democrat's main concern was that they could have lost some power in that office if Perry had been allowed to appoint her successor. That could be what this is really all about.
In other words, the Democrats want no accountability at all and are retaliating for simple enforcement of the law with regards to this DWI conviction.
This is Travis County Texas, which is a liberal stronghold, okay?
If there's any abuse of power, it is in the District Attorney's office in Travis Country, which brought the indictment against Perry. Perry is accused of an abuse of power for threatening a veto of this DA's office.
What's going on here?
There's a DA in Travis County who got busted for DWI right here. She served 45 days in jail for a DWI conviction. She is shown in a video below:
Breitbart has a pretty decent write up here.
That DA is still in office over there and it appears that the Democrat's main concern was that they could have lost some power in that office if Perry had been allowed to appoint her successor. That could be what this is really all about.
In other words, the Democrats want no accountability at all and are retaliating for simple enforcement of the law with regards to this DWI conviction.
Friday, August 15, 2014
The very grave sin of infidelity
Barnhardt recently wrote something that is, to me at least, one of the most questionable things that she has ever written. It is on the issue of infidelity in marriage.
She seems to be advocating some sort of tolerance for infidelity. She pointed out an example of how a woman decided to stay with her husband after she discovered his unfaithfulness. Barnhardt gave this an example of the most proper conduct. I think this is gravely mistaken. I'm going to re-read her piece before going on, just to be sure I am not misunderstanding what she wrote. Back in a little bit....
Okay, back now.
The woman she referred to claims that she would have been guilty of adultery if she left him. Not necessarily. I am a bit hazy on this, as I do not regularly read the New Testament, so I could be wrong. My recollection is that Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and marries again has committed adultery, except in cases of adultery. If I am correct, then it is not adultery to divorce an unfaithful spouse and to remarry, according to Jesus, who Barnhardt says she loves so much. How could she not know this???
I got to thinking and it is much worse than even this. For the couple involved could be in leadership positions, who provide the example to the community. If this behavior becomes acceptable, then the entire community could be affected for the worse. Big time example? Hillary Clinton tolerated her husband's infidelity. That could lead to the acceptance of infidelity as an acceptable lifestyle choice. For a nation to break with established religion in this way has grave consequences no matter what you believe in.
Infidelity in marriage must not be tolerated. Those who commit that sin must be held accountable. What kind of problems do we have in this nation today? A lack of accountability would be one, wouldn't you say? The failure to kept a solemn vow, such as marriage, can be the very thing that unravels an entire society.
No. Barnhardt is dead wrong on this one example. It leads one to question what else is she wrong about.
Update:
I wanted to be even more sure about the subject, so I spent the better part of this morning watching a video Gospel ( Matthew ). Yes, it does appear that divorce is permitted, however, it is not recommended.
It appears to me that the subject is much more complex than what I had thought.
I may have interpreted it to mean that a divorce is all but required in the case of infidelity, but that isn't necessarily so either. My bad.
Here's a thought... Forgiveness for sin isn't intended to be permission for it.
She seems to be advocating some sort of tolerance for infidelity. She pointed out an example of how a woman decided to stay with her husband after she discovered his unfaithfulness. Barnhardt gave this an example of the most proper conduct. I think this is gravely mistaken. I'm going to re-read her piece before going on, just to be sure I am not misunderstanding what she wrote. Back in a little bit....
Okay, back now.
The woman she referred to claims that she would have been guilty of adultery if she left him. Not necessarily. I am a bit hazy on this, as I do not regularly read the New Testament, so I could be wrong. My recollection is that Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and marries again has committed adultery, except in cases of adultery. If I am correct, then it is not adultery to divorce an unfaithful spouse and to remarry, according to Jesus, who Barnhardt says she loves so much. How could she not know this???
I got to thinking and it is much worse than even this. For the couple involved could be in leadership positions, who provide the example to the community. If this behavior becomes acceptable, then the entire community could be affected for the worse. Big time example? Hillary Clinton tolerated her husband's infidelity. That could lead to the acceptance of infidelity as an acceptable lifestyle choice. For a nation to break with established religion in this way has grave consequences no matter what you believe in.
Infidelity in marriage must not be tolerated. Those who commit that sin must be held accountable. What kind of problems do we have in this nation today? A lack of accountability would be one, wouldn't you say? The failure to kept a solemn vow, such as marriage, can be the very thing that unravels an entire society.
No. Barnhardt is dead wrong on this one example. It leads one to question what else is she wrong about.
Update:
I wanted to be even more sure about the subject, so I spent the better part of this morning watching a video Gospel ( Matthew ). Yes, it does appear that divorce is permitted, however, it is not recommended.
It appears to me that the subject is much more complex than what I had thought.
I may have interpreted it to mean that a divorce is all but required in the case of infidelity, but that isn't necessarily so either. My bad.
Here's a thought... Forgiveness for sin isn't intended to be permission for it.
Oh dear, here we go again...
Engaging with the wicked world. It can really make you crazy if you think about it too long. Link from the Barnhardt site and Breitbart.
By the way, Limbaugh ain't no help. He's one of them, I suspect. Complaining about it like Barnhardt does isn't going to change anything either.
statistical research looked at public attitudes on nearly 1,800 policy issues and determined that government almost always ignores the opinions of average citizens and adopts the policy preferences of monied business interestsFreedom and democracy are illusions. We live in the Matrix, y'all.
By the way, Limbaugh ain't no help. He's one of them, I suspect. Complaining about it like Barnhardt does isn't going to change anything either.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Far out, man
More Falcon 9 video posted at Behind the Black shows the first stage rocket easing down to the water. However, the picture was lost, which would have showed the rocket tipping over and exploding.
This is good enough for proof of concept for soft landing, they feel. The next step may have a landing occur on solid land.
I took a pic of the moment when the rocket was approaching the water.
And for the entire video, go here.
This is good enough for proof of concept for soft landing, they feel. The next step may have a landing occur on solid land.
I took a pic of the moment when the rocket was approaching the water.
And for the entire video, go here.
Coffin bed
The idea is to minimize energy use. We want to have the least amount of cubic feet required for climate control. That strategy minimizes energy use. As an example, a bed of 24 cubic feet should suffice.
Using this wall unit as an example, which will cool 100 square feet using 5k btu, then 12 square ft would need only about 600 btu.
Then 6 hours of cooling at that rate uses 1 kWh.
Update:
No. This is bound to be less than 1 kWh. The area covered is too small.
The idea is related to the Iron Man suit from some of the Brainstorming for mining an asteroid series.
Update ( couple days later )
Here's an application of this idea to the storage shed post in the off-the-grid series.
Update ( 8/20/14 or about a week later )
Here's some denim insulation for the area that will be directly below the loft. Fairly cheap and easy to install.
It may require some additional modifications to make it insulated enough, but that's no biggie.
Using this wall unit as an example, which will cool 100 square feet using 5k btu, then 12 square ft would need only about 600 btu.
Then 6 hours of cooling at that rate uses 1 kWh.
Update:
No. This is bound to be less than 1 kWh. The area covered is too small.
The idea is related to the Iron Man suit from some of the Brainstorming for mining an asteroid series.
Update ( couple days later )
Here's an application of this idea to the storage shed post in the off-the-grid series.
Update ( 8/20/14 or about a week later )
Here's some denim insulation for the area that will be directly below the loft. Fairly cheap and easy to install.
 |
| Storage loft may be big enough for a twin size mattress |
Trying to get back on track here
Sometimes I disconnect from the world, then I reconnect. Then I disconnect again. Sometimes you just have to get away. You have to disconnect in order to remain rational and sane.
The world really is a nutty place. Perhaps I want to go out in the desert in order to get away from it all. Yuk, yuk.
Yesterday, I had a thought I'd like to keep active, or otherwise, I'll forget. The idea is to make my home on top of an open trailer***. This isn't unique, as I have seen the idea elsewhere. The thing that's new is for me to make the thing on my own according to my own designs. That's a scary notion, there. I have no experience with that.
Posting is lite as I have been busy with other things.
Update:
Another trailer link***.
Update ( 8/17/14)
And another that may hold the Craftsman Storage Shed discussed in the off-the-grid series.
The world really is a nutty place. Perhaps I want to go out in the desert in order to get away from it all. Yuk, yuk.
Yesterday, I had a thought I'd like to keep active, or otherwise, I'll forget. The idea is to make my home on top of an open trailer***. This isn't unique, as I have seen the idea elsewhere. The thing that's new is for me to make the thing on my own according to my own designs. That's a scary notion, there. I have no experience with that.
Posting is lite as I have been busy with other things.
Update:
Another trailer link***.
Update ( 8/17/14)
And another that may hold the Craftsman Storage Shed discussed in the off-the-grid series.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
ParaPundit: Afghan Government To Fall Once United States Leaves
ParaPundit: Afghan Government To Fall Once United States Leaves
We are fighting the wrong enemy? Who'da thunk? Well, Sun-Tzu says if you don't know your enemy, you have a 50-50 chance of winning. If you don't know yourself nor your enemy, you are jodido.
Doesn't look like we know who the real enemy is and we may not know ourselves either, so the conclusion follows.
We are fighting the wrong enemy? Who'da thunk? Well, Sun-Tzu says if you don't know your enemy, you have a 50-50 chance of winning. If you don't know yourself nor your enemy, you are jodido.
Doesn't look like we know who the real enemy is and we may not know ourselves either, so the conclusion follows.
Britain: If hostilities break out in Gaza again, we’re cutting Israel off
hotair
comment:
The Brits have just about lost it for sure. Great example of that right here in this story.
England is being Islamified. There may be more babies being born as Muslim than as Christian. This can only be true because the state has destroyed the basis of Christianity there, just as it is doing everywhere in the West. ( I can't back up that assertion with facts, except those here in the US, but I suspect that the state has indeed destroyed Christianity everywhere in the West.)
Israel has not done any wrong here. These are people intent upon their destruction, just as they are intent upon the destruction of the United States. To the Muslims, American and Israel are the same. This should be regarded as an unfriendly act towards America. But this group in DC would never do anything like that, if it means to actually defend America, which is now, in truth from their point of view, the great sin that Bush committed.
You can make comparisons to Nazi Germany as far as the Christianity aspect is concerned, but make the comparisons honest. Nazi Germany was not Christian.
comment:
The Brits have just about lost it for sure. Great example of that right here in this story.
England is being Islamified. There may be more babies being born as Muslim than as Christian. This can only be true because the state has destroyed the basis of Christianity there, just as it is doing everywhere in the West. ( I can't back up that assertion with facts, except those here in the US, but I suspect that the state has indeed destroyed Christianity everywhere in the West.)
Israel has not done any wrong here. These are people intent upon their destruction, just as they are intent upon the destruction of the United States. To the Muslims, American and Israel are the same. This should be regarded as an unfriendly act towards America. But this group in DC would never do anything like that, if it means to actually defend America, which is now, in truth from their point of view, the great sin that Bush committed.
You can make comparisons to Nazi Germany as far as the Christianity aspect is concerned, but make the comparisons honest. Nazi Germany was not Christian.
Wagoner Drunk Teacher Crime Details
Wagoner Drunk Teacher Crime Details: A new Wagoner teacher showed up to her first day of work drunk and took her pants off
Nothing to get excited about. Trust me on this one. You don't want to go there.
Nothing to get excited about. Trust me on this one. You don't want to go there.
Obama Now: It Wasn't My Choice to Pull All Troops Out of Iraq; That Meanwich Stinkburger al-Maliki Made Me Obama Then: It Was Totes My Decision to Pull All Troops Out of Iraq!!!
Ace
Obama really is an enemy. Would a friend lie to you and put you at risk of harm? He's done that by opening the borders to unlimited migration. Anybody, including terrorists can now enter. Would a friend do that to you?
Obama is lying about Iraq. But that's nothing new. There's no honesty and sincerity in the man. Everything you see in this man is artificial and false.
Obama really is an enemy. Would a friend lie to you and put you at risk of harm? He's done that by opening the borders to unlimited migration. Anybody, including terrorists can now enter. Would a friend do that to you?
Obama is lying about Iraq. But that's nothing new. There's no honesty and sincerity in the man. Everything you see in this man is artificial and false.
Robin Williams
Well, that's in the news. How can you say something tasteful about it without echoing the stuff coming from the media?
In other words, how do I comment in an original way?
Actually, the comment is implicit in this blog. When I write about humor, it is really intended to be expressed as the ability to laugh at oneself and not take yourself too seriously. You see, I had to learn that lesson myself the hard way. I'm not blessed with a great sense of humor. I have to constantly remind myself not to take myself too seriously.
Was there something missing in Robin Williams' humor? At the risk of being tasteless here, I'm going to venture that there might have been. He may never have learned how to laugh at HIMSELF and therefore was missing that element in his humor. He was a gifted comedian. I'm very sorry he died, especially the way he did.
In other words, how do I comment in an original way?
Actually, the comment is implicit in this blog. When I write about humor, it is really intended to be expressed as the ability to laugh at oneself and not take yourself too seriously. You see, I had to learn that lesson myself the hard way. I'm not blessed with a great sense of humor. I have to constantly remind myself not to take myself too seriously.
Was there something missing in Robin Williams' humor? At the risk of being tasteless here, I'm going to venture that there might have been. He may never have learned how to laugh at HIMSELF and therefore was missing that element in his humor. He was a gifted comedian. I'm very sorry he died, especially the way he did.
A question for anybody interested in this topic
Topic: The role of Christianity in Western Civilization
Question: Is the secular state attempting to stamp out Christianity, and by what means?
Answer: I think yes, and the means is by taxation. Although it is true in the United States that the church is tax exempt, it is also true that the church must stay out of politics. However, what happens when politics encroaches upon religious liberty? Then the churches are helpless from such encroachment. You are seeing that with the implementation of Obamacare. But make no mistake. It goes much, much farther than that. Everything that the political left wants so badly ( such as abortion ) goes into enhancing their power at the expense of the church. Abortion encourages promiscuity and irresponsibility. The result is a nation that no longer produces children. No nation can survive that for long.
But the churches are only helpless to the extent that they allow themselves to be sucked into the moneychanger scheme of control. The moneychanger scheme of control means that the church cannot stand on its own without assistance from the state and is thereby subordinated to the state. Once that happens, the church is no longer free to be itself. It cannot actively protest abortion, for example. If any church does, it will lose tax exempt status. The moneychanger scheme of control wins again.
The solution? The church should grow its own food. It should build sufficient housing for a substantial portion of the population when the government fails to adequately address the needs of the people. The government WILL fail because every government does fail eventually. Check your history books. It fails as the Ricimer example of the late Roman Empire in the West demonstrated. It fails because it concentrates all of its attention upon its own needs and ignores the needs of the people and the community. Such an empire cannot stand because it lacks what it needs to sustain itself---the will to sustain itself. The leaders simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
You have to take matters into your own hands while at the same time not getting burned by ruthless authorities who only care about their own perks and privileges.
Question: Is the secular state attempting to stamp out Christianity, and by what means?
Answer: I think yes, and the means is by taxation. Although it is true in the United States that the church is tax exempt, it is also true that the church must stay out of politics. However, what happens when politics encroaches upon religious liberty? Then the churches are helpless from such encroachment. You are seeing that with the implementation of Obamacare. But make no mistake. It goes much, much farther than that. Everything that the political left wants so badly ( such as abortion ) goes into enhancing their power at the expense of the church. Abortion encourages promiscuity and irresponsibility. The result is a nation that no longer produces children. No nation can survive that for long.
But the churches are only helpless to the extent that they allow themselves to be sucked into the moneychanger scheme of control. The moneychanger scheme of control means that the church cannot stand on its own without assistance from the state and is thereby subordinated to the state. Once that happens, the church is no longer free to be itself. It cannot actively protest abortion, for example. If any church does, it will lose tax exempt status. The moneychanger scheme of control wins again.
The solution? The church should grow its own food. It should build sufficient housing for a substantial portion of the population when the government fails to adequately address the needs of the people. The government WILL fail because every government does fail eventually. Check your history books. It fails as the Ricimer example of the late Roman Empire in the West demonstrated. It fails because it concentrates all of its attention upon its own needs and ignores the needs of the people and the community. Such an empire cannot stand because it lacks what it needs to sustain itself---the will to sustain itself. The leaders simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
You have to take matters into your own hands while at the same time not getting burned by ruthless authorities who only care about their own perks and privileges.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Peseus slays Medusa
Didn't know what Gorgon meant. Bad ass bitch, I suppose.
The link from Google showed some pics that would have been considered long ago as being pornographic.
Maybe this one is a Gorgon.
The link from Google showed some pics that would have been considered long ago as being pornographic.
Pat Buchanan's assessment of presidential politics in 2016
He's not very optimistic.
He's probably right---here's a clue why:
Now, what does all that have in common? Money. The GOP is following Democrat premises. When they do this, they lose.
Of course, if anybody ever listened to me, they could figure out a solution to this. But obviously nobody does, and so they'll lose like they always do.
I'm telling you that if you crack the money assumption, you crack the Democrat's back. It's all about the money, but the GOP cannot play that game anymore, and win. Not when you control the money presses.
If you show these people another way to support themselves and it works, it's going to kill the Democrats. The last thing the Democrats want is for people to not need them for anything.
If you can't win the ballot, you won't win on the battlefield ( should it come to that ) and only prove to the people beyond all doubt that you are unworthy. And you will be.
He's probably right---here's a clue why:
“It’s hard for me to see what Republican cracks that base that is increasingly solid Democratic – first because of demography and second because of the welfare state that now embraces scores of millions of people who look upon anyone wanting to cut government as somebody who’s going to take my food stamps away, or cut my education, or my health care, or my housing subsidy, or my income subsidy.”
Now, what does all that have in common? Money. The GOP is following Democrat premises. When they do this, they lose.
Of course, if anybody ever listened to me, they could figure out a solution to this. But obviously nobody does, and so they'll lose like they always do.
I'm telling you that if you crack the money assumption, you crack the Democrat's back. It's all about the money, but the GOP cannot play that game anymore, and win. Not when you control the money presses.
If you show these people another way to support themselves and it works, it's going to kill the Democrats. The last thing the Democrats want is for people to not need them for anything.
If you can't win the ballot, you won't win on the battlefield ( should it come to that ) and only prove to the people beyond all doubt that you are unworthy. And you will be.
A response to Ann Barnhardt
That last post, I dunno. I'm going to have to deconstruct it, word for word. For she starts off with the assertion that she's all objective reason, and I don't see it.
Let's look at that first sentence:
Maybe that's not good enough for you, so let's consider other models.
In mathematics, you start off with some axioms, and build your proofs from those. In logic, you start with premises, and arrive at a conclusion. That's how I understand it. What's the reality here? What's the premises, and what are the conclusions? How does it all fit together? I dunno.
But let's get into it, shall we? This may be a long post, by the way.
Remember what I said about "word-for-word"? Here we go: "The Obama regime is delighted" --- how does she know that? Being delighted is an emotional state, how does she determine emotion? I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the man personally. Nor is it likely that she knows very many, if any, of these people in this government.
By the way, I'm suspicious about Obama. I've always been suspicious about Obama. But I would NEVER claim that as proof of wrongdoing. You have to prove it. You can't just take your suspicions and run with them. Remember that she is claiming objective reality. There's a lot of dots to be connected here, but she gets from point A to point B in lightning speed.
It's probably true that that ISIS has been armed to a certain extent by the administration as a part of their policy objectives. Perhaps she could go into detail into what those objectives are, but those are only presented as axioms to show that Obama is really delighted in this outcome. Not to say that she's wrong, but there's no evidence presented to show what this administration's objectives are. She merely asserts that they seek to restore the Caliphate and leaves it at that as an objective point in fact. There's a lot of distance being covered in a very short time there.
Again, not to say that she's wrong, but anybody impartially reading this could be flabbergasted at what she's coming up with on the basis of her "objective reality" assertions.
But I'm not done yet with number 1 yet. Here's another phrase-- "up to it neck in Musloid agents". Where does she get that? Not to say that she's wrong, but could she name names and come up with some "objective" reality about who these people are and what they are doing? She goes a very long way with little evidence to support that.
Not that its wrong, mind you. But she says its "obvious", but how so? What's so obvious about it? I would say that she has suspicions that she equates with objective reality. However to go from that point to proving it to an objective observer, she needs some facts to support it. Perhaps she has provided it in earlier posts, but if she has, she should link to those posts. She does not do that.
Let's move on to the next, which would be number 2. Rather than quote there, she does state some obvious stuff, but it isn't unique to Obama. First of all, Turkey is a member of NATO. Our alliance with Turkey has been a long held policy--- it isn't anything new. Now, I've read that Turkey doesn't like its Kurds, but that is not quite the same as saying that they want to wipe them out. Maybe the Turkish leader wants to be "caliph", but she doesn't supply any evidence to show why she knows this. She claims an alliance of this man with ISIS who will slaughter the Kurds and be slaughtered in turn by Erdogan. Perhaps that's a plan, but she supplies no evidence of such a plan. In contrast, Turkish aspirations ran counter to US policies under the Bush administration, which favored the Kurds. Whatever changes Obama made to those maybe attributable to him. But those wouldn't necessarily be new policies as the NATO alliance probably supersedes any understanding with respect to the Kurds.
Well, that presents some difficulties. How do you reconcile differences between two allies who don't like each other much? There's a precedent with respect to Turkey and that is with Greece. Those two don't like each other much either. This is an artifact of history. Greece was once conquered by the Ottomans and were a part of that empire. Barnhardt claims that they want their empire back and that Obama is helping them do that. What has been the US policy with respect to any such latent desires amongst the Turks? Probably not what Barnhardt asserts, so if she claims it, she needs a lot more than what she has presented. Not to say that she's wrong, but she makes some pretty long leaps based upon what exactly?
So much with number 2, let's move on to number 3.
Barnhardt keeps claiming that Obama is a homosexual, but I don't get that. Secondly, that he is an imbecile, which I don't get either. He can hold his own against anybody who he debates with, and that doesn't make him an imbecile. If he was so stupid, he would be easily exposed. Maybe its all a part of a conspiracy that he hasn't been so far. But patience, that may be coming. It may well turn out that he is merely incompetent, but it does look evil sometimes. Obama isn't an imbecile, but he isn't 10 feet tall either.
By the way, she is contradicting herself. If he is an imbecile, he's incompetent, right? She doing what the left was doing with Bush. On the one hand, Bush was an idiot. On the other hand, he was doing things that were demonically evil. He knew things that only a supernatural being would know. I've discussed that before on other forums. I think that phenomenon is likely based upon a personal dislike than upon any basis in fact. Either the man is competent or he isn't. Neither Bush nor Obama can be competent and incompetent at the same time. But that seems to be what Barnhardt is doing. She does this by claiming that he is being handled by those who are really much smarter than he is. The left did that with Bush.
The problem with that is that the president is the only one who can actually do these things. He has the power. Those who serve under him do as he says, not the other way around. Although it is true that his position depends a lot upon people who put him there, but the ultimate power belongs to him. People made that kind of mistake with Hitler. They thought they could control him, but it went the other way around. Our government gives the president a lot more power than what the German government at that time gave Hitler, by the way. If we had a true Hitlerite type, we'd be in big, big trouble. By the sixth year, Hitler had already started WWII. I'd say that's some objective evidence to suggest that although Obama may be bad, he isn't in Hitler territory.
If Obama is being pulled by strings, she needs to show the evidence. I don't see it.
Moving on to number 4, she says the US as it has existed no longer exists.
Here's where she stumbles rather badly. If we were being ruled the way that she claims, neither I nor she could even operate. We'd be arrested and executed already. On that point, 'nuff said. But let's say this---Hitler had his opponents hideously executed. Okay, that's enough.
She says we are being ruled by some rather bad human beings. Well, I think she may have a smidgen of truth there, but it isn't clear that we are not finished as a country and civilization just yet.
I'll finish this one up, as time is getting a bit short.
She says Cruz is a bad guy because his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Another one of her warp speed conclusions. How does that follow?
In short, this is an emotional rant, not an objective piece of analysis. It is based largely upon her dislike of people who do not agree with her. Logic and reason doesn't work that way.
I'm defending logic and reason, not these characters running our government. I'm with Barnhardt on that. But at least I don't confuse objectivity with subjectivity. If I did, I would be ashamed of myself. I think she does, so the conclusion should follow.
Let's look at that first sentence:
Imbecile pundits who still can’t get their heads around objective reality are sowing confusion with regards to the overthrow of the government in Iraq. Let’s state the obvious so that clear, logical, reasoned thinking may follow:Before I get too far into this, I'm not saying she's wrong in her assertions. What I don't see is her evidence for this being "objective reality" when it is simply a matter of opinion. Using our jurisprudence as an example, as in a courtroom, there is a standard of evidence that has to be presented in order to determine guilt. There's a high bar of proof, admittedly, and the standard there is said to be truth.
Maybe that's not good enough for you, so let's consider other models.
In mathematics, you start off with some axioms, and build your proofs from those. In logic, you start with premises, and arrive at a conclusion. That's how I understand it. What's the reality here? What's the premises, and what are the conclusions? How does it all fit together? I dunno.
But let's get into it, shall we? This may be a long post, by the way.
1. The Obama regime is delighted to see Iraq destabilize because its objective is the reformation of the islamic Caliphate. Baghdad is now primed to be conquered by ISIS, who are Musloid Brotherhood/Al Qaeda and have been supported and armed by the Obama regime, which is up to its neck in musloid agents.
Remember what I said about "word-for-word"? Here we go: "The Obama regime is delighted" --- how does she know that? Being delighted is an emotional state, how does she determine emotion? I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the man personally. Nor is it likely that she knows very many, if any, of these people in this government.
By the way, I'm suspicious about Obama. I've always been suspicious about Obama. But I would NEVER claim that as proof of wrongdoing. You have to prove it. You can't just take your suspicions and run with them. Remember that she is claiming objective reality. There's a lot of dots to be connected here, but she gets from point A to point B in lightning speed.
It's probably true that that ISIS has been armed to a certain extent by the administration as a part of their policy objectives. Perhaps she could go into detail into what those objectives are, but those are only presented as axioms to show that Obama is really delighted in this outcome. Not to say that she's wrong, but there's no evidence presented to show what this administration's objectives are. She merely asserts that they seek to restore the Caliphate and leaves it at that as an objective point in fact. There's a lot of distance being covered in a very short time there.
Again, not to say that she's wrong, but anybody impartially reading this could be flabbergasted at what she's coming up with on the basis of her "objective reality" assertions.
But I'm not done yet with number 1 yet. Here's another phrase-- "up to it neck in Musloid agents". Where does she get that? Not to say that she's wrong, but could she name names and come up with some "objective" reality about who these people are and what they are doing? She goes a very long way with little evidence to support that.
Not that its wrong, mind you. But she says its "obvious", but how so? What's so obvious about it? I would say that she has suspicions that she equates with objective reality. However to go from that point to proving it to an objective observer, she needs some facts to support it. Perhaps she has provided it in earlier posts, but if she has, she should link to those posts. She does not do that.
Let's move on to the next, which would be number 2. Rather than quote there, she does state some obvious stuff, but it isn't unique to Obama. First of all, Turkey is a member of NATO. Our alliance with Turkey has been a long held policy--- it isn't anything new. Now, I've read that Turkey doesn't like its Kurds, but that is not quite the same as saying that they want to wipe them out. Maybe the Turkish leader wants to be "caliph", but she doesn't supply any evidence to show why she knows this. She claims an alliance of this man with ISIS who will slaughter the Kurds and be slaughtered in turn by Erdogan. Perhaps that's a plan, but she supplies no evidence of such a plan. In contrast, Turkish aspirations ran counter to US policies under the Bush administration, which favored the Kurds. Whatever changes Obama made to those maybe attributable to him. But those wouldn't necessarily be new policies as the NATO alliance probably supersedes any understanding with respect to the Kurds.
Well, that presents some difficulties. How do you reconcile differences between two allies who don't like each other much? There's a precedent with respect to Turkey and that is with Greece. Those two don't like each other much either. This is an artifact of history. Greece was once conquered by the Ottomans and were a part of that empire. Barnhardt claims that they want their empire back and that Obama is helping them do that. What has been the US policy with respect to any such latent desires amongst the Turks? Probably not what Barnhardt asserts, so if she claims it, she needs a lot more than what she has presented. Not to say that she's wrong, but she makes some pretty long leaps based upon what exactly?
So much with number 2, let's move on to number 3.
Barnhardt keeps claiming that Obama is a homosexual, but I don't get that. Secondly, that he is an imbecile, which I don't get either. He can hold his own against anybody who he debates with, and that doesn't make him an imbecile. If he was so stupid, he would be easily exposed. Maybe its all a part of a conspiracy that he hasn't been so far. But patience, that may be coming. It may well turn out that he is merely incompetent, but it does look evil sometimes. Obama isn't an imbecile, but he isn't 10 feet tall either.
By the way, she is contradicting herself. If he is an imbecile, he's incompetent, right? She doing what the left was doing with Bush. On the one hand, Bush was an idiot. On the other hand, he was doing things that were demonically evil. He knew things that only a supernatural being would know. I've discussed that before on other forums. I think that phenomenon is likely based upon a personal dislike than upon any basis in fact. Either the man is competent or he isn't. Neither Bush nor Obama can be competent and incompetent at the same time. But that seems to be what Barnhardt is doing. She does this by claiming that he is being handled by those who are really much smarter than he is. The left did that with Bush.
The problem with that is that the president is the only one who can actually do these things. He has the power. Those who serve under him do as he says, not the other way around. Although it is true that his position depends a lot upon people who put him there, but the ultimate power belongs to him. People made that kind of mistake with Hitler. They thought they could control him, but it went the other way around. Our government gives the president a lot more power than what the German government at that time gave Hitler, by the way. If we had a true Hitlerite type, we'd be in big, big trouble. By the sixth year, Hitler had already started WWII. I'd say that's some objective evidence to suggest that although Obama may be bad, he isn't in Hitler territory.
If Obama is being pulled by strings, she needs to show the evidence. I don't see it.
Moving on to number 4, she says the US as it has existed no longer exists.
Here's where she stumbles rather badly. If we were being ruled the way that she claims, neither I nor she could even operate. We'd be arrested and executed already. On that point, 'nuff said. But let's say this---Hitler had his opponents hideously executed. Okay, that's enough.
She says we are being ruled by some rather bad human beings. Well, I think she may have a smidgen of truth there, but it isn't clear that we are not finished as a country and civilization just yet.
I'll finish this one up, as time is getting a bit short.
She says Cruz is a bad guy because his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Another one of her warp speed conclusions. How does that follow?
In short, this is an emotional rant, not an objective piece of analysis. It is based largely upon her dislike of people who do not agree with her. Logic and reason doesn't work that way.
I'm defending logic and reason, not these characters running our government. I'm with Barnhardt on that. But at least I don't confuse objectivity with subjectivity. If I did, I would be ashamed of myself. I think she does, so the conclusion should follow.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Bug on a windshield joke
I saw this one in the comments section on Zero Hedge:
Q: What's the last thing that goes through a bug's mind when it hits the windshield?
A: It's ass.
Bwah hah hah!
Q: What's the last thing that goes through a bug's mind when it hits the windshield?
A: It's ass.
Bwah hah hah!
No war in Iraq
It may have seemed in an earlier post that I favor war in Iraq. That would be incorrect.
A bit of history about Iraq and our involvement there, as I recall it:
Bush asked for and received an authorization of force before he committed troops to the Iraq War. Several Democrats, including NY Senator Hillary Clinton, voted for it. As for myself, I was always very suspicious of moves like this. As it turned out, my suspicions were correct.
All through the war while Bush was in office, the media, which is controlled by the left, kept hounding about his mistake of going into Iraq. I think Bush made a mistake all right. His biggest mistake was to not seek a much broader coalition willing to commit themselves to the war. The war vote depended on too few members who were willing to do that. Consequently, it was a bit too easy for them to back out later. That's the mistake.
We are paying for that mistake in two ways. One was the reaction to the Iraq War that the left ginned up. This gave us Barack Hussein Obama as president, and all that means, which is the second way we are paying.
So, should we go back into Iraq? I'd say no, especially with this president. If there is to be a war, any war, anywhere, it needs broad support first. There should be only a few dissenters, or the show should be off. Otherwise, you run the risk of the spectacle of it becoming a partisan issue. War is serious business that should not be left up to the whims of politicians.
In the long run, we should seriously consider amending the constitution so that the president doesn't have so much power. We are running a significant risk of a dictatorship because there's no accountability in this society. That is a very dangerous combination and explains a lot of what is going today in my opinion.
A bit of history about Iraq and our involvement there, as I recall it:
Bush asked for and received an authorization of force before he committed troops to the Iraq War. Several Democrats, including NY Senator Hillary Clinton, voted for it. As for myself, I was always very suspicious of moves like this. As it turned out, my suspicions were correct.
All through the war while Bush was in office, the media, which is controlled by the left, kept hounding about his mistake of going into Iraq. I think Bush made a mistake all right. His biggest mistake was to not seek a much broader coalition willing to commit themselves to the war. The war vote depended on too few members who were willing to do that. Consequently, it was a bit too easy for them to back out later. That's the mistake.
We are paying for that mistake in two ways. One was the reaction to the Iraq War that the left ginned up. This gave us Barack Hussein Obama as president, and all that means, which is the second way we are paying.
So, should we go back into Iraq? I'd say no, especially with this president. If there is to be a war, any war, anywhere, it needs broad support first. There should be only a few dissenters, or the show should be off. Otherwise, you run the risk of the spectacle of it becoming a partisan issue. War is serious business that should not be left up to the whims of politicians.
In the long run, we should seriously consider amending the constitution so that the president doesn't have so much power. We are running a significant risk of a dictatorship because there's no accountability in this society. That is a very dangerous combination and explains a lot of what is going today in my opinion.
A Train Wreck "Not Very Far Down The Road"
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
"The Train Wreck Is Coming," David Stockman Warns, "All Hell Will Break Loose"
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/10/2014 - 17:36
"Train wreck is a pretty good term to describe what is coming. But this train wreck isn't simply going to hit a wall out of the blue. Actually, it has been forming and accumulating and expanding for many years now, and yet it has simply been ignored, particularly by the financial markets which have ridden this bubble to these extreme and historic heights. The only issue is, when does it hit the wall? The answer to that question is it's not very far down the road, and I can promise you that is when all hell is going to break loose."
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-10/train-wreck-coming-david-stockman-warns-all-hell-will-break-loose
Liberals must really be stupid after all
Does Elizabeth Warren think you can negotiate with ISIS?
You had a won war in Iraq and you threw it away. Now that is really stupid. Now you claim you can stay out of this war which by your negligence you have made all but inevitable. When I mention "you", I mean everybody who voted these bozos into office.
Their next excuse is that Iraq really wasn't won and it was all Bush's fault anyway. Nothing is ever their fault, of course.
“But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”--- Boston HeraldDoes it really matter what we want? Did we want the September 11th attacks? Did we want Pearl Harbor? Sometimes you don't have a choice when the other guy attacks.
You had a won war in Iraq and you threw it away. Now that is really stupid. Now you claim you can stay out of this war which by your negligence you have made all but inevitable. When I mention "you", I mean everybody who voted these bozos into office.
Their next excuse is that Iraq really wasn't won and it was all Bush's fault anyway. Nothing is ever their fault, of course.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Wonder washer
Interesting little gizmo. It uses less water than even hand washing, it claims. A gander at the reviews reveals that it does have its drawbacks.
Uh, another alternative to handling waste
Prev Next
Yep, this one goes into the series. What series? THE series. What's that? If you have to ask...
I'm sure you guys just love this kind of thing.
Update:
Sometimes I have links on my favorites that don't make it into a post on this blog. Here's a link to a toilet system that is "landfill approved". It also comes with a tent that can serve as an outside shower.
Update ( over a month later ):
Here's a book that goes into the issue of blackwater quite extensively.
Update ( September 20, 2014):
The ideas keep coming. Here's a link to a Walmart page that has a bunch of relevant items on this subject.
Yep, this one goes into the series. What series? THE series. What's that? If you have to ask...
I'm sure you guys just love this kind of thing.
Update:
Sometimes I have links on my favorites that don't make it into a post on this blog. Here's a link to a toilet system that is "landfill approved". It also comes with a tent that can serve as an outside shower.
Update ( over a month later ):
Here's a book that goes into the issue of blackwater quite extensively.
Update ( September 20, 2014):
The ideas keep coming. Here's a link to a Walmart page that has a bunch of relevant items on this subject.
Buy a Home Kit and Build Your Own House
Mother Earth News
It's tempting at this point to start thinking about construction, but that's a ways off yet.
Many kit homes can actually be built by the homeowner, or at least with substantial homeowner participation, resulting in significant cost savings. The extent of that participation depends on a wide range of variables, including the time and energy the homeowner may have available, knowledge of the various skills and materials required, and willingness and ability to learn.I think Worf was talking about this when I visited him last month. Or something like this. The price page gives the basic costs of the proposition.
It's tempting at this point to start thinking about construction, but that's a ways off yet.
Does it really pay to watch lefty sites?
Well, you should for intelligence purposes. You should know what the enemy is up to. Besides, is the left really an enemy? No, I haven't gone softy. The "left" really is an enemy, but they manage to suck a lot of otherwise good folks in, so we end up with everybody fighting each other, which only works out to the benefit of the few. The otherwise good folks are the ones who haven't caught on yet, but could catch on someday. Or, we should hope so.
So, here's my proxy for the left, as she plays the part so very well, the Mahablog. She has something up called "Why Nothing Will Change", as she puts forward the usual lefty solutions for problems that don't exist, and their solutions won't work anyway even if there was a problem. Why? The "solutions" somehow always redound to the benefit of liberals, not for anybody else.
In the case of income distribution, it's typical lefty wisdom for the Maha, as she points out the obvious that we've been stuck in a rut since the seventies. But for the lefty types like Maha, it's always the symptoms, not the disease. Income inequality as such, is probably more of a reflection of non-growth than it is a thing in itself. The thing in itself is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is a Limits to Growth ethos that the left loves so much. Of course, the disease can't be anything that they favor, it has to be shifted someplace else. Or else somebody might catch on, and that wouldn't be good for them.
I'm guessing that the libs are worried that they haven't been able to produce any prosperity, so it's time for some good 'ol class warfare. The plain and ugly truth, if it matters anymore, is that class warfare requires a static and listless economy. A growing economy is bad for liberalism. There's no way to agitate the "masses" so that they can be manipulated into doing some pretty dumb stuff, like listening to liberals in the first place. So, I think the argument can be made that the left really doesn't mind the weak economy. It creates a crisis, and they are sure to take advantage of it. After all, wasn't it one of the administration types that said never let a crisis go to waste? Especially the one that you made yourself.
So, here's my proxy for the left, as she plays the part so very well, the Mahablog. She has something up called "Why Nothing Will Change", as she puts forward the usual lefty solutions for problems that don't exist, and their solutions won't work anyway even if there was a problem. Why? The "solutions" somehow always redound to the benefit of liberals, not for anybody else.
In the case of income distribution, it's typical lefty wisdom for the Maha, as she points out the obvious that we've been stuck in a rut since the seventies. But for the lefty types like Maha, it's always the symptoms, not the disease. Income inequality as such, is probably more of a reflection of non-growth than it is a thing in itself. The thing in itself is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is a Limits to Growth ethos that the left loves so much. Of course, the disease can't be anything that they favor, it has to be shifted someplace else. Or else somebody might catch on, and that wouldn't be good for them.
I'm guessing that the libs are worried that they haven't been able to produce any prosperity, so it's time for some good 'ol class warfare. The plain and ugly truth, if it matters anymore, is that class warfare requires a static and listless economy. A growing economy is bad for liberalism. There's no way to agitate the "masses" so that they can be manipulated into doing some pretty dumb stuff, like listening to liberals in the first place. So, I think the argument can be made that the left really doesn't mind the weak economy. It creates a crisis, and they are sure to take advantage of it. After all, wasn't it one of the administration types that said never let a crisis go to waste? Especially the one that you made yourself.
Nirvana--Come as you are
Once upon a time, a water pipe broke in my apartment, which flooded me out. After a lot of effort, I managed to get in touch with the manager. It was after hours and there's wasn't the usual crew around. As I was flooded out, I needed someplace to be for awhile so that arrangements could be made. Like getting another apartment while this one was being fixed and aired out and dried up. Anyway, I was in the breakroom and this song was on the music video. It kinda stuck in my mind. Not everyday do you get flooded out of house and home.
Can't say that I ever knew what the song was about. Even after getting the lyrics here, I still don't know what it's about.
"Come as a friend or as an enemy?" " No, I don't have a gun? " Is it an invitation that could go anywhere, is that the point? I guess it is because it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Can't say that I ever knew what the song was about. Even after getting the lyrics here, I still don't know what it's about.
"Come as a friend or as an enemy?" " No, I don't have a gun? " Is it an invitation that could go anywhere, is that the point? I guess it is because it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Recap of last weeks posts 8/3 to 8/9/14
I may take a new twist to this. Instead of including a best of recap, I'll just list the highlights for the week in terms of posts. This makes it a bit easier as I only have to look at the posts that got the most hits. If any make the "best of " list, that can be mentioned too. None did this week. There are only two that made any kind of run for the money for the best of category and those were:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)