Isn't it Wrong to Complain About Stereotypes When Acting in Stereotypical Fashion?

Dec 30 2013

It's a fundamental problem in the U.S.— groups complain about stereotypes, not because they are false, but because the are mostly true.

Democrat politicians complain about being seen as liars. Well, then they shouldn't lie if they don't want that reputation.

Homosexuals complain about their stereotypes. Well, then they shouldn't act like the stereotypes. I've lived among them in 3 cities and the stereotypes are largely deserved from the behavior I saw.

There is a stereotype that black America is violent. When a quarter of black men are in jail for violent crimes, and perhaps twice that many have committed violent crimes, is it right to complain about the stereotype? Given the crime statistics and activities like the hundreds of flash mobs in the last five years robbing stores and beating up people because of their race, the stereotype is often true. There is no reasonable way to complain about a violent stereotype when 8,000+ of the 11,000+ homicides per year committed in the U.S. are by black Americans, mostly in service to drugs in one way or another, is it reasonable to complain about the stereotype?

And what if you are a black person who is a Christian, law-abiding, and considerate of others? I imagine that's pretty hard to go against the flow.

There is a stereotype that indian tribes are morbidly selfish and dishonest. It varies by tribe and certainly there are many upstanding members of tribes, but what about the behavior of tribal governments? Indian tribal governments generally care nothing for others, not even those who pay the taxes so that they can live apart from the rest of us. Wouldn't it be better to just not act like the stereotype than to complain about it?

There is a stereotype that fat people eat a lot. Before pharmaceuticals that caused explosive weight gain became commonplace, it was largely true. I'd like to know how many are fat because of SSRIs, SNRIs, and a host of other medicines, because that seems to be a very common side effect. When a person gains 40, 60, 100 or more pounds without altering their habits except to take a medicine, it's a very good bet that the medicine is to blame.

It's a worldwide stereotype that GenX American women are morbidly selfish and have no morals. This is largely deserved.

But what about the 20% or so that are not immoral and selfish? The ones who did the right thing consistently? They caught heck from the 80% but did the right thing anyway.

Stereotypes are often not true, but when a stereotype is mostly true, then does it make sense to complain about the stereotype, as opposed to not being like the stereotype?

Some stereotypes are not bad ones. Half of America, who when times are good for them show contempt for born-again Christians because Christians don't live to drink nor live to do drugs no live to fornicate, are always the first to seek their help when things go wrong because they are perceived to genuinely care about others. That is a good stereotype to have.

It's a hard one to live up to, but Christians need to do it. Indeed we are ordered to do it and Christ set the example.

Global Warming?

Dec 29 2013

It must be clear to almost everyone now that Global Warming is a religion. No amount of proof will convince a global warming zealot that man is not warming the climate.

The global warming folks are very much like the Catholic church in Gallileo's day.

With two major differences. Unlike the Catholics, many careers were built on GW and thus they can't admit they were wrong. Secondly, many are for global warming because it benefits them financially or gives them fame.

It's like the Democrats— they are never wrong. Just ask them. It's always someone else' fault. Even when they had complete control of both houses of congress and the presidency, it was always someone else' fault.

I Repent of Calling GenX American Women "Barbarians"

Dec 28 2013


Because it does a disservice to most "barbarian" cultures.

The typical "barbarian" culture treated each other better than GenX treats men. I was 25 the only time I overheard two GenX women speaking with concern for another person's feelings, unlike just about every other group in the U.S. or that I've met from other countries.

The typical barbarian culture had women who loved their kids instead of killing them.

The typical barbarian culture had women who loved their families.

The typical barbarian culture had women who loved their men.

And so you can see why it is a disservice to call GenX women barbarians.

If a woman murdered her kid in most barbarian cultures, either in the womb or outside, she was typically killed as punishment.

Why? The Ancient Celts treasured their kids. They didn't murder them. 

The Ancient Germans, Slavs, and other "barbarian" groups typically treasured their kids and didn't murder them.

Their kids were family. They were the future.

Most other civilizations didn't kill their kids, barbarian or not.

The "civilizations" that murdered their kids wholesale and lived only for themselves were noteworthy in that they were typically at the end of a civilization.

Something about "civilization" and getting everything easy that makes people worse than barbarians. By the time western Rome fell, the people were treating each other worse than the "barbarians" who invaded them.

When life became easy, women in this country typically decided to live for themselves only. Could a barbarian tribe survive when its women did that?

I truly wish they were not as they are, and perhaps some will be Saved before the Rapture happens. I've prayed for them since they were teens, but so far, they've only seemed to get more and more hardened in their love of evil.

What kids are taught in public school really does make a difference, doesn't it? Essentially, the feminists and socialists ruined a generation of women.

Think it's any surprise that Germany, Ireland, and Poland were doing really well up until the depression finally reached them? I've little doubt God blessed them, but the way they treat each other makes a major difference, doesn't it? When a woman can kill her kids, that murder touches everything in her life. She can rationalize literally anything, there being no worse crime a single individual can do than to take the life of a complete innocent.

Those who value life normally do better in this world. From attitude to choices made, which means better results. God blesses them, too.

Cheap Razors at Full Price?

Dec 28 2013

I quit using a name brand razor two years ago because their blades started being dull in the pack. Bought one pack and the razors were so dull they wouldn't give a single good shave, despite usually doing two weeks of good shaves. No matter how many reps over the face, they wouldn't cut most of the hairs and left the skin irritated. Returned them and bought another pack from a different retailer. These were sharp and lasted about two weeks each. When they were gone, I bought another pack and they were dull.

It was astonishing: a brand of razors sells dull razors, much less charges full price for them?

So, for two years, I didn't buy any of that brand, using Personna razors instead. While not fancy, they worked very well. I tried several of them. Some were better than others, but each blade/set of blades was always sharp right from the pack and some lasted longer than others and some worked better on my face better than others. I've no complaints about any of them— they worked well.

Recently, I ran out of razors (had a cold and didn't get to the store) and finally opened a sample of the same old name brand razor brand I used to use that I'd received in the mail several years ago. It stayed sharp for a month.

I decided to try the old brand again, just to see if they'd changed. Instead of being mostly metal, they were mostly plastic now. I couldn't find a label that said where they were made, just the company headquarters. One razor did 6 good shaves, and the second one in the pack only two. Considering it cost almost $8 for two of them, that comes to $1 per shave. Pretty expensive shave.

With the Personna, a good shave using the 3-blade titanium type I prefer, was much cheaper at 41.67 cents. 

When I say good shave, I mean a razor cut the hairs like a razor is supposed to in one or two times over the spot. A good shave in this case gets the job done without multiple repetitions over the same spot, and without skin irritation.

One of the Dumbest Games a Retailer Can Play

Dec 28 2013

Despite an economy where most are out of work and most companies can't afford to waste a lot of time, why do so many companies still play the "we don't list the price" game?

It's pretty stupid. Most persons and companies are not going to waste the time it takes to call a customer service representative unless it's the only outfit that sells an item they need.

It wastes the time of the company with answering inquiries that could have been avoided just by having the price on the website. It also means that someone (or more than one) has to be hired to do answer the phones.

Kinda stupid to have to hire a person or persons to answer the phones when the price and other info could be put on the webpage.

In short, it's a money-waster, both for the seller and the potential buyer.

Just put the price on the page. Good grief, it's not rocket science.

Not putting the price for an item on a website is a major turnoff for potential customers.

It says "it's too expensive" when a catalog or site doesn't list the price. Or it says "we play games" when a site does that. I just toss catalogs when I get one that doesn't list prices. I'm not playing that game.

Even when I worked for the feds, I wanted to know the prices straight up, not have to plow through a bunch of garbage. I ended up spending a lot of time on the phone.

Recreational Rioting

Dec 27 2013

It's one of the sadder things of this life that for some years now, recreational rioting by groups of black Americans and occasionally by muslim groups have been done in the U.S.

It's now many such incidents per year now, involving dozens to thousands.

Type rioting, riots, mob, flash mob, or similar terms into a search engine, if you think I'm kidding.

It gets ignored by most of the media, because they either support it or don't want to appear "racist" or "religiously intolerant." Such foolish rationalizing of evil helps no one.

Ignoring the problem does no one any favors. Recreational rioting hurts people. A lot of them. From businesses to those who are just in the way.

You have several points of view of such rioting by those communities where it happens:

1. Those who know it's wrong and don't approve, but do nothing.

2. A few who speak out against the violence and theft, who usually get ignored.

3. Those who know trashing a place and stealing stuff and smacking around the innocent is wrong, but defend the criminals who hurt others in that fashion because they are black or muslim.

4. Those that rationalize the rioting because of their race hatred or religious hatred, thinking their hatred of others somehow makes it "OK".

5. A few leaders who fan the flames of race hatred or religious hatred.

6. A few leaders who try to stop the violence and theft.

7. The victims of the violence and theft, who desperately want something done.


And what of the rioters themselves? Some are motivated by hatreds. Others are "having fun" (the grins on security footage are pretty hard to ignore). Others just use it as an excuse to steal.

These events would not happen if they were not tolerated. Just like Portland, Oregon tolerated drug crimes in the mid 1990s.

At some point the breaking point will be reached in these communities and the locals are going to start shooting the rioters.

When that happens, all sorts of fingers will be pointed at each other, but why does it have to get to that point?

WHY does it have to get to that point?

Why can't it be dealt with now, before somebody's killed?

The first step would be the media to highlight every such rioting event.

The second step would be arresting everyone taking part. When 20, 100, 500, 2000 people riot and destroy or loot an area, why aren't they all arrested? This business of letting it go only ensures that more such recreational rioting happens.

Even using CS gas or tear gas on such rioters would help prevent repeats.

What other nations have groups like these that hurt others because it's fun for them? Not that many.

It does no one any favors to only arrest a handful of a group that is trashing an area.

False Civility

Dec 27 2013

We live in a nation that is rapidly being consumed by evil.

At the same time that Christians and other conservatives have to "play nice" meaning be a doormat, the socialists can be as nasty, hateful, and vicious as they want.

Some probably complain that I occasionally use "colorful language". I do it deliberately at times, to make certain points. There are times when it's appropriate. Why? Because it produces a mental image in people— they know or have a really good idea of what you mean. It's a tactic that gets a person's attention, even though it's not "nice".

If a person can describe the absolute evil that is now taking this nation without even the occasional cussword, then they do not understand the full impact of just what has happened. There is something wrong with that person. A love for Good when so direly offended by the Evil today is not always going to be "civil".

Consider: we live in a country where people who harm other people are glorified and granted privileges superior to others in the guise of "civil rights", "equality", and similar perjoratives. We live in a country where the most absolute evil is celebrated. We live in a country where the Left lies to your face— and usually gets away with it.

It's not a time for false civility. It's a time when truth is hated by most and thus it's time to be completely honest, even when it offends others' false ideas of propriety.

Think the kid who's been shot in gang violence and is bleeding to death cares about "civility"?

Think the person who has gotten resistant TB from a Mexican National is that concerned about "civility"?

Think the 60% or more of this nation that is out of work cares very much for "civility"?

Think the person who is harmed by our dishonest judges cares very much for "civility"?

Think the baby who has been ripped apart in an abortion clinic cares about "civility" in its last moments?

Think the store owners who have been victims of the hundreds of recent flash mobs cares much about "civility"?

Think the pedestrian who is on the ground with a broken arm from being run over by a selfish bicyclist cares much about "civility"?

No, I don't particularly like cusswords. But in times like these, they are the least of our worries.

What IS it With Digital Cameras?

Dec 25 2013

I got a new camera for Christmas, and just like the prior two I'd purchased, it won't focus.

What IS it with cameras today that they can't focus sharply?

I've never had this problem with film cameras, no matter what make of camera, automatic or manual.

Isn't the most basic task a camera can do to put objects in focus?

I think I'm done with cameras.

I still have film cameras that work wonderfully, but processing is now hard to find or nonexistent.

So, no photos.

Take this example of raspberry canes in light cloud cover:

That is completely ridiculous. Even slow speed film and a fixed focus could have done better.

Seeing and Choosing Not to See

Dec 23 2013

I've been one who tried to see what was happening. It's a matter of frustration that most Americans choose not to see.

They don't want to see. Like kids, they choose not to see.

What does it say, when using the Fed's stats, something on the order of 60% of the nation is out of work, and we still have people claiming that it's a good economy. Claiming that housing is improving. Claiming that things are "getting better".

In an economy where the majority is out of work and most have no prospects of going back to work?

And that is going by the federal estimates. In an age of dishonest people in Federal Civil Service thinking it's ok to fudge numbers, what is the real labor participation rate?

35%? 30%? Even less?

The economy can't run for very long with those numbers.

Romney, to his credit, addressed jobs. But neither party now seems to care that the majority and perhaps even most, of Americans are out of work.

At some point, the economy is going to crash. It may be Japan going under from their crushing debt load. It may be our own debt that does it. It may be China or the EU reaches that point where they can't keep their economies going.

Whatever happens, it ultimately will happen because no one wanted to fix the problem badly enough to open their eyes and actually change the practices that are sending us in the ashcan.

It could still be fixed. Trouble is, it won't. Why? Because too many still benefit from the current foolishness. From subverted capitalism where the government picks winners and losers, to the multitude of groups wanting their "free" money from governments.

Good grief, we still actually have fools who claim that Free Trade is good for America, despite exporting most of our industrial base (we went from 1st in 1992 to a distant 5th today) and losing the jobs that depended upon those industrial jobs.

The jackhammer of the Left is trying to dismantle all functioning parts of America. From destroying marriage and infrastructure to trying to eliminate all forms of power generation that actually work and all businesses that produce anything useful via insane laws and regulations. It's like hammering away the foundation of a building but expecting it to stay up.

At some point, one would think they would realize what they are doing and reverse course.

But that would mean admitting they were wrong and that's not going to happen.

Despite the magnitude of the disaster that is before us, even the Republicans in Congress are not doing anything about it. We expect the Democrats to continue down the path to economic ruin because their power base is from bribing various groups through tax breaks, grants, loans, special treatment, hiring preferences, preferences in the courts, greater rights than the general population, and so on. We don't expect the Republicans to weasel out and go with the Democrat flow.

At some point the debt will be too great for the workers left working and then what happens?

Why is how bad the economy is being ignored? Just closing one's eyes doesn't help. Just saying it's good doesn't make it good.

Time for A Constitutional Amendment

Dec 21 2013

It's time for an amendment that:

1. Protects Marriage

2. Protects the rights of Christians and Jews

3. Requires a balanced budget.

4. Replaces all tax systems with a 25% flat tax, with 10% fed, 12% state, 2% counties, and 1% city.

5. Requires governments to go with "best available science".

6. Forbids lying by those in governments.

7. Limits terms of judges to 7 years, and makes it possible to remove dishonest judges.

8. Forbids socialism to be law, taught, or practiced.

9. Treats all persons equally under the law.

10. Limits terms of all officials.

A Constitutional Convention can be called by 2/3rds of the states (34), and an Amendment ratified by 3/4 (38).

California, New York, and several others would want to continue the flow of unearned riches into their hands, they wouldn't vote for one, but finding 38 states that will should be possible.

"“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”


Dec 21 2013

Have you noticed that Socialist/Liberals don't like internet spying, but consistenly vote for those that did it?

They don't like the lack of work, but voted for those that did it?

They don't approve of drugs and alcohol but only when it's someone other than themselves using them?

They don't like the current lawlessness, but add to it by acting lawlessly? And voting for those that are lawless?

They don't like the results of what Socialism/Liberalism brought to the nation, but usually vote those in who will bring more of it?

They don't take responsibility for their actions, but want others to take responsibility for their actions?

The Age of People Being Merely Tools for Other's Gratification

Dec 21 2013

In the 1960s, the idea of using people as tools for ones' own gratification somehow became "OK".

How many groups claim something is "their right" when it's not their right and it simply amounts to the people in that group wanting to use others, but without consequence?

Feminism is the archtype for that. The idea is for women to use men. For sex and for money. Then discard them when their use is done.

"Be your own goddess".

GenX was inculcated with that and it should be no surprise that GenX women turned out like they did.

Homosexuals do the same. It's not PC, but in the 3 places I've lived with large homosexual populations, it was clear that most homosexuals use other people just like the Feminists did.

These two groups are not alone.

How many other groups use people?

Democrats and other socialists use people for tax money, sex, and votes, without any real concern for them as people.

Indian tribes typically use people and governments for money and freebies. Gambling, grants, jobs without being qualified, free this and free that.

Similarly, most of black America and most Mexican Nationals use the rest of America. The nation is just a piggy bank to them.

CEOs today typically think of their workers are merely tools to use.

It's not OK to reduce another human being to simply tools for one's own lusts for sex, money, position, and power.

It's certainly not a person's "right" to use others, despite it being pushed by a multitude of groups.

The moment someone else only has value because of "what you can get" from them, there is something truly wrong.

Use others and you yourself eventually end up falling victim to your own selfishness.

Any wonder why the nation is coming apart? Groups that use other people, caring nothing for them.

And the half of the nation that cares for others is ignored by Democrat, Libertarian, and by Republican politicos. Much is demanded from them and nothing is given back to them. They are simply tools as far as the half of the nation that is selfish is concerned.

I wonder how long they will put up with it.

I wonder how long a system based on some groups taking what they want from other groups can last.

The Christian Post Is Censoring

Dec 20 2013

In responding to an atheist, I kept getting "Derogatory and sexually explicit words will be blocked by the system and comment will not post."

I'm in the habit of composing my comments using a word processor and so I had a copy of the horrible, awful would-be post.

This is the comment that received such a censor:

"OK. Name one great atheist scientist. Even Einstein, the closest to an atheist amongst the physicists of his day, was an agnostic.

Most scientists until just recently were either Christians or Jews. Even today, most actual scientists are Christians or Jews.

Most government "scientists" today are not scientists. When the Feds decided they wanted people who were incompetent in 1993 and embarked upon a clearing of anyone who actually had degrees in the sciences or engineering, they systematically removed anyone who knew what they were doing. One of my former agencies has people with high school diplomas and liberal arts degrees as "scientists" and "engineers." Most states did the same thing. We have loads of atheists in governments, but you really can't call someone without any knowledge in their field a "scientist" or "engineer".

Consider, "atheist" Socialism slew more than 250 million in the last century alone. From Soviet Communism to National Socialism.

The numbers for those killed by catholics perverting the Bible have been severely inflated. For example, it's now claimed 8 million during the 30 years' war. That wouldn't be possible because the population boom of the 1700s-1940s hadn't happened yet in Europe. 8 million would be more than the total population of the combatant's countries combined. Doesn't work.

The sad fact is that atheism produces death and destruction in a people. I know of no historic exceptions.

It makes sense in two ways: 1. It's narcissism of the most extreme kind, the worship of one's own self, much as the Feminists push with "be your own goddess", and 2. Without a religion based on God, there is no reason for a person to do good to others. An honest look at what atheism and most other religions of the world produced is pretty horrendous from a historical perspective.

Atheist Nietzsche predicted the 20th century would be the bloodiest in history because "we've killed God" and that is exactly what happened. Socialism in WWII alone killed more than 50 million in the European Theatre, mostly via Stalin's use of Shock Armies and suicide battalions to get rid of those he considered undesirables. He got 6 million soviet troops killed in 1941 alone and only a fraction of those were actually needed to repel the Germans or to hold against them. He apparently wanted them dead.

After Socialism, the second worst is Islam, with more than 60 million dead, ten million alone in North Africa, most of which were Copts (the original Egyptians) because of the populations of the nations in North Africa at the time.

Next is the Thugs, with different estimates of how many millions killed.

Christianity, or rather the use of Christians by non-Christian Catholic leaders lusting for power, slew fewer than a million. But this was in direct defiance of what Christ taught."

When I tried to write them, the form didn't work. 

Censorship is out of hand.

Silence in the Face of Moral Evil

Dec 18 2013

It's become a business fad to require someone to turn over their First Amendments rights to free speech in order to sign a contract.

Non-disparagement is yet another morally-bankrupt business practice.

Think that's too strong? Can you think of a single example where it comes up in a media story, where it was not a person or business being wronged by another person or business, but they can't speak of it or write of it, because of a non-disparagement clause?

That alone is reason enough to end them.

That and that little teensy thing called the First Amendment.

The entire point of a non-disparagment clause is to be able to do wrong, but get no complaints. While many would object to that, with this or that mealy-mouthed wheeze, if a company consistently does the right thing, then they have no need of a disparagement clause.

An example is a local dentist who does good work. He has no lack of patients. He does the right thing consistently. He was sued once by someone who lacked personal responsibility, but it didn't impact his business clientelle much as his customers didn't think much of the lawsuit. Because he does the right thing consistently, he has no need for a non-disparagement clause.

The only businesses that "need" a disparagement clause are those that do what they know is wrong and want to shut up those that complain. To hell with businesses like that.

It would be immensely helpful if businesses put as much effort into doing the right thing that they do in trying to insulate themselves from the natural consequences of doing moral evil.

Enough of the Stupid PSAs!

Dec 18 2013

How about a bulletin board like this?

After hearing yet another asinine PSA, I'm tired of them. It was one of the endless repeats of a commercial where the participants sound cold sober (they could at least act like they were drunk in the commercial) but are somehow "buzzed", and they still have a wreck despite being sober.

The absolutely asinine idea is that, despite being a word at least as old as the 1960s, somehow people don't know that "buzzed" is drunk.


Since it is not easy to find someone who doesn't know that "buzzed" is drunk, the entire premise that the commercials are based on make no logical sense, and is thus a stupid waste of airtime that could be used for something useful. And so: I rebuke the PSA creators and those pushing them, in Jesus' Name.

There are REAL issues out there that could be advertised in our radio and TV.

How about how the typical drunk is a person my age (GenX) and is driving alone? Since the 1980s it's been almost entirely teens and college students who are in drunk driving commercials.

How about how so many more GenX women drink and use drugs than GenX men? Think that might be just a tad important despite it not being PC?

Fetal Marijuana Syndrome? How many know about it? There's a good use for a PSA, right there. (I can tell you it makes an impression when a woman you know gets into pot, then has a kid who is crippled for life from her pot use.)

How about the traffic accidents and violence from marijuana, medical or otherwise?

(Of course, those would interfere with the media's agenda to get marijuana legal.)

How about the effects of STDs on unborn kids? Think the explosion in premature births might have something to do with that? Something to do with birth defects? (HEAVY sarcasm here.)

(Of course, can't have a PSA on that because it might interfere with the Feminist and government agendas since the 1980s to get girls and women to sleep around.)

While it's not a PSA, the commercials that get me particularly irritated are the borderline perjorative commercials about the National Guard being involved in firefighting and disaster relief, when most guard divisions have had little or no time to do that like they used to. Some units are almost constantly deployed (I lost track after 7 deployments for the local Guard) and it's a major problem for state governors because their disaster relief forces are rarely around to help when there is a disaster, be it fire, flood, or otherwise. The advertising for something that guard members will likely not be able to do is fraud, isn't it? It gives the wrong impression of the National Guard.

And so, I rebuke in Jesus' Name those who are deliberately trying to deceive people in commercials about the National Guard.

It would be better to be honest up front and say X division has been deployed Y times in the last 5 years, and if you enlist you can expect to spend Z amount of time in depolyment per year. People respect the truth. They don't appreciate being sold a bill of goods and finding out what they were told is not true.

It would also be useful to advertise that the military doesn't want fit people today. With weightlifters being kicked out of the military since the Clinton Adminstration because of too high a BMI, and weightlifters with single digit fat percentages told they have to "lose weight" to get into the military, it's clear that fitness is not important like it once was. Or they wouldn't kick out or bar the people with the greatest fitness levels.

The Tick Party

Dec 18 2013

I propose that we call all Liberals/Socialists "ticks", be they International Socialists, Communists, National Socialists, Maoists, or Econuts.

Ticks produce nothing useful. They essentially exist to spread disease and suck blood from other creatures.

A perfect metaphor for Liberals/Socialists, yes?

A relative handful are eaten by lizards, but given that lizards are also preyed upon by ticks, it's not an even trade.

They could have their own mascots:

Deer Tick 


American Dog Tick

Mainstream Media

Brown Dog Tick

Green groups, ecoticks, etc. ("Brown" seems appropriate for those that harm


Rocky Mountain Wood Tick

Most Federal Employees (Now that most are incompetent, don't have the  

required degrees and/or experience for their job slots.

Gulf Coast Tick

Businesses that bribe Democrats for favors.

Black-Legged Tick


Soft Ticks

Special Interest Groups that sponge off the public. (Mexican Nationals, Indian Tribes, Inner City, Other Welfare-Supported Groups, Cities over 1 million.)

White-Legged Tick*

Libertarians (Libertarians are not socialists, but they ruin things for everyone else by throwing elections to the Democrats.)

*What I call a tick that I can't find in the reference books that lives in the upper Klamath Basin that has a black body and white legs.

Useful Shame

Dec 14 2013

With farmers possibly pouring out milk when subsidies end or are changed, I would suggest playing hardball with that display of contempt for people.

Have gradeschool kids ask the farmers why there won't be milk for them to drink. Have the farmers explain to the kids why they are pouring out that milk.

Of course, that assumes farmers still have the ability to feel shame.

Farmers have had a tendency in the last two decades to forget that it's people that they affect when they jump on a fad like illegal labor or do something stupid or immoral.

The mass use of illegal labor by farms says it all, doesn't it?


Dec 14 2013

Funny how those pooh-poohing the conspiracy theories of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s are usually proven wrong by history.

One wonders at the cheek of a person to pooh-pooh everything that comes down the pike despite so many of them turning out to be true.

For example, in the 1950s, communists and other socialists started infiltrating groups. Hollywood, churches, and especially colleges.

How many claimed it was just conspiracy theory?

And how many even do so today, despite having their noses rubbed in it every day by the actions of those in government and media?

When something is joked about as a conspiracy, then turns out to have actually happened, well, it's just plain stupid to pooh-pooh it because one doesn't want to believe it. And to take the same foolish attitude to current events.

The obvious example of that is socialism infiltrating the U.S. It happened. It's still happening. But how many don't want to believe it?

It was pooh-poohed for decades by the ignorant, the fool, and often by the socialists themselves to cover their activities.

By the late 1960s, socialists had firmly entrenched themselves in many groups. Hollywood was on the way to being taken over. There was a rush of unbelievers into seminaries, both to avoid the draft, and to destroy those church institutions. Socialists got into the media in droves. (Their big "victory" was losing the war in Vietnam, meaning more than 3 million people died for nothing.)


The media's deification of Nelson Mandela, a vicious communist murderer who was instrumental in destroying South Africa and reducing it to third world status, says something about who now controls the media, doesn't it?

The media jokes about McCarthy's antiamerican activities committee, but in the years after the blacklistings, every person who was blacklisted turned out to be a communist, nazi, international socialist or other socialist. Hollywood is the prime example of that.

That's hardly the work of a "loose cannon", is it?

Anyone that researches that thoroughly should be commended, not castigated by the media. However, since the media itself went evil, it should be no shock that they hated McCarthy for pointing out what people were doing.

If the media had any morals at all, they wouldn't have reported like they have for the last 25 years. In the 1990s when the major TV news media had dropped to ab out 3% each in viewers, they asked what they could do to get their customers back. Tell the truth was the typical answer. The media didn't and now their viewers are even less.

You've likely noticed how movies and TV have become raunchier as time went on, with blatant socialist political messages and things even worse. And how the viewership of them has crashed.

Conservation and Ecosocialism

In the 1980s, socialists began infiltrating conservation groups.

By the late 1990s, with the exception of Ducks Unlimited and Nature Conservancy, all former major conservation organizations had been taken over by the socialists.

Now it's just Ducks Unlimited.

It should be no surprise that organizations that used to conserve species and habitats have been gleefully killing threatened and endangered species through lawsuits that result in catastrophic fires and prevent other attempts at conservation.

A good example is Kitzhaber's "Oregon Salmon Plan". (This was long before Kitzhaber adopted his government's corruption and socialism.) It was a set of incentives for landowners to make the streams on their properties more conducive to salmonids. It was working. Then the socialists sued. The Salmon Plan went away.

If you go by the results of their actions, the idea of conservation of species is anathema to environmentalist organizations.

During the years I was working with endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, I can't think of a single example of an environmental group doing something positive in those efforts. They stopped things or screwed things up for those of us trying to save species and keep them healthy. Conservationists on the other hand, did a lot of practical things to help endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.

Which is why it's such a horrible insult to call ecosocialist groups "conservation groups" like some media now do. It's like calling an atheist group or satanist group, a Christian group. All of them believe there is a God (atheists can't hate something if they don't believe it exists), but the former two hate God passionately, and Christians love God. The results of the activities of those three groups are pretty plain to see, too.

Socialism damages the environment and sometimes even kills the environment. All one has to do is look at the former east bloc. Socialism was sure great for their environments and endangered species, wasn't it? Soil, air, water, and food were routinely contaminated from everything from chemicals to metals. Lands were sometimes to polluted as to be virtually useless. The "brown cloud" that reached from European USSR to Alaska in the winter should have been a clue.

And then there's China...

The Christian Church

By the 1990s, most seminaries had forgotten God, forgotten the Bible, and were training up a group of unbelievers to run churches and church hierarchies.

Even those pastors who believe, typically graduate with less Scripture in their brains than most of their older parishoners. It wasn't until the late 1990s that I started running into pastors who didn't really know their Bibles.

Compare that with the typical pastor of the 1980s who knew the Bible from front to back.

It comes out in their preaching. A lot of stupid mistakes have been made because the pastor preparing the sermon didn't bother to use a concordance.

A multitude of churches rejected the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit they once knew and have thus become apostate. The hierarchies of several churches are no longer believers in Christ. It comes out in their support for sex before marriage, homosexuality, socialism, abortion, and so on. Most churches with "united" in their name are not believers. Several Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Baptist church organizations are no longer believers in Christ. Their leaders of just two generations back would be aghast at the non-Biblical ideas being taught today.

The Church of England might as well close up shop. Most European Anglicans are not believers today, and most European Anglican leaders are not leading people to Christ, so what function do they have today except ceremony? It would be better to just have those parts of the British government that deal with ceremonial duties take up the Anglican ceremonial duties and dissolve the Church of England, thus freeing up those Anglican churches elsewhere in the world that believe in Jesus Christ.

About half of the churches in the U.S. are Emergent, which is a codeword for a false gospel and accepting a few parts of Scripture but ignoring most of it. Those leading the Emergent church are not born again, and most of their parishoners are not born again. It's likely that this is the major reason why the home church and home Bible study are now so commonplace— the churches themselves started teaching gold-plated shit, full of empty "good feelings", where the people go them unSaved on Sunday and leave them unSaved after the "sermon". For all the claims of "love" by the Emergent church, not teaching people how to be Saved is the least loving thing a church can do. The Great Commission by Jesus Christ is ignored in the Emergent Church.

Even a borderline cult*like the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by socialists because the Catholic Church influences so many people. It comes out in the ecumenicism and socialism pushed by some leaders. Some have claimed the new pope is a communist, but I don't trust our socialist media to tell the truth in such matters. What the new pope is will be shown by what he does.

*Some would object to that term, but for several hundred years the Catholics have thought their own ideas more important than Scripture. It would be hard to list them all here, from Marionism to the Papacy. They fought the Scripture being granted to the common person because it conflicted directly with many Catholic doctrines. While there have been many born-again believers in the Catholic Church, it has been in spite of what was taught by the church hierarchy, not because of it. And there have always been born-again leaders scattered throughout the Catholic church. Vatican II made major changes that allowed many local churches to teach the Bible and how to Saved. Doing a bunch of sacraments does not Save: Jesus Christ saves. Paul wrote in Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV): "6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." That should have been a warning to those Catholic leaders and theologians over centuries to not add to and subtract from the Bible.

Other Organizations

It took longer with the Boy Scouts longer than most organizations to have socialists infiltrate them. The results will ultimately be the dissolution of the Boy Scouts with most parents now not trusting the Scouts because of their leaving Christianity behind and endorsing immorality.

The Girl Scouts infiltrated in the 1990s, with the results that Girl Scouts are no longer the Christian organization that was.

It would be hard to number all of the different organizations that the socialists infiltrated because most major and many minor ones were infiltrated, with the results that the organizations cause harm to, rather than build up the nation and it's peoples.


The Democrat Party in the late 1960s began to be infiltrated by the socialists. By 1970, their platforms were incorporating ideas from the Communist Manifest.

In the 1970s, socialism became commonplace in the Democrat Party, with the result that in the 1980s, conservatives and others who loved liberty one by one left the Democrat Party.

This was both good and bad. It was good in that a single major party defended the interests of Christians and other Conservatives. It was bad in that it removed all restraints on the socialists in the Democrat party.

The rank and file moved, too. In 1980, Democrat voters numbered more than twice that of Republicans. By 1990, the Republicans were the majority party.

Then, in the 2000s, socialism began to make major inroads into the Republican party. If it continues, it will split the party, with RINOs going to the Democrats. Christians and other conservatives are increasingly not represented.

Ideas like amnesty for 60+ million people are increasingly pushed, despite what it would do to the nation.

Either the RINOs need to be kicked out, or there needs to be a party split.

It really should happen now, so that the conservatives have a chance at next years' elections.

Captured by Washington

Dec 12 2013

Congressman Boehner used to be pretty conservative.

In the last year, he's pushed a number of things that would not benefit the nation. A mediocre budget deal and amnesty (which would destroy the United States by making 60+ million Mexican Nationals here new "citizens"— plus their kids) are two that come immediately to mind.

When someone conservative and common-sense stops being conservative and common-sense after being in Washington for a time, it's been called being captured by the system.

There's few things sadder in politics.

Aphorisms Away!!

Dec 12 2013

Ever notice that some cliche's are true, but others are not? And how some are just fun, when you think for a moment about the phrase.

"Which is Heavier, a Pound of Gold or a Pound of Feathers?"

Used as a question to trip up people with the implication that both are equal.

Except: they are not.

Avoirdupois is our common weight system in the U.S. for most things.

Precious metals, though, use Troy weights.

One pound (avoirdupois) is equal to 1.216 Troy pounds. So a pound of feathers is heavier than a pound of gold.

Interestingly, an ounce (avoirdupois) is 0.91 Troy ounces, so an ounce of feathers is lighter than an ounce of gold.

"Attitude is everything"

Yep, attitude is very important, but it's no substitute for substance.

Attitude didn't win World War II. Tough men in the European and Pacific theatres, combined with massive amounts of supplies built by women in factories in the U.S. won that war. Without those men and women, attitude would have mattered little.

Winston Churchill had this to say about attitude: "“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.”

A good attitude usually won't fix a problem (unless the problem is from a person's attitude itself). However, because of a good attitude, a person may well make better decisions than if they are depressed or angry.

"Location, location, location"

It's certainly important. But good luck in a real estate agent trying to sell a house in a prized location when it's filled with cockroaches, spiders, snakes, and the house itself requires half it's value in repairs to make it livable. Location is very important, but it's not the only consideration. Plus, a good location to one person might be a rotten location for another, depending upon what they are looking for.

For example, nothing bores me more than the artificiality of everything in our large cities. It might be the nicest house in the world, but it is not likely that I'd ever get paid enough to live in a place like NYC or Frisco. To me, they are deserts, with little for me to do.

Compare that with why GenX women love city life. For most women my age, because they live to party, a major city's the perfect place, no? Booze, dope, parties, and players. Call them the four B's: most GenX women as a group have adored them for 20-30 years: Booze, Bongs, Bacchanalias, and Bedposts.

And so while I might not buy a place in a city because I can't stand the location, a woman might buy that same place because she loves the location.

I'd be remiss in not noting that most persons living in cities have become wisdomless from that very isolation from anything natural. The sad fact is that the common belief of town, suburb, and rural areas that people in cities are stupid has more than a little truth to it, given the consistently bad decisions those in such areas make in their leadership and laws in the last quarter century. Plus the flood of pot and other drugs that characterize most major cities.

One of my favorite examples of that lack of wisdom was when I lived in Portland in the mid 1990s. Marine Drive had dozens of truck farms that provided local produce. (It was one of the few places I could go to get away from the city nonsense without driving 50 miles.) After I left that crime-ridden cesspool called Portland, they rezoned along Marine Drive and the farms disappeared. Many of the produce stands disappeared because of it. What was astonishing was that no one seemed to make the connection between getting rid of the truck farms and the local produce disappearing. They wondered where the produce went. It illustrates how there is a disconnect between cause and effect in the minds of most of those living in cities.

It also is striking in that few seem to have thought it worth keeping those farms. That was a lot of food that now has to be trucked in from other areas. What happens when there's a breakdown in transporation, such as is common to any number of places in the world? Say, the predicted 9+ earthquake that brings down the bridges in the area that link Portland with other places?

"A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet"

Shakespear definitely had a way with words, yes?

But what if that rose, like some varieties/species of rose, doesn't smell very good? Or has very little smell at all?

While the phrase is used as a metaphor for something's intrinsic properties, meaning that a person or item is still the same no matter what it's named, it makes for some funny exceptions.

"All Hell Breaks Loose"

Hell is a place of confinement, the "Lake of Fire" written of in Revelation. It doesn't break loose; indeed the most horrible aspect of it is that it is eternal, with a person paying for their life's sins over and over.

"All's Fair in Love and War"

"Love ain't fair", as has been observed by millions (or billions, counting non-English language equivalents).

"A Watched Pot Never Boils"

Demonstrably untrue and the source of many jokes over the decades.

"Frog in Boiling Water"

Seeing as a frog would leap out of the water when it starts getting warm, it's funny how this one stays around. Cold-blooded higher animals don't generate their own heat, but they tend to be VERY sensitive to changes in heat. If you live in a rural or semi-rural area, you've may have seen snakes, lizards, frogs, and salamanders sunning themselves on cold mornings to get their body temperature up.

"Beat Around the Bush"

Ever see someone beat around a bush?

While I've never "beaten" a bush (I've chopped a few to clear the path to a bio study site or timber sale), over the years I've frequently shook a twig or moved a branch with a foot to see what lizard, frog, or other animal was hiding in a bush. Used to keep lizards. The most fun one was a short-horned lizard I caught just below the snow line on Black Butte. The lizard doubled in size before I returned it late that summer. Took care of the ant problem out front, typically eating 50+ ants per day. The perfect ant "eating machine." I made the mistake of feeding it a carpenter ant and it was about 3 days before it ate again. It was just tooooo big for it.

"Bat the Idea Around"

While an idea is not physical, I have a mental picture of a cat playing with an "idea", batting it around like they would a ball of yarn. Or two cats batting an "idea" back and forth.

"Other Fish in the Sea"

When you love someone, you don't want anyone else. I can't resist adding this in silliness: "when you love someone, you don't want a fish; you want that person."

December 7/8 2013 Temperatures

Dec 10, 2013

The NWS had these temperatures at their stations:




Horse Ridge east of Bend.



Christmas valley.



Sand Creek









Klamath NWR









Crazyman Flat





















Gerber Reservoir






Agency Lake



Camp Sherman



Kingsley Field



SE Bend.



Warm Springs






A bit nippy out there...

You Can't Get DNA From Rock

Dec 9, 2013

Nothing like Junk Science.

The recent articles on "oldest DNA" have a major problem:

You CAN'T get DNA from ROCK!

Articles on fossils in western Europe of late repeatedly use the term "fossils" and DNA in the same articles.


To be a fossil, the organic material must be replaced by mineral crystals. Opalization, the replacement of organic material by silica, is a common method. There are many others.

Under the right conditions, bones, wood, and other organic matter can be opalized in less than 24 hours.

Some level of detail can be preserved, but DNA is not. DNA is ~2.5 billionths of a meter wide. Good luck in preserving something that small by fossilization.

Jurassic Park© was fun to watch, but impossible because DNA would 1. Not be preserved by the fossilization process, 2. If DNA somehow survived the fossilization process, random movements in the atoms would deform the strand over time, meaning the fossil was multiply-exponentially younger than claimed. and 3. Heat and pressure from burial would reorganize the mineral crystals, destroying any DNA information.

The idea that someone can get DNA from fossilized material is pure and unadulterated Junk Science.

There was a time that Paleos had geology and biology degrees, but I'm just not seeing any evidence of that kind of expertise with this garbage.

The Triumph of Moral Evil in our Media

Dec 7 2013

Let's run through a list of Nelson Mandela's accomplishments:

1. Making South Africa the country with the highest per capita murder rate.

2. Making South Africa the country with the highest per capita rape rate.

3. Making South Africa the country with the highest HIV rate at ~23%.

4. Making South Africa one of the few countries to go from First World to Third World.

5. Creating a system of greater discrimination than Apartheid, despite its claims of equality.

6. Expelling whites and indians from South Africa, while at the same time claiming to want unity.

7. Creating a system where tribes, bands, and groups all fight each other.

8. Bringing communist ideas to South African government.

9. Managing to make the racist Apartheid government of the past look good when comparing how black South Africans live today. It's really scary that South African black populations were far better off economically, and in the ability to practice personal freedoms than today, despite Apartheid.

10. Proving that he and his cronies were not up to the task of running a modern nation.

11. Creating a climate of hatreds that has almost completely dismantled South Africa.

12. Murdering a great many non-combatants in the 1960s, either directly, or on his orders.

But just as our media is dishonest in evaluating other persons, they loved Mandela and ignored what he'd actually done. He said some great things, but did other things instead.

Few leaders have such adulation for doing moral evil.

Is Mandela now looking forward to the White Throne Judgement and hell? Think he's now wishing he'd done different things with his life? Only God knows for sure.

In a way, he's to be pitied. He spent most of his life in evil, while cultivating a mystique. That now shows in the South Africa that he and his successors created. One can only hope that others in his circle will get Saved and turn from evil. I'd like to see Desmond Tutu get Saved by Christ.


Dec 6 2013

Like most men my age, my first jobs were restaurants.

Back in the 1980s, labor costs (wages, fees, taxes, etc.) were a maximum of 10% of the total cost of the restaurant.

That percent has shrunk considerably. Overhead was the big restaurant expense in the 1980s and with all of the additional taxes, fees, and permits required, it is more now.

Indeed, when all of the costs of a shift in a city fast food joint during rush periods like lunch are covered in a few minutes, it makes one wonder about those who claim the minimum wage must be lower.

If a shift of ten workers is bringing in ~$2000 in an hour for breakfast, lunch, or dinner, isn't there a little problem with the idea that the wages must be lowered? If that ten workers costs ~$150 or so per hour in total costs, why is it so problematic?

Why would it be so much "better" if it's lowered?

The Lord calls that stealing. Read James 5.

It's extremely troubling, too, that when an increase in energy or food raises total costs 4 or 5%, owners seem to take it in stride, but

God help you if there's a 1% increase in total costs in wages. The world is going to end...

Is it right to hold the very people who make your very money possible in such contempt, employers?

One day I hope that the entitlement mindset by so many Boomer-owned businesses will pass away like other noxious fads. "Something for nothing" never produces good results.

Driving... in Bend

Dec 4 2013

After driving down Franklin Avenue this morning and having a radar claim that my car and the vehicle just behind me were doing 7 mph faster than our actual physical speeds, I thought I'd reflect on Bend and it's traffic, roads, and streets.

Not many places have major arterials at 25mph, then have the cheek to complain when drivers drive the design speed of the street/road, which typically is much higher.

How many places have limited access highway that runs through town, but it's 45 instead of 55 or greater. Since it's laid out like a freeway and thus high speed, it's actually hard for anyone who's done any freeway driving to stay down at the arbitrarily slow speed limit.

There's an institutional hatred of traffic flow. As an example, the typical subdivision design has a stop sign every 2 blocks or less, rather than the standard yield signs used in similar residential situations elsewhere. Having watched how irritated drivers get and how they start doing "california stops" after the umpteenth time they have to stop in a row, I'm convinced that such foolish traffic control only serves to train drivers to ignore stop signs.

It doesn't help that bicyclists are allowed to run stop signs and stop lights. Nor that the problem of stoned drivers is all but ignored in the media in their apparent love of "medical" marijuana. Having been almost killed by a stoned driver, I can't say I appreciate the ignoring of the effects of marijuana on body and brain by our politicos and media. As one who was here during the 1973-1997 legalization disaster, I don't appreciate the ignoring by our leaders and media that Oregon had incredible levels of violence and stoned driving when it was legal ($100 fine, but when was that ever collected?).

It doesn't help that when streets are constructed, they frequently have only one direction of travel possible, but there's still a stop sign as if there was cross-traffic. That trains people to ignore the stop sign.

The idea of "through streets" is just about ignored.

Traffic radars on the Parkway routinely read 5 or 10 mph faster or slower than the actual speed of a vehicle and it's not consistent, with one day a radar reading close to the actual speed of the car and other days being wildly inaccurate. (Because tires can affect the speedometer reading, several times a year I check my speed against a stopwatch, so I have a really good idea of the actual speed of the car.)

Drivers will bottle up traffic for several minutes to try to turn left when traffic won't allow them to turn. Rather than just drive down a block and come back.

Roads and streets with three lanes' width are often striped as two lanes. Other streets, such as 8th street, went from a comfortable 2 lanes to 3 narrow lanes.

Streets frequently are too narrow for two cars to pass each other when cars park on both sides (and sometimes so narrow they can't pass when one side has cars parked). Given that the standard lane back when I designed pavements was 12' and 8' for a minimum and easements were typically 60' or 120', one wonders why so many streets locally appear to be considerably less than 12' total width between the parked cars. Makes no sense. The excuse is that "it will slow traffic down" but all it does in actual practice is cause accidents when two cars try to go through the street at the same time. There are subdivisions that have little or no parking, the streets being less than standard width.

Traffic circles are called "roundabouts" despite having little resemblance to roundabouts elsewhere. The small, single lane ones often work (except in heavy traffic), but the two lane ones confuse drivers with lanes appearing and disappearing. Accident city.

Road maintenance has never been a priority. Street cleaners have often called street dirtiers because for at least 35 years, they sweep along for extended distances after their tank is full, just stirring the dirt and putting it in the air. It's been normal for streets to go for years without a street cleaner.

Related is the silliness of ceasing to use cinders on roads when it snows because of dust, despite it being a matter of just doing street cleaning like hundreds of other municipalities do, which means that most streets have nothing done to them, even a week after a major snowfall. So, more crashes and fender-benders when it snows, plus I'm sure it really impresses the tourists to spend a week here and nothing gets plowed except the main streets. If they get plowed at all.

And so the city trades lives and property for cinder dust.

Properly-done concrete streets and roads would solve the problem of truck weights being far in excess of the pavement strengths, but it's somehow easier to blame winter's studded tires for the crushing action of truck tires creating visible ruts at all times of year, often right after repaving during the non-winter months.

Bend is in a virtual sea of basalt and andesite. And it sits on more than 1000' thick of Columbia River Basalts. (When I worked for the Corps of Engineers, 20,000psi compressive strength was not uncommon for CRB). Instead of using the common durable rock, though, typically heavily weathered rock is sought out because it's easier to crush. You get what you pay for, though. The weathered rock doesn't resist axle loads that well, making for ruts when the rocks break under truck loads.

Compare that to Medford, which has its rock crushing operations in the Eagle Point area, because it's the closest place for them to get unweathered basalt for roads and other construction.

Even California uses better rock.

Supreme Court Showed it's Customary Cowardice

Dec 2 2013

When I was a kid, the supreme court usually didn't ignore watershed cases.

Today, they showed their cowardice in refusing to hear a case on Obamacare. There's no question under the U.S. Constitution that Obamacare violates Liberty University's religious freedom.

The Supreme Court violated their oath of office by refusing the case.

All who made that decision should resign, out of shame.

But we don't see that level of honor in the Court. The idea today is "we can break the law with impunity."

It's become a common pattern in the last decade of refusing cases that are important and dwelling on the less important, less controversial cases.

It's cowardice. 

It's knowing that you, as a person charged with a public duty, know what you are charged by the law to do, but ignoring that duty when it might not be popular with part of the public.


As such, it's a breach of duty, as well as the oath of office. The Supreme Court respects persons. It does not respect the Rule of Law.

Impeachment is the cure.

The Lord rebuke the dishonest members of the Supreme Court in Jesus' Name.

Lies as Advertising

Nov 28 2013

It was only 2008 when most would never dream of issuing false statements in government, much less government entities advertising things that are false.

What is going on?

National Guard advertisements about wildfire and disaster relief, depite one deployment after another overseas? Yes, they used to do a lot of fighting fire and disaster relief. But is it even honest to advertise such today, when governor after governor can't use them for fires or disasters because they are deployed repeatedly elsewhere in the world?

If a unit's been deployed six, eight, more times since 911, how much time do they even have for anything other than deployments?

False statements about obamacare on TV?

How many in just the last two months?

What happened to the conscience? Is lying now just the standard for government?

A Biblical Parallel

Nov 28 2013

How many "interest" and "activist" groups in this nation today, fit the following?

In Proverbs 1 (KJV),

"10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent not.

11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;

12 let us swallow them up alive as Sheol, and whole, as those that go down into the pit;

13 we shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:

14 cast in thy lot among us; we will all have one purse:

15 —my son, walk not in the way with them, keep back thy foot from their path;

16 for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood."

And of course, they end up harming themselves.

"17 For in vain the net is spread in the sight of anything which hath wings.

18 And these lay wait for their own blood; they lurk secretly for their own lives.

19 So are the paths of every one that is greedy of gain: it taketh away the life of its possessors."

Reaction to "Agreement" With Iran

Nov 24 2013

Munich, 1938.

Evil is Now More Acceptable than Good in Public

Nov 21 2013

There was a time only recently that evil in public was not acceptable. Sure, people did all sorts of things that harmed the persons doing it and harmed other people in private, but it wasn't acceptable to the public.

Even most politicians of a generation ago, while some had their hidden vices, didn't push those vices to the public eye and say that it was somehow their right to do wrong.

Politicians didn't endorse those things that harmed people, despite some of them doing them privately.

Nor did the public in general.

We lost something really important during the Clinton Administration, where In Your Face Evil became in vogue.

Evil being out in the open has some major problems. It's much harder to keep under control. When evil is acceptable, that means many more take part in it than would if it were hidden.

Drug legalization is a perfect example. In 1972, most students in Oregon didn't use drugs. Those that did, generally did it in private. That changed with legalization. (Some would split hairs calling Oregon's legalization of pot from 1973-1997 "decriminalization", but a $100 fine that was not enforced doesn't really count as something being illegal in practical terms, does it?" By the 1980s, drugs were incredibly common. Murder and other crimes went up exponentially during that period and crashed when pot was made illegal again.

Just having something that hurts people out in the open does NOT make it less common.

How many Democrat politicians in the 1960s to 1980s had their stables of prostitutes, drunken parties, orgies, and so on? But it was not considered to be something to be proud of, unlike today.

Evil was not lauded. Evil was not approved of by our media.

These things were generally not known unless someone leaked it or wrote it in a biography before they passed on.

Central Oregon is a prime example of how things used to be hidden. When the first waves of California immigrants came in the 1980s, it wasn't long before the typical person in Bend was a party animal, a drug user, binge drinker, violent, and saw nothing wrong in hurting others.

But it was mosty hidden behind closed doors. There was little interest in showing off the drunks, stoners, orgiers, players, and other reprobates off to the public at large.

Then evil became "the new good". Today, you have pedophiles and similar groups advertising in local publications. Today, you have a plethora of groups that hurt other people saying it's their "right" to hurt other people and local publications carry without a second thought their hatred of that which is good and their hatred of those advocate good.

When evil becomes acceptable to the public and the media, what are the effects of that?

Evil does not "go away" when something evil is legalized or lauded. Evil is still evil. Making it acceptable means more of it.

Which means more people are harmed by it.

The Loss of the Filibuster Changes Things Little

Nov. 21, 2013

Emperor Reid's eliminating the filibuster for candidates will have little effect on the Senate.


Because the Democrats have consisently been dishonorable about appointees who were incompetent, dishonest— what else do you call answering the Senate's questions one way, then acting the opposite on the job— and even Communist and international socialist, the loss of the filibuster is not going to matter much.

When you are shut out of the process, you are shut out of the process.

The vote by the Democrats to stop the filibuster simply proved their belief in absolute power with no considerations for others.

This continues the trend of the Democrats to do no power sharing.  Democrats want what they want when they want it, like spoiled children, and they care little about whom it harms.

Unlike Tom Daschle, who filibustered time and time again to prevent something that would benefit the public, the Republicans rarely filibuster. The Republicans didn't like what he did, but they put up with it.

There are two options that might make some difference:

1. When a particularly national socialist or communist candidate comes up for a vote, the Republicans can speak out in the centrist and conservative medias.

The socialist mainstream media's not going to tell what kind of people most of these candidates have been prior to their confirmations, so it's up to the Republican Senators to actually try for a change to get their message out, rather than just assuming it will get out. As the media ghouls that constantly attacked Bush proved conclusively, if you don't defend your viewpoint, it's not going to get to the public.

2. Not be present when votes on candidates are scheduled or take place.

Since they have no input, there's no point in them being present. This would make it absolutely clear that they don't approve of the Democrats.  Repeat something like "we have no input in the process, so why should we be there?" in the media every time it comes up.

There's a major difference between Republican appointees of the last 30 years and Democrat appointees. The Republicans typically choose people who have "been there and done that", who have long track records for doing the right thing. The Democrats typically pick people they can control, they typically pick those who will parrot whatever the Democrats want them to say, the incompetent, and often those with little actual knowledge in the field that they represent.

Prior to adopting Socialism as their platforms in the 1970s, it was not unusual for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

The "my way or the highway" of most Democrat officials today, coupled with the complete lack of honor and morality of most Democrat officials today, is emblematic of what used to be the counterculture. "Gimme what I want or I'll hurt you" could be the mantra of the Democrats today, going by how officials and interest groups of the Left act today.

It's Time for Conservatives to Quit Being Gulled by the Libertarians

Nov. 19, 2013

Like so many other groups, there's the official statement of position, and the position of how a candidate or elected official acts.

Libertarians are NOT Conservatives.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are examples.

First, unlike Conservatives, Libertarians have no overriding morality.

This is evidenced by the support for abortion among Libertarians, and the immoral practice of deliberately throwing elections for conservatives.

It's evidenced by pushing the failed ideas of drug legalization (a sore spot with me because I had to watch women my age get into drugs during Oregon's legalization and destroy their lives), and prostitution.

Indeed, given the effects of drugs on GenX women and the effects of prostitution on women, one wonders how much the Libertarians even care about them.

Just saying one cares doesn't cut it.

Second, Libertarians pick and choose which law and which Founding documents they support.

Rand Paul is an example, doing a marvellous filibuster in support of 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Then the next week coming out in support of abortion, despite the Declaration of Independence' rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Freedom has far reduced value when life has no value. The idea of some life being important and others expendable, is a key tenet of Eugenics and Socialism. Leave those sorts of evil to the Democrats.

Rand Paul came out in support of illegal aliens "immigration", thus showing a contempt for the Rule of Law and the nation itself.

Conservatives are marked by a respect for our laws and the Rule of Law.

Third, Libertarians are typically not Christians in anything except name.

This is an important distinction: very few Conservatives are non-religious, be it Catholic, Christian, or Mormon. Without that baseline morality of underlying right and wrong, there is no Conservatism.

Fourth, a key idea of Libertarians appears to be "law of the jungle", that is to say, the strong doing whatever they want to the weak.

That is not Christian and it shows a vile contempt of the Rule of Law.

The Conservative idea is to give the ability to people to lift themselves up. The Democrat/Socialist idea is to give them handouts stolen from others to keep them under control.

I get annoyed whem someone calls themselves a "conservative" and a "libertarian." You can't be both. It's like saying you are a Socialist but believe in representative government. It's like water and oil. The two simply don't mix, and even an emulsifier doesn't truly get them to mix— it merely keeps them suspended in proximity.

As a general rule those claiming to be both end up 1. Contradicting themselves on important matters, and/or 2. Having to pick one in one circumstance, and pick another in a different circumstance. Either way, there is often little consistency.

Global Warming/Climate Change a Dodge for Poor Practices

Nov. 18, 2013

If a country has cut down the trees and sheeped the brush and riparian vegetation in upland areas and has a major problem with flooding as a result, it used to be blamed on the poor agricultural practices of the people causing it.

Today, it's just blamed of GW/CC, as if that somehow makes it OK for a country to trash their forests, fields, and streams.

If a country has wiped out its own coral reefs through pollution, sewage, overfishing, and even dynamite fishing, well, it must be the fault of GW/CC that is causing the problems. Can't possibly be what that country is doing.

See a problem or two here?

GW/CC allows countries and peoples to dodge the responsibility for messing things up.

Or at least that's the hope. Blaming a problem on something that is not causing the problem never solves a problem, does it?

It's very common today, though, isn't it?

Blaming motorists for bicycle accidents doesn't solve the problem of bicyclists causing most motorist-bicycle accidents by breaking traffic laws.

Pastors blaming men for what women do doesn't solve the problem of women choosing evil as a lifestyle.

Blaming Christians for the state of the U.S. doesn't help when it was people turning away from Christ that caused most of the problems we face.

Treating predators like victims doesn't solve the problem of predators harming the innocent.

Blaming conservatives for what Democrats and Libertarians have done doesn't solve the problems of

economy, drugs, cultural meltdown, and turning from God.

Blaming GW/CC doesn't solve problems created by miserable management of natural resources.

Our Agenda-Driven Media

Nov. 18, 2013

Ever notice that when there are tornadoes, despite the long history of them, today it's always blamed on Global Warming/Climate Change by those of that religion?

So, if the weather is big news, when the weather is good, why is it ignored? Or even claimed to be "bad"?

If a good crop comes in, it gets ignored. If a crop fails, it's blamed on Global Warming/Climate Change.

Science and objectivity have little place in the mind of someone in that religion, apparently.

Elevation and Bread

Nov. 15, 2013

This topic came up today.

Back in high school, college, and until 2003, I baked my own bread, usually using a bread machine.

When I moved to Klamath Falls, I had major problems with bread not rising right. The dorm room where I was at was about 4800 feet (around 1500m).

Turns out that less yeast is needed at higher elevations. I bought a book at the Oregon Tech bookstore that explained about high elevation bread.

Less yeast.

In Klamath Falls, I used 1/2 tsp of yeast in a standard breadmaker.

In Portland at 90-something feet elevation, I used the full amount of a packet or 2.5 tsp.

In Yreka, I used 1.5 tsp in a standard breadmaker. ~3000 ft (about 914m)

The typical recipe I used in Yreka was 1 cup of best-for-bread white flour, 3 cups of whole grain such as oats, whole wheat, or rye, a tsp of salt (won't rise right without it), a cup of cracked wheat or bran, 2 tbsp of gluten, a tbsp of sugar (the yeast need to eat), and I forget how much water I used.

I'd put the ingredients into the breadmaker before going to work and when I came home, it was long done. I used a meat slicer to cut it into slices. I noted that bread rose better on clear days than cloudy ones in Yreka. I'm guessing the atmospheric pressure made a difference.

Nothing Like Losing a Life-Saving Treatment

Nov. 14, 2013

Patients with cancer and other potentially terminal diseases have been victimized by Obamacare.

I wondered if it was a matter of time until I lost my IgG infusions. It happened 7 weeks ago.

And so, with about 60% of the normal human immune system (courtesy of Hanford), one wonders how long it will be before I catch that final cold, as it were.

A Fictional Example of Junk Science

Nov. 14, 2013

I didn't do a sequel to Jacob's Trouble the Gathering Storm because I was asked to do Global Warming, Challenged, and then ended up writing more books.

As a joke in 2007, one idea I had for one of the false things that I was going to have the AntiChrist continue to do in the next volume to deceive people into even greater adulation was his supposed grasp on the sciences.

While I wrote it up at the time, all I've got is a note now: "Anti-Christ lauded for solving gravity- the absence of casimir-effect forces or Zero point energy causing mattter to move to other matter"

It was the silly idea that had a fatal flaw that went like this:

1. The Casimir Effect essentially requires distance between objects for radiation to exist. The shorter the distance between objects, the shorter the wavelengths of radiation that can exist between them. It's the reason that microwave ovens usually have a metal grate with holes that allows you watch the food through. Essentially, the holes in the grating are too small for the wavelength of microwaves to travel through.

2. Vacuum has a large amount of energy inherent in it, with various theories of why that is.

3. Matter has a short distance between the subatomic particles making it up, and so the denser the matter, the less vacuum energy the matter has.

4. Radiation has a very slight but measurable "pressure", and so the radiation pressure resulting from vacuum energy puts a "pressure" all around matter which lacks it, thus "pushing" matter toward other matter from the absense of such pressure. An extreme example is a black hole, wherein no radiation can exist and is thus "pushed" very hard indeed by radiation pressure from around it. 

Now, can you think of the fatal flaw?

Even dense metals like lead are mostly vacuum.

But it sounds plausible until you think of that, right?

But consider: half-baked ideas like that are routinely accepted despite fatal flaws. Global Warming/Climate change, ozone layer depletion, evolution, radioisotopic dating, ufos, etc. All have one or more fatal flaws in them that render the idea false or even silly, but they are accepted because people want to believe them.

So, the next time you hear of a new "theory" that is going to "destroy the world", think of how they get accepted: by ignoring something really important and when then the flaw is revealed by science itself, the idea is not dropped, but rather defended by those who have something to gain from the flawed theory.

A New Term for Some Our Culture's Reprobates

Nov. 13, 2013

"Asp". A vicious ass with fangs. A lying person whose tongue is filled with poison.

I won't list any examples as you no doubt can think of a few on the Socialist side of the aisle in the Senate and Congress.

How For a Woman to Turn a Guy Down for a Date

Nov. 13, 2013

First, ask yourself why you are not interested:

1. Is it because he's of good character?

2. Is it because he's responsible?

3. Is it because he's "nice" and thus "not exciting"?

4. Is it because you want to "get lucky" and you don't think he'll do it?

5. Is it because you live to party and he doesn't?

6. Is because you think he's "creepy" because he's honorable and of good character? I've never seen it otherwise, despite Hollywood's view of such things that every "creepy" person is an axe murderer or a violent stalker or some other criminal.

7. Does he make you feel guilty because your lifestyle is one of seeking pleasure?

8. Are you just afraid of dating someone whom you might marry, preferring players instead?

9. Is it because you want that 5% (probably less) that will be abusive? It's not PC, but there are a few women who seek them.

If any of these nine are true, then for goodness sake: turn him down so he can find a woman who is honorable.

It might behoove you to do some serious thinking about what kind of guy you want, too. And why you want that type of guy. It might sound strange, but prior to the 1980s, women generally did not seek out men who were bad people, players, or party animals.

Second, how to turn down a guy:

From my experience, simply thank him and say you are not interested. And leave it at that.

Do not:

1. Don't say maybe sometime later. That is dishonest and leads him on. Makes him think there is hope.

2. Don't lie and say "let's be friends". I've never seen a case where it is true. An actual friend does things with other friends. It gives the wrong message.

3. Don't make up a story. Besides being immoral, lying never produces good results.

4. Don't tell him "it's not you, it's me." It's usually true, but many women say that, thinking it will spare his feelings. There's some irony in "it's not you, it's me" because of the generally extremely poor reasons women have for turning guys down for dates.

5. Don't try to set him up with someone else. He's interested in you. Your friends are probably like you and won't be interested in him either. If you didn't want him, they probably won't, either.

Third, when he starts dating someone, don't suddenly decide that you missed out.

This is incredibly commonplace. It's normal for women to ignore a man who is not dating anyone, then suddenly flock to him if someone actually gives him a chance and is happy with him. Don't wreck it for them just because someone looked inside, rather than looking at his lack of designer jeans.

The typical woman from the 1980s on dismisses in a second or two someone who is not already dating someone else on the basis of his looks, much like most employers today no longer look at whether someone can actually do a given job or not. Or they "don't like him" because he's a good person.

Since you very likely turned him down because he was a man of good character, and now your only reason to want to date him is because he is dating someone else, he deserves better than you, don't you think?

Happiest Nation? Really?

Nov 10, 2013

In the last hour, I've seen in the news not one, but TWO nations claimed to be the happiest on the planet. Both were European.


Europe's drinking itself to death. It was announced in 2011 by Europe's health authorities and news services that Europe was drinking 11 liters of pure alcohol equivalent per year per person.

Being more drunk than any other nation does not make a nation happy.

The Soviets and later the Russians could tell you that. In 2000 the life expectancy had dropped to 59 in men from alcoholism.

It will in Europe if this keeps up.

Living to party does not make you happy. Living only for yourself does not make you happy. That is proven by the women of GenX.

Indeed, since such a large percent of GenX women have binge drunk and/or use or used drugs for years, the current life expectancy of GenX women cannot be an accurate number, given what has happened elsewhere when people took up heavy drinking or drugs. Indeed, some of those women I went to high school with are dead already, thanks to booze, drugs, or both.

A job and getting drunk on the weekends is just not enough for a human being.

From National Wave of Foolishness:

"There must be a base for a culture. Without a base, there is no culture. The result is just a group of individuals doing their own thing at the others' expense and thus conflicting with each other constantly. A selfish slop.

So, what do Europe and the United States think they are doing when they try to separate their cultures from their bases without even replacing the bases? Or replacing them with Socialism? Or multiple bits and pieces?

It doesn't work very well. Try building a skyscraper without steel. There's nothing to hold it together.

Any wonder why EU governments are becoming concerned at the enormous amounts of alcohol now being consumed by Europeans? God's been kicked out of western Europe, so there's nothing to give life meaning and the "endless party" many Europeans pursue palls after a short time. So, like the Central and Eastern Europeans, who drank to escape the Soviet-era "worker's paradise", now many Western Europeans drink to escape the nothingness they've created. You live, you work, you party, you die. (4 Y's) That's not enough for the human soul. Never has been.

In evaluating cultures in the last few decades, there's been a tendency to take the lazy way out and say "all cultures are equal" and to foolishly claim that it's somehow "arrogant" to evaluate cultures on how the persons in them treat each other, their ability to change with the times, how they act and so on.

A nation that chooses a good religion as its base will do good things. A nation that picks an evil religion will do evil things. If your culture is based upon evil, then your culture will BE evil.

The most evil cultures ever to hit the planet are those based upon Socialism. Socialism is effectively a religion even as it claims to be without religion. The 90+ years of socialist governments have killed more of humanity and enslaved more of humanity and shown more brutality to more people than any single dictator’s darkest dreams could ever do. 250+ million dead during the 20th Century alone from wars, starvation, purges and disease.

So, too, the United States is now sliding into evil. Instead of one culture, there are two predominant cultures in the United States. One is a remnant culture, based upon Christianity. The second culture is one that essentially makes it up as it goes and is based upon nothing except "feelings"— and is now steadily moving toward Socialism. No real standards for the second culture and it flounders, damaging and destroying much of what surrounds it as it does so."

Thank You

Nov 9, 2013

When I found out that more than a million people had read my pages, all I can say is:

Thank you.

May God bless you all.

When Will Second and Third Class Citizenship Cease?

Nov 8, 2013

Starting in junior high school, I became a second class citizen.

Feminism started its war on men in earnest then and by the mid 1980s had relegated men to second class status.

No honest person can argue otherwise.

Men suddenly had no rights and women had no responsibilities.

From government to the media.

Gone was any balance between the sexes in the law. Gone was any balance between the sexes in culture.

Gone was any balance between the sexes in relationships. An example of that was how in the 1980s and 1990s that it was "evil" of GenX men to dare to be interested in a GenX woman, but it was also "evil" for a GenX man to not be interested in a GenX woman if she was interested in him. He's "heartless", "cruel", etc, if he doesn't return her feelings.

It got to the point where millions of men simply quit asking women out on dates because of the childish hornets nest that would attack without provocation. At the same time, if you were one of the 10% or so of men that most women were sleeping with, you literally could do no wrong as far as the women were concerned. Even if abusive, excuses would be made for you. Women ironically made "players" into an unnofficial protected class that way.

Consider the tens of thousands of programs to force women into the sciences and other careers, whether they wanted them or not. By the Clinton years, women were not required to be qualified, either in government service or in business occupations. It became standard to hire women who didn't have the required degrees or experience.

Women were the primary rapists and sexual harassers of the 1980s and 1990s, but what did we see in the media?

Garbage like claims of 1 in 4, then 1 in 3, then 1 in 2 women would be raped. Never mind that that wasn't true— the numbers were explosively inflated by including when a woman jumped into bed and then felt guilty later.  It was part of the war on men. One libel or slander after another.

Ever seen a woman be tried in court for taking advantage of a drunk or stoned man at a party? That crime was far, far more common than the reverse. I've never seen it tried in court, despite its commonality. Ever see a woman try to get a guy drunk or go so far as to drug something he's drinking?

It happened. A LOT.

Ever see it prosecuted?

If she gets pregnant, the courts instead give her child support despite her committing a felony to get it.

If that is not inequality under the law, I don't know what is.

Most financial aid was "targeted" by the 1990s. It struck me in the late 1990s when I got my masters that about all men could get was loans, but most women had scholarships. As a result, it was common for men to go to college one year, work for a year, go to college one year, etc.

Plus having a much greater school loan debt when the graduated and a much more difficult time finding work.

It wasn't uncommon for women professors to assign lesser grades to men because they were men.

What's really dumb is that colleges actually wondered why men became such a minority in enrollment compared to women in the early 2000s. Unlike most women, most men went to college to get a job. Little or no financial aid, and few jobs upon graduation, and not surprisingly, fewer men went to college.

Colleges today don't see cause and effect any more than government does.

Television and movies treat men as idiots. Men are fair game as far as commericals, sitcoms, movies, and so on. The reverse is not done because there would be hell to pay.

The divorce/family courts treat husbands as expendable. Even worse, when woman commits a crime, or is addicted to drugs, or is an alcoholic, or neglects her kids, the courts normally give the kids to her. The kids haven't seemed to matter to most divorce/family court judges for about 30 years now, if you go by their rulings.

And yet other judges thankfully have often granted grandparents the right to raise their grandchildren who were being abused by their drug-abusing moms. Despite state governments somehow thinking that the kids were better off with a drug mom who wouldn't feed them regularly, or take seriously the other responsibilities that go with children.

Interesting schism in respect for the law by our judges, isn't it?

The preferential treatment of women under the law and in popular culture was nothing compared to what's been done in the name of other protected classes. When this began in earnest late in Clinton's presidency, white males were relegated to third class citizenship and white women to second class citizenship.

What is a protected class? There's an official description, but it's what the government calls a group in order to bestow superior rights and privileges to them in order for Democrats to buy their votes. Grants, scholarships and other "free money" at the public's expense. At the street level, it means a person of a protected class can't be fired for not doing their job without being sued or otherwise attacked, it often means that a person is given a job that they are not competent to do. It means antisocial behavior is tolerated or even endorsed despite the harm that results to other people, and further, it means that those of a protected class are individually less likely to be prosecuted for a crime.

Indeed, why are the groups with the highest violent crime rates given the most "rights" under the law now, with Democrats forever pushing for more?

Think of that: in a country that was started with the notion of "All men are created equal", we now have a situation where some groups are given rights superior to other groups, to the point where they can prey upon others, hurt others, do crimes against them and not be prosecuted. Or in the case of groups that commit very high levels of crime, be given a pass for many crimes despite greater levels of prosecution due to the sheer number of crimes committed. Groups given preferences in work— at times, absolute to where other groups need not apply— and in the law and its enforcement.

It's normal for courts to "respect persons" and not the law now.

The rare crime against someone of one of those groups is a "hate crime" despite normally not being motivated by hatred. But the reverse is not, despite most such protected groups committing more crimes per capita than the public as a whole.

Entire fields have been closed to white males in the last decade.

It's crowed about that women and minorities now make up most employees in the sciences. That is the result of not hiring white males and dramatically decreasing the total number of those employed in the sciences since 1992.

No point in someone going to college for 4, 6, or 8 years, racking up massive debt, then the job they would have done is given to someone with a high school diploma who does not have the background to do the job competently.

Never mind that every time someone is given a job because of race or gender, it's the same basic idea as the ethnic preferences the National Socialists of Europe (1923-1945) gave to this or that group. Germany gave preference to Germans, Italy to Italians, Greece to Greeks, Finland to Finns, Hungary to Hungarians, Rumania to Romanians, Albania to Albanians. The government picks which groups do well and which don't. Heaven help you if you were a Jew in one of those countries then.

When the Federal government cut loose most of their scientists and engineers starting in 1993, and through the ceasing of grants to the states caused them to fire scientists and engineers, plus the effects of free trade wiping out most industrial and commerical need for scientists and engineers, the pool of science and engineering jobs shrunk drastically.

I've two engineering and two science degrees and have been turned down more than 2150 times for work and I conservatively estimate at least 1500 of those were for affirmative action alone.

A third class citizen.

It's not PC to state any of this, but white males in America are expected to pay for everyone else, but are denied the opportunities to work and to prosper that are now earmarked for those of first and second class citizenship.

How did the United States forget the Constitution?

How did the United State forget guiding principles from it's founding Christianity, such as:

"26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Galatians 3:26-29 (KJV)


"11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Colossians 3:11 (KJV)

Equality is not the giving of superior rights to a group. Equality is not the law looking the other way when a crime is committed by someone of a given group. Equality is not making crimes against some groups "worse" than other crimes. Equality is not looking first at a person's race, then their gender, prior to finding out if that person can do a job or not.

From National Wave of Foolishness:

"Many special interest groups fall into this category of something to gain. They have immense things to gain and hang onto, by enabling foolishness. The Federal Government's "Protected Classes" are a prime example. They are used to special treatment and naturally they want to continue it, despite the money it costs the taxpayers and the divisions such inequality creates between them and others. After all, they have greater privileges, rights and/or other benefits than others, so why should they want to change the system? It's like the nobility of so many societies: why would they want to give up all the goodies they have, just for some esoteric concept of "justice" or "fairness?"

Indeed the "civil rights" of today is designed to assign special privileges to some groups and to take away the rights away from other groups.

This takes the form of:

1. Scholarships being primarily "targeted" on the basis of race, gender, or now, national origin (Mexico).

2. Preferences in hiring, sometimes absolute.

3. Double standards for conduct.

4. Double standards under the law. (This is the most dangerous of these 15 characteristics.)

5. Excuses made for anti-social behavior of favored groups by media, government and the culture.

6. Excuses made for bad decisions of favored groups by media, government and culture.

7. Excuses made for avoiding responsibility of favored groups by media, government and culture.

8. Constant attacks on whites (and sometimes Asians) in the media and by minority groups.

9. The acceptance of racism (usually against whites and Asians, but sometimes against other groups) and the endorsement of racism by minority groups.

10. The acceptance of hatred (usually against whites and Asians, but sometimes against other groups) and the endorsement of hatred by minority groups against whites and Asians and sometimes other groups.

11. The acceptance of crime against whites and Asians (and sometimes against other groups) by

governments and by minority groups in the name of "diversity" and similar doctrines.

11. The acceptance of sexism and endorsement of sexism by the media, government and some groups.

12. Double standards for sexual crimes, such as statutory rape and rape, with female perpetrators not being assigned the same level of punishment as males and often being "given a pass" for such crimes even when the perpetrator is in a position of authority, such as a school teacher.

13. Responsibility but no rights for males in sexual matters.

14. Assumption of guilt without evidence in matters of accusation of males of rape or sexual harassment.

15. Ignoring of sexual harassment and rape of males.

And so on.

That is what are called "civil rights" in the 21st Century in a nutshell.

Slightly different from what people were fighting for in the 1960s? The 1950s? 1940s? 1930s? And before?

They wanted EQUALITY back then!!"

When the Economy Finally Crashes, How Many Will be "Shocked"?

Nov 8, 2013

What is it that both parties ignore just how bad the economy is?

We have half that people working that we had in 2008.

About 60% of Americans can't find work.

Neither party wants to own up to that.

At some point the debt load will simply be too much and the economy will collapse. It's likely that Japan's crushing debt will cause them to be the first economy to crash and ours will follow.

And then the rest of the world.

Why are the politicians playing games with this?

The Senate can't be bothered with the economy— they are too busy pushing immorality on others.

The House can't be bothered, because they are too busy trying to get anything past Harry Reid.

And so our economy will collapse.

The culmination of 20 years of Free Trade and other "something for nothing" ideas that became law and business practice.

The culmination of 50 years of immorality pushed by what was once the counterculture.

How many, when they find out everything is down, will wonder "what happened?"

Isn't that what happened to Germany after it voted for Hitler? Twice? And then couldn't understand why WWII happened?

What is it with fools that they won't get their heads out and see what's happening?

The Republicans Just Proved that the Party Has to Campaign

Virginia's gubernatorial election is like something from the past.

When I worked in California, Davis was so unpopular that the Republicans figured “anyone could win against Davis.”

And so the Republicans spent almost no money at all, just like they did in Virginia.

Davis won.

I can’t even remember the name of the republican candidate. His name was never advertised that I know of. Few even knew who he was.

You have to campaign!

That takes money.

Dole didn’t campaign until the last 3 weeks.

Too late.

Having Ross Perot's third party siphon off 18% and 9%, respectively, didn't help Dole.

As has become usual, the Libertarians threw the election in Virginia, getting between 6% and 7% of the vote.

A sense of honor they do not have.

That, or they are deliberately helping the Democrats.

A mass protest by mail should be done against the Libertarians every time they get involved. Write their donors and ask them not to donate. We've had one bad official after another, thanks to the Libertarians spoiling elections.

If it had only happened once or twice, it might be forgivable, but the Libertarians apparently see their mission to keep Republicans out of office. Or they would be honorable and drop out of races when they have less than ten percent of the vote.

Unrealistic Shipping Charges


I frequently ship things for myself or for others. I have a decent idea of what it costs to ship small items.

So, why do so many outfits charge $10, $15, or even more for items that cost $10 or $20 dollars and don't weigh much?

Particularly when the actual cost may be $5.

It's trying to add profit on the sly.

Guess what? Very few are going to buy a $5 item if the company claims it costs $15 to ship it.

Some outfits insist on priority shipping for items where it doesn't matter if it takes a week to get it. And then tack on several dollars of profit onto it.

If the shipping charge is more than an item, people generally won't buy it. They will get the same thing elsewhere.

Nor is there any real need to charge that much. It's simply profiteering.

Yet another business practice that someone dreams up to try to pad profits.

REALITY CHECK: We are in a worldwide DEPRESSION. It's not a recession, it's not a dip in the road. It's a crater. We have around 60% of the public out of work from free trade, ridiculous regulations, ridiculous taxes, and idiotic business practices.

One would think that during a worldwide Depression that companies would be trying to make things less expensive, not trying to charge as much as possible.

Some try it and are smart enough to notice the drop in sales: one of the large computer parts outfits briefly tried to charge an added ~50% of the cost of items. That practice didn't last long because their customers went elsewhere. I'm glad they changed it. A lot of companies are not smart enough to realize that by arbitrarily increasing the price of a product means that they lose money when customers go elsewhere.

If you want to sell something, you don't double the price with shipping. If it costs $2 to ship a small item in a heavy envelope, you don't charge $10.

Supply and Demand. Something that doesn't seem to be taught anymore.

When Phones Act Up


It can be a bit of a problem when your phone lines are Mercury missions vintage.

Maybe it's because I work in a room that used to run the Bend public schools when Reid was in charge...

At any rate, this weekend was a doozy.

Starting saturday morning it was the usual "Rachel from Credit Card services" and other scams. In the early afternoon, though, it became phone calls every few seconds, but not even a dial tone when I pushed talk. Dead air. The phone would ring every few minutes and even once rang the moment I hit disconnect.

I got tired of it and decide to let the answering machine take the calls. Didn't work: there was no signal to disconnect and after a few seconds of dead air, it would go to "we're sorry, your call can't be completed as dialed" and then go into the beep-beep signal of a phone off the hook. Finally disconnected it so I could get some work done on the greenhouse and not constantly have to answer blank air calls or have the answering machine act like the phone was off the hook. When I reconnected it some hours later, it didn't start up again until Sunday.

Sunday. Dead air calls. Didn't disconnect it, but I ended up keeping the phone next to my computer so I could answer it. Wasn't as bad as Saturday, but it really got old after a time.

Monday, no crank or telemarketer or dead air calls. Weird stuff going on with the phone system...

Stupidly Greedy Grocers


In the last five years, some trends have appeared in food and they reflect the dishonesty of so many of the Boomer generation.

They are being stupidly greedy.

Stupid greed is where you hurt yourself trying to get that extra bit of profit. Or even put yourself out of business by making the customers angry.

Some of the dishonest practices I've seen:

—Meat is loaded up with water or gristle to increase the weight and thus profits.

—Flavorings removed from foods to increase profits.

—"Improving" foods by skimping on something or changing a basic ingredient to a cheaper one.

—"Going to China" or India and trying to sell foods of lesser quality as if they were still the same quality as the former American ones.

—Trying to sell rotten fruit at the same price as fresh or ripe.

—Calling rotten fruit or fruit so green that it could be used in sports as "tree-ripened" or "sugar-sweet".

—A good piece of meat in a package covers a bunch of material that an honest outfit would have collected and ground, making it into hamburger or hot dogs.

—Bread and other baked goods being left slightly uncooked and thus wet, to increase the weight, and to cause them to mold faster.

All of these practices result in reduced sales, customers switching brands, or even businesses going out of business.

What is it about these idiots running these companies that they don't get this basic principle: "if you make your customers angry, they will go elsewhere"?

What is it about these idiots running these companies that they don't get this basic principle:"no customers, no money"?

What is it about these idiots running these companies that they think that the customer will continue to buy a product when it goes to crap?

I Miss Real Cars


When I was in high school, older cars to us were 1960s and 1970s GTOs, Tempests, Novas, etc.

The car I had in high school and until the mid 1990s was a 1969 Tempest.

Power for the ridiculously short passing lanes we had in Oregon back then.

The lawn mowers of today just are not the same. Being able to go from 60 to 90 in five seconds to pass was very useful, particularly back then when RVs usually drove 45 and had 20 or 30 cars behind them.

Aphorisms from the Shower


Hell hath no fury like a woman who is told that what she loves to do is immoral.

Never apologize for telling the truth. (But you may well have to apologize for the way it's delivered.)

In issues of right and wrong, stand your ground. In issues of no moral importance, compromise.

Whining for the Moon


Yesterday, once again, I heard an analyst say that employers are not seeing qualified people.

I'm sick of hearing that because it's a lie.

It's a lie just like "illegals are doing the jobs Americans won't do."

It's a lie just like "kids are lazy."

Or perhaps it's true in the sense that employers are not actually looking for qualified people. In that sense, yes employers are not seeing qualified people. There's no one so blind as the person who refuses to see.

Today's worker is better prepared than any in history.

Today's worker has higher productivity than at any time in history.

Most scientists and engineering graduates since 1992 can't find work. These people tend to be massively qualified. But no one will hire them.

How many other technical and specialty trained people can't find work?

What employers are saying is "I want something for nothing."

What employers are saying is "I want a human machine that can work without pay or any costs."

To hell with that entitlement attitude. It stinks.

It's what wiped out most American business. It's the desire to get something from someone else without paying for it. That's what Free Trade, hiring illegals, downsizing to "improve the bottom line", and so many other bad doctrines that got started in the 1990s are all about. Something for nothing.

That is business today.

That desire for "something for nothing" in business leadership and governments has trashed the economy.

I'm sick of the entitlement mindset of employers and governments. It leads to stupid decisions that bankrupt companies.

It leads to lies about other people. Never mind that there are three fingers on their own hand pointing back when such dishonest people point at others.

"5 Go to now, ye rich, weep, howling over your miseries that [are] coming upon [you].

2 Your wealth is become rotten, and your garments moth-eaten.

3 Your gold and silver is eaten away, and their canker shall be for a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye have heaped up treasure in [the] last days.

4 Behold, the wages of your labourers, who have harvested your fields, wrongfully kept back by you, cry, and the cries of those that have reaped are entered into the ears of [the] Lord of sabaoth.

5 Ye have lived luxuriously on the earth and indulged yourselves; ye have nourished your hearts [as] in a day of slaughter;

6 ye have condemned, ye have killed the just; he does not resist you." James 5:1-6 DBY

Blacklisting by the Dishonest

Today I got this message, from a server in a country I've never sent an email to:

"WP-BlackCheck Blacklist

The host is Blacklisted.

It appears that your host with the IP is blacklisted as it was caught posting spam onvarious blogs using this blacklisting service.

Reason given: Spam postings on various blogs

Latest activity: 2013-10-22 11:46:11

If you feel like your host should not be listed, you can request removal by clicking this link.


What it amounts to is that I step on MANY toes by telling it like it is.

And so our good liberals out there try to get one blacklisted. After all, the truth just won't do.

It's an easy tactic for them to use, but it's dishonest.

Such is the nature of censorship.

And so, I rebuke every one who did that, in Jesus' Name.

Which is More Extreme?

October 16, 2013

Which is more extreme?

A party that operates on Nazi and Communist policies— or a party wanting a strict adherence to the Constitution and the Rule of Law?

A party whose women will only vote for those that want child murder through abortion— or a party that values life?

A party that uses the military like a toy— or a party that respects the military?

A party whose members mosly live for power, money, and sex— or a party whose members are concerned for others?

A party that advocates failed religions from Socialism to Islam— or a party that advocates Christianity, which commands "love thy neighbor"?

A party that treats people like cogs in the machine— or a party that believes in the individual?

A party that breaks the law consistently, seeing it as a weapon to use against others— or a party that believes in the Rule of Law?

A party that claims to love the environment but has burned down forests through their actions— or a party that believes in conservation?

A party that tried to make pedophiles and multiple other sexual perversions and predations into minorities/protected classes with H.R. 1913 2009— or a party that believes in marriage and family?

A party that lies consistently— or a party whose members generally do not lie?

Which is more extreme?

Is There Any Way to Have PSAs that Have USEFUL Information?

October 15, 2013

After hearing yet another idiotic commercial on the radio about "buzzed driving", why are they wasting our airtime with this crap?

"Buzzed" has been around since the 1960s AT LEAST. EVERYONE KNOWS a "buzzed" person is drunk.

So, why the idiotic commercials? How about something most people don't know, such as the immense damage that pot does to the body and brain?

PSAs are truly getting stupid.

Take the commerical I just heard where two girls are supposedly "buzzed" and have an accident. It's clear from their speech and intonation that both are cold sober. Being drunk is not something a person can hide, just as being stoned is not something a person can hide.

It's like the similarly idiotic PSA on TV about pulling in front of a motorcycle— who just happens to be going several hundred miles per hour without headlights! Umm, how is it possible for a bike to go that fast? We're talking F-18 speed here. It HAS to be that fast, though, because it would not have "appeared" from nowhere in the commercial without going that fast. The PSA further had only minor impact on the car, supposedly the motorist's fault for looking, then starting to pull out, the bike appearing, then the bike literally smacking the car with a minor thump. Wouldn't happen: the impact in reality at that velocity would have destroyed the car and flipped it over multiple times. It would be like a large rocket hitting the car in terms of impact.

It underscores how dumb these PSAs are becoming.

Give us PSAs that have something USEFUL, please!

Civil Rights Governmental Entities Must be Retired

October 14, 2013

In the last five years, pretty much every state has told people they must do something wrong or face fines or imprisonment.

This is not civil rights.

Civil rights has become enablers of evil. It's the idea that some groups have rights and no one else has them. "Protected" groups are be able to harm others without consequence and to call it "civil rights".

Ignored are Supreme Court cases that do not allow such.

We have states like oregon breaking the law by requiring people to ignore their religion, despite what both the First Amendment states and what the Supreme Court has stated.

In Jesus' Name, I rebuke each and every civil rights governmental entity, in Jesus' Name.

Something Really Important

October 11, 2013

The Republicans realize something very important thing about Obamacare.

People are going to die from lack of medical treatment because of it.

It's quite understandable why they don't want it.

Big Business Has Become Thieves. Worse, Stupid Thieves.

October 10, 2013

When the Boomers took control of businesses in the U.S. most went under because of the "I want something for nothing" attitude of the Boomers.

Read this by the Apostle James:

"4 Behold, the wages of your labourers, who have harvested your fields, wrongfully kept back by you, cry, and the cries of those that have reaped are entered into the ears of [the] Lord of sabaoth." DBY James 5:4

That's part of a larger section about the foolishness of employers who want to steal from their workers.

The idea of something for nothing is what drove NAFTA, WTO, and the other Free Trade treaties. It was stealing from our workers.

Not surprisingly, those treaties bankrupted the nation. The greed of the Boomers drove most industry and commerce into the ground.

But the cry is "lower wages! lower wages!"


Not only is that stealing from the employee, but it's stupid for two reasons:

1. You get what you pay for.

The constant recalls for chinese goods and the constant food contamination and shoddy work done by the illegals should have made those greedy businesses using them rethink things.

2. When workers have high wages overall, that means much more demand for a product, including the product(s) of the company wanting lower wages.

In effect, big business shot themselves in the feet three different ways.

And like fools, they apparently won't be satisfied until they ALL have run themselves out of business.

Caring Burnout Among Americans

October 10, 2013

One thing I've learned over the years is that if a group is determined to hurt themselves, you have to let them.

You should not enable them in any way. And if that group hurts others, don't give them a pass from prosecution.

Enabling almost guarantees that someone will keep hurting themselves with an antisocial lifestyle.

We have several groups that hurt themselvses by their chosen lifestyles in this nation. Alcoholics, drug users, GenX women's combination of those plus promiscuity, those Indian tribes that choose to live a low level of life, the black "inner city" where black Americans choose to live in violence and drugs, homosexuals living in violence and extreme promiscuity, and so on.

These people hurt themselves and hurt others by their lifestyles.

Before the current wave of legalizations of pot, some ~100,000 a year were being slaughtered in Mexico to feed the appetite for pot. It's more now, given the surge in violence with the flood of money from legalization, but the statistics haven't caught up. The use of pot and thus other drugs is about the most destructive lifestyle anyone has come up with in this country. The body count in Mexico proves it.


Don't enable it.

For years people tried to help the people in these groups, but the bottom line is that if a person chooses to hurt themselves, you can't help them until they are ready to change. It's common for people who try to care for others in antisocial lifestyles to  get burned out by the revolving door— person in lifestyle gets hurt, the caring person helps, person in lifestyle gets hurt, the caring person helps, person in lifestyle gets hurt, the caring person helps, person in lifestyle gets hurt, the caring person helps, person in lifestyle gets hurt, the caring person helps... ad nauseum.


You can just be there to help when they choose to stop hurting themselves. It does the person in the antisocial lifestyle no favors to be a revolving door of enabling.

The problem today is that those who care, don't care in a practical way. Wrong actions in caring goes back to the 60s at least. By cleaning up the mess (I used to be one of the guys who was a shoulder to cry on for this or that woman who would just go out and hurt herself again) for someone who has no intention of stopping whatever antisocial lifestyle she's/he's chosen, then you enable that antisocial lifestyle. 

Get rid of welfare and the tens of thousands of programs and the black inner city would clean up. The morals in the inner city disappeared when the moms first chose to live the single lifestyle without husbands in the 1960s.

Get rid of the dole and the freebies for indian tribes and those on the reservations would return to working and the personal pride and satisfaction that gives.

Quit supporting homosexuals in the media and in colleges and in politics and many would not take up the lifestyle with its violence and it's treating of other people like objects to be used.

Get rid of welfare and the thousands of programs supporting single motherhood and the churches having daycare for single moms and GenX women would suddenly have to work and be responsible.

None of these lifestyles is possible when not enabled by the well-meaning. (Or in the case of the Democrats, bribing these groups for their votes by programs, grants, etc., but that has already been explored.)

When you enable something by supporting it, you get more of it.

Would most GenX women have chosen immorality as a lifestyle if drug use wasn't enabled, promiscuity wasn't enabled, and other behaviors enabled by the well-meaning? Even the shoulder to cry on so the woman can go back out and do the same foolish things is enabling.

People get burned out caring for the people who are determined to hurt themselves. (It's not like places like Portland or Chicago or NYC where people didn't care about others to start with.) These lifestyles couldn't keep going without those who try to help them.

Unfortunately, not only do people get burned out trying to help them, that help is enabling the lifestyles to continue.

Those who enable must stop enabling. When someone has hit the bottom, when they want to change, help them up then.

We Are Seeing Just How Mean and Petty the Democrats Truly Are

October 9, 2013

About 6% of the total monies leaving the Federal Government are in the budget. About half of that is the military's budget. As many news outlets have indicated, only some 17% of the Federal workforce is idled.

The petty evil we are seeing now has a long history. Back in 1992, the State of Oregon passed its own version of Prop 13 in order to limit the explosive rate of property taxes.

In return, despite their actual monies increasing, the Democrats went on frenzy to hurt the Oregon voters because they dared to reduce the rate of tax increase.

They dishonestly cut the state police from ~1000 to ~300. They cut college programs like the diesel power technology and medical technology degrees at Oregon Tech while leaving things like basket weaving and clay modeling alone at the artsy-fartsy colleges. A host of other programs the public benefited from were cut, despite no actual need to do so— Measure 5 didn't cut funds, it reduced how fast they grew annually.

But Oregon's Democrats hurt people because, like little kids, they didn't get as much candy as they wanted.

Obama, Harry Reid, and so many others are acting in exactly the same way.

They have been given almost everything they want except obamacare. They are adamant about wanting Eugenics in the form of the PPACA and HCERA.

Like a drug addict, nothing less than 100% of what they want will satisfy them. And yet it won't satisfy them because they will always be pushing some new (actually old) idea that harms the public.

So, how will history record the adamant "I gotta have it" of the president and Senate when Eugenics is one of the worst causes that humans have every pushed?

Hitler and Margaret Sanger were two early proponents of Eugenics.

Today it's Obama, Reid, And Pelosi.

The Democrat Party is pushing the same ideology that Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger, with some ~25 and ~50 millions dead, respectively.

Image what Jesus Christ thinks about that.

The Age of Hypocrisy

October 6, 2013

The Greek work hupacrita meant an actor or actress.

A hypocrite was someone just playing a role. Not someone who believes in a role.

A person who complains about lies, but they consistently lie themselves, is a hypocrite because they don't actually believe lies are wrong or they would not do so themselves.

A person who lies to themselves, but complains about lies, is similarly a hypocrite.

A person who complains about "hate", but in actuality is the one hating others, is a hypocrite.

A person who claims to be a Christian, but has never been born again is a hypocrite. Just an actor or actress.

A hypocrite is very much a liar. They claim something, but they are just acting.

In speaking to hypocrites of His time, Christ said, "44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." John 8:44-45 (KJV)

A murderer is someone who kills another person with no moral right to do so.

Hate is defined as someone wanting evil for another person to the point that they want that person harmed or even dead.

Today, those who hate others make the claim of "hate, hate". That is not just hypocritical by the hater who claims that others hate them, but it's murder.

"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." John 3:15 (KJV)

Hell is the destiny of people who do that. Literally. A person who hates is a murderer under God's standard.

Every black leader who speaks of "white privilege" is a murderer under that standard.

Every woman who speaks of "male privilege" is a murderer under that standard.

Every atheist who has a visceral reaction to seeing a church or hearing the name Jesus Christ is a murderer under that standard.

Every activlist group that deliberately slanders or libels Christians, Jews, conservatives, and any other group they hate is a murderer by that standard.

What about those that claim it's "hate" to speak against lifestyles that hurt both themselves and those around them?

Hate, murder, and lies, have been raised to an art form by the hypocrites in our society.

And what about political statistics? Are not those motivated by hatred?

In the 1990s, it went from 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 to 1 in women would be "raped". Despite the rate being cut in half in the last quarter century from better policework and minimum sentencing. What was happening? A feminist of the classic mold (strong women, not "victims") blew the whistle on that. Turned out that the feminists were lumping in women who jumped into bed and felt guilty later.

The real rate is typically around 1 in several hundred to more than a thousand, depending upon state.

Can you imagine explaining to Jesus Christ why you, as a feminist, tried to attack all men as a group by calling them all rapists?

Particularly when, in the 1980s and 1990s and most likely now, the most common rape was of women grabbing a drunk or stoned man at a party who couldn't legally consent.

Never seen a case prosecuted by a DA, have you? Imagine being a DA explaining to Jesus Christ why he/she didn't prosecute those responsible for the most common form of rape?

That's hate of men, isn't it?

How about some of the false statistics on domestic violence, that completely ignore that far more women hit their men than men hit their women? What about the police who traditionally have ignored situations where the mom gets out of control and attacks members of the family?

Anyone who has been in this society for any length of time would have a hard time not noticing that. From a slap to a punch or even worse, women consistently get a pass for violence in our culture. It's usually only if they "graduate" to a gun or a knife that the law notices. By that time, the violence may well have gone on for decades.

What about the usual situation of domestic violence where the woman hits a man for years at a time and he finally returns it? Then the system quits ignoring the problem, and in true communist fashion, reverses victim and victimizer by blaming him. But why was it ok for her to hit him for so long? And why was it ok for the DA to ignore the woman's violence, usually for years at a time, then suddenly claim he's an abuser when he finally returns it?


One wonders if that is that where some of these statistics come from?

And what about domestic violence because of drugs? During the 1980s and 1990s when pot was legal, it was common for druggies to fight each other—minor disagreements became violent or even murderous.

Can you imagine explaining to Jesus Christ why you, as a feminist, tried to attack all men as a group by calling them all wife-beaters? Or you, as a DA, not prosecuting someone who beats on the husband or kids or both for years, then she finally commits murder?

Hypocrisy needs to end in our culture.

The first step is humbling ourselves before God and saying "we've messed up."

While speaking of the Hebrews, the principle is the same for other nations, like Nineveh: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)

Stop Calling Religion "Science"

October 6, 2013

What do Evolution, radioisotopic dating, global warming, and several other "theories" have in common?

They are religions. All have been disproven, but their advocates keep pushing them like the facts support them.

Sounds religious to me.

Radioisotopic data has a fatal flaw that should have sent it to the ash heap. It assumes that none of an element's daughter products existed when the rock was crystallized. That introduces an error as great as billions of years. But that's "science" today.

Evolution assumes that chemicals required for life like chlorophyll A C55H72MgN4O5, somehow existed despite requiring life to make them to start with. But that's "science" today.

String theory assumes one dimensional, high mass objects exists. Despite the fact that if one appeared in our 4d universe, it would immediately become a singularity with its radius determined by its mass. That's "science" today.

The "90% missing matter" of 20 years ago has been found with more than 10x the number of stars in the galaxy as then. So why is "dark matter" still pushed? That's "science" today.

Temperature records and ice records don't support "global warming" unless they are creatively edited. That's "science" today.

I'm Tired of Pundits Thinking Everyone Has What They Have

Oct 4, 2013

Some years ago a well-off friend told me I shouldn't let a lack of money restrict what I do.

That attitude seems very common among radio pundits. It's like a blind spot.

Even among well-meaning people.

It seems pundits as a group today haven't taken the pieces and put an accurate picture together of what's happened to work in America. Because they are insulated from most of the cares of that most Americans have to deal with, I don't think they truly understand what the numbers mean to the ordinary person out there:

1. Few have had the opportunities the pundits have had. Most work quite hard, many have superior qualifications, but they have not had opportunities.

U.S. Grant could identify with that. His actions in the Mexican War were quickly forgotten and it wasn't until the Civil War that he was given a real opportunity to show what he could do. He had to put up with an immense number of unprincipled individuals all his life, some that held him back, and some that tried to mess him up when he did succeed.

2. Around 60% of the public is out of work. Almost triple the Great Depression. Some have been out of work for 4 years or even longer. This is in spite of some truly heroic efforts to find work.

3. The jobs available steadily went from mostly high-paying industrial and commercial jobs in 1992 to mostly mininimum wage jobs (or just above minimum wage) by 2009. Wages for everything from professional work on down have crashed.

4. Starting in 2009 the jobs disappeared. About half of the number of persons are employed in 2013 as in 2008.

5. Most professional jobs are now gone. Period. Engineers, scientists, you name it. Almost every sector of the economy is crashing slowly.

6. Part of the reason for #5 above is that most of the Federal Government is incompetent from deliberately hiring people without the required degrees and experience for their job slots, starting in 1993. Those who are well-qualified need not apply. And so most of the science and engineering jobs are closed to those who actually earned them.

One matter that keeps coming up is savings. I thought the Liberals were the ones that wanted things to magically be done— without an actual practical mechanism to do it? Someone making minimum wage or just above cannot save the "2 months" or year's cushion that the rich persons in broadcasting can. One, they simply don't have it. Two, if you are living hand to mouth, you can't do it. It's not a matter of living too highly as some seem to think. It's living the bare minimum and still having nothing left over.

There are practical limits on how low one's expenses can be. The largest single cost for most people is rent or mortgage. If the minimum rent of the region where you live is $800 a month for a studio apartment, then you can't simply cut that cost without living on the street.

Take this example from my past. At one point I made $30,000 a year for a job (that normally paid $50,000, but you take what you can get). Just barely at the bottom of the middle class despite four degrees and doing it right my entire life. (A more modern example are my ~300,000 word books. Grindstone city. I guess I still work hard...) I paid around 37% in taxes, just like I had when I was a kid starting his first job in the mid 1980s. What was left after taxes was doable in the small town I lived in. But I couldn't save anything, because I was getting eaten alive by medical bills and college debt. I did it all "right" (Just about killed myself to get my engineering degree. When I finally graduated and got a job, it was amazing how much free time I suddenly had when I worked only 40 hours a week instead of 14+ hours per day at college, work, and engineering homework. Then then engineering disappeared and I had to reinvent myself twice) I saved when I could over the years, I had low food bills from buying in bulk and cooking almost all of it myself, had very modest spending elsewhere, but there was no extra.

Imagine the average person, who used to work a full-time industrial, commercial, or professional job, who now is working for minimum wage because it's the best he/she can get. Doesn't matter what degrees he/she has, how many bachelors or masters or doctorates of science, there just are almost no jobs to be had. So, flipping burgers.

IF you can get even an entry-level job!

The late 70s under Carter don't even compare to how bad it is today. Why haven't the pundits noticed just how damned bad the economy truly is? It's like they are in a time warp from when things were good. When the ordinary hard work and planning ahead actually worked. They have been largely insulated from the bad economy and didn't notice that most of the economy disappeared since 1992, with a brief period of growth under Bush43 and a huge chunk lost under Obama. The economy is mostly disfunctional, despite the dishonest claims of "recovery" and so on. Most jobs that existed in 1992 are gone. Entire sectors of the economy are gone.


A "Let them eat cake" attitude toward work and finances does not do Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson, Jason Lewis, nor the rest of them any credit.

The country is in dire straits, but few want to admit that, much less try to stop the stupidity that's killing us.

The "I've got mine, hell with everyone else" is a liberal idea. Today it appears to be a problem of both left and right who are well off.

Republican pundits who have it good, who have had it good for many years, don't seem to see what the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis.

They are insulated.

Just like our President and Congress is insulated from what is going on.

Detroit is just the first city to collapse. You can't have a functional economy without producing manufactured items.

From National Wave of Foolishness:

"Republicans keep complaining about savings. How do you save if you have no wages to speak of? Don't many of the Republicans keep saying they want low wages, by constantly complaining about wages? Savings requires extra money that many don't achieve now because the wages have dropped so much. The average wage earner with a college degree today can't get a job in his/her field because of Affirmative Action and the lack of industrial and commercial jobs. This nonsense by the Republican old guard and six- and seven-figure- salary pundits of saying "just do it" without providing any actual means to do it— such as high wage jobs in industry rather than low wage jobs is total s--t— excuse me, but I'm absolutely SICK of the privileged telling those who've never had their advantages how easy it is.

It's supposed to "just happen" like magic. Sort of like the Liberals, isn't it?

The person who is living paycheck to paycheck, despite making all the right decisions and "doing it right," has a right to be offended by those who've never suffered like most of our current crop of Conservative pundits, who tell people of today to just go out and do it, when most of them started out in a time when there were always easy options like industrial jobs in most towns, low cost of housing compared to today, college was cheap compared to wages, etc. and so on. I've known those who just with a single part-time job were able to pay for an apartment and pay all the costs of going to college at the same time during the 1960s.

A privileged group, the Baby Boomers.

Does that sound anything like today?

Today it's take a year off, work, go to school, take a year off to work, etc. IF you can get a job.

Moving costs money, and while many people are willing to move, they need to have a real shot at a job where they end up or have one waiting for them. If they decide to go back to college and are white and male, chances are that they no longer get financial aid for college except loans, so whatever they pick must be a "sure thing" and as so many have found out, many of those highly scientific/technical jobs are now barred to those who are white and male.

The statement of "just find a job elsewhere" by Conservative pundits is like saying to the starving "let them eat cake." Most people do not have the resources available to allow them to do it. Jobs are no longer easily had, at least ones that pay above minimum wage, due to the flood of manufacturing jobs that have left the nation and their corollary jobs with them. Too, there is always an illegal willing to put up with living in his car because the conditions are worse in Mexico. Indeed, that is precisely how illegals became dominant in the farming and contracting fields where the employer tends to be less than honorable. "

The Democrats' Childish My Way or the Highway Has Finally Hit a Block

Oct 2, 2013

It's no secret that the Democrats in the House (2009-2011) and in the Senate (2009-) have a my way or the highway mindset, much like a 3 year old.

It finally has reached a point of "no more" with the House not allowing funding for Obamacare.

When most Democrats, Independents, and almost all Republicans don't want Obamacare, that little light should be going on in the Senate and Presidency that they are not likely to win this one with the usual tactics.

One Wonders How Long the UN's Muslim Bloc Will Tolerate "Climate Change"

Oct 1, 2013

The largest single bloc of the UN are the 70 or so Islamic nations. Many of them depend upon oil and most of them have at least some oil deposits. Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern republics of what used to be the Soviet Union, the Arab league, etc. One wonders how long they will put up with their main export being lied about by the UN.

"Obstruction of Justice" Must Go

September 25, 2013

The original idea of obstruction appears to be a good one. The idea that if someone obstructs justice then they must answer for an additional crime.

Trouble is, for about 20 years it's been used to try to justify some truly dishonest things by police departments.

How many have been charged with "obstruction" despite having no effect on an officer's actions? They just didn't like something someone did or they were using it as an excuse to avoid accountability.

It's only one incident, but a while back where a police officer in Portland apparently wasn't controlling his dog, the dog was apparently scaring off customers from a restaurant, and the officer apparenlty called it "obstruction" when a restaurant owner asked him to control his dog. It was the type of dishonorable conduct that both left and right have come to despise. It's required under the law to control your dog, and it was hardly appropriate or legal to accuse someone of obstruction for asking the officer to obey the law.

How many times have charges of obstruction when someone records an illegal arrest or illegal behavior by police made the news in just the last two years?

It's been used in some pretty ludicrous situations. The motivation was typically an officer wanting to avoid accountability for his/her actions.

Accountability is necessary for law enforcement, just as it is for the common person.

Making it effectively a crime for trying to impose accountability for law enforcement makes the obstruction law and similar laws instruments of evil. It doesn't matter whether such laws were useful before or not, the fact is they are being abused. Even though I would expect such incidents are rare, the very fact that they happen means the laws must be repealed to prevent their official misuse.

The Left Should Rediscover "Smart Evil"

September 22, 2013

For most of the 20th Century, the Left bought people's votes by doing what was in the public interest for large groups of people. Schools, bridges, ports, waterways, water systems, sewer systems, and so on. The motive of buying votes is wrong, but many useful things were created for the public.

Further, those Democrats in business often cared nothing for the worker or for the customer, but they were smart enough to at least try to treat workers decently and to produce something of good quality that the customer wanted to buy. They got what they wanted— a lot of money— by making it good for others, without actually caring about those others.

That's "smart evil."

The motives are wrong, but it still produces some good things for people.

That was completely forgotten in the 1990s. Stupid evil, that of "I want what I want when I want it and hell with everyone else", became the inherent idea of the Left. Most businesses forgot that without the customer, there's no income. Most officials aligned themselves with evil that does not build, but tears everything down.

An example of stupid evil is the Democrats trying to getting rid of all ways to generate power, from coal to nuclear, for evil reasons. It hurts the public for no logical reason. Another is eliminating much of the food that used to be exported to other nations via ethanol requirements, with the result that the price of food for the poorest in the world shot up. Another is breaking law after law by judges and officials. Another is eliminating sector after sector of the economy from infrastructure to industry, for no good reason. Another is bribing a "protected group" with government goodies in order to get their votes and making it hard on other groups.

Stupid evil destroys everything. And this is the evil that is typical of the Democrat, the drug user, and the criminal.

While we won't convince the Democrats to renounce personal evil and government evil, could they at least go back about 25 years to where they did the right things for the wrong motives?

It would be a marked improvement over now.

A Tactic for Dishonest Town or County Meetings

September 21, 2013

It's become common for towns and counties to break their state's laws by not allowing the public to ask questions. Or worse, illegal arrests by dishonest officials in such meetings.

One possible solution is, when an official breaks a law in such a fashion, have the entire audience stare at that individual for the remainder of the meeting.

It's harmless, but it sends a message: don't break the law.

What's Next? Women Spree Killers?

September 19, 2013

I’m expecting a number of GenX women spree killers in the news soon.

Why? The sexes took completely different paths and the sex that took the path of debauchery is now finally running up against reality.

It's a trial by fire and many just won't be up to it, having partied for 20-30 years.

In high school GenX women abandoned the church, abandoned marriage and family, and most have spent 20-30 years in the party scene. They don't know HOW to deal with life that isn't easy in terms of jobs, sex, booze, etc.

Contrast that with 80% of practicing Christians of GenX being male, who have been attacked for doing the right thing, but developed the strength to do the right thing, anyway.

Now the party is over. For the first time in 20 to 30 years, the women can’t afford the booze, can’t afford the pot, can’t afford the one night stands. They are truly sober for the first time in years. Losing everything will make them think about life for the first time since their teens.

They can’t just pop a pill or smoke a joint or drink a beer to deal with life's problems anymore.

What happens when a person is trained to be selfish, spends their adult years in debauchery, everything is “men’s fault”, and now life isn’t a party?

The aggression so many have shown recently in trying to grab the men that they rejected for 20-30 years is just the start. They will get more desperate in coming months and years.

Why? The question is: why would someone marry them? Most GenX men were responsible from the teens on, and the STDs, selfishness, hellion kids, and complete lack of responsibility these women offer just don’t interest them. Over the last 20-30 years most had to plug into their churches and communities because of no one for them to marry. It wasn't good for them to not have mates, but they adjusted to single living because they had to.

But what if you are a woman used to “having it all” easy, from jobs to sex? Your support systems— diversions from reality— of parties, drugs, booze, sex, and unearned jobs are now gone.

No real social connections, no real family, nothing. No ability to cope because the time you were supposed to be maturing, you just used something to distract you to deal with it like booze, sex, etc. And now those things are gone.

That is the situation many will now be in.

Some of GenX’s women are going to lose it and lash out now that the party’s over.

Who is Controlling the Weather?

September 18, 2013

The 30 degree drop in the temperatures in two days' time on the west coast should bring up some questions. The Global Warming crowd in their arrogance assume that man can somehow control the weather.

OK, guys, how about bringing back summer so the crops don't freeze?

What do you mean you can't do it?

I thought you claimed that men could make it warmer or cooler?


The cold weather since late 2004 should have been a wake-up for the unscientific community about global warming.

Instead they try to pull a fast one and call it "climate change", as if they hadn't been screaming for years that the climate would get too warm.

It's very much like God said "Oh, you think you can change the weather? OK, go for it."

Maybe we should repent of our hubris? Confess that we've been arrogant in thinking we could affect the weather? Maybe we could ask God to fix the climate He changed? Ask God to warm it back up again so that we can have our crops in what used to be the normal seasons?

The Republican "Establishment" has to Decide Whom They Will Serve: Satan, or the American Public

September 16, 2013

We expect Democrats to advocate for those things that are harming this nation.

We don't expect that the Republicans keep having dalliances with the same ideas.

Why even have Republicans if they are going to vote for evil?

It's time for the RINOs like John McCain, David Brooks, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, and so many others to decide whom they will serve. Will they revert to serving the American public, or will they continue down the road of serving Satan by endorsing evil whenever it's convenient? Whenever it's "too much work" to do the right thing?

You can't serve both.

What is Evil?

September 16, 2013

Modern ideas aside, in simple terms, Evil is selfishness that harms people.

Evil harms both the perpetrator and the victim. Evil always has victims. When people do evil, it DOES affect them, not just those who they do evil against.

Lies hurt those lied to and those who lie.

What's the opposite? Good. The Bible talks frequently of love for others, called agape. Agape is the reason that a person goes to someplace they've never been before and they meet people's needs they've never met for Christ, food, water, etc.

Even simple courtesy like "you first" is agape.

Good in a nutshell is wanting what is best for others. Good is agape. Good is love.

Good often means getting a backbone and telling another person that what they are doing is hurting them and hurting others.

It's not "nice" to allow someone to fall because you rationalized with "none of my business."

The idea that it's somehow "hate" to love someone enough to want them not to hurt themselves and to want them not to hurt others is a moral evil by the person or group accusing others of "hate". What it amounts to is that they are attacking others to justify doing something that hurts themselves and that hurts others.

Those crying "hate" are hypocrites, claiming to love, but what they love hurts themselves and hurts others.

Agape is the opposite of the current Democrat ideas of Socialism. Agape is the opposite of Feminism. Agape is the opposite of sins of all sorts— fornication, stealing, adultery, lying, murder, and so on. They don't just affect the "other person", they affect the person doing them.

Evil hurts God. Literally in the case of Jesus Christ suffering for our sins on the cross. Think God likes how people over the millennia hurt themselves and others? He's not a killjoy. When He says don't do something, ultimately it's for the person's good.

But we never seem to learn that lesson.

"Don't lie" is a good example of something that God says not to do. How many wars have started over lies? How many marriages have broken up because of lies? How many people tell themselves lies that hurt themselves and hurt others? Man was tempted by Satan with lies— and fell.

Look at "Green" today. It's predicated upon lies. Ethanol starves people in third world countries, causes a massive increase in the amount of petroleum used in engines per mile, drives the prices of food up for everyone, wasting an incredible amount of resources. "Sustainable" means "let someone else do it" meaning that those who engage in it pile up debts until they can't pay them anymore. Global warming assumes that something found in nature in such massive amounts as to completely eclipse anything man can create and the laws dealing with it harm persons and their economies.

Lies hurt.

No evil happens in a vacuum. Evil hurts those who do it and those who are the victims of it.

No Human Has a Right to Expect to Not be "Uncomfortable"

September 15, 2013

There's no right to be comfortable.

Starting in the 1990s, because so many women had chosen evil for their life's paths, that they became "uncomfortable" when someone of good character spoke— or even existed.

It's assumed by many today that there is a "right" to do evil and further, a "right" to eliminate any accountability at all because it might make a person feel bad for doing what they know is wrong.

Shouldn't someone feel bad for telling a lie?

Shouldn't they feel bad for deliberately harming someone else?

Shouldn't someone feel bad for getting drunk, driving drunk, and then finding out they hurt someone?

Shouldn't someone feel bad for jumping into bed with a dozen of the local players that all the other girls slept with, thus squandering something really special for her future husband who now has to take "the leftovers", including the STDs?

Feeling bad is usually the first step in correcting a problem. If someone's evil is accepted, how does that help that person?

Keeping your yap shut in the face of someone's evil is doing them no favors because that evil is HURTING that person. And HURTING those around that person.

Evil always has victims.

Why do you think we call such things that harm people "evil" in the first place?

But today, if someone is made "uncomfortable" by accountability or even being near someone else' goodness, it's "hate".


Evil has no right whatsoever to complain. They've made the rules for 30 years in this country and it's a trainwreck now, from government to the family.

They had their way and created a cesspool.

Now it's time to tell the truth.

Even if it makes those enamored of evil "uncomfortable."

If anyone should feel bad, it's those who cry "hate" while hurting other people.

When Did Love For Others Become a Hate Crime?

Sep 15 2013

It wasn't many years ago that people in general actually cared about other people. When someone was doing something wrong, people were concerned about it because of what was going to result.

Think it was just to be killjoys that people didn't like to see girls get pregnant out of wedlock? Or stoned? Or drunk? People who've seen what happened (or experienced it themselves) didn't want to see others come to harm.

But that's not PC today. Now it's "hate" if you don't accept every antisocial, harmful fad that comes down the line.

It's twisted.

How Long Will People Put Up With "We Gonna Die" From Dishonest "Scientists"?

Sep 15 2013

How many times do we have to go down this road? Starting in the late 1800s, we've had groups of dishonest scientists/activists claiming "we gonna die" from one bit of crap after another.

And it never happens.

Global Warming is on the ropes after its start in the 1890s, but just because it's unscientific, doesn't keep the dishonest from pushing something related.

The most recent one I've heard of is "acidification", which assumes that CO2 will magically be created somehow (despite the carbon cycle) and acidify the oceans.

It's the usual crap.

How many of these damned things do we have to go through before we start working on real problems?

Let's go through some of the garbage of the last two centuries:

World's going to get poisoned by volcanoes. Didn't happen.

World's going to be overrrun by the "genetically-inferior". Didn't happen. (Although Eugenics is still alive in laws like PPACA and HCERA)

The west coast will fall into the sea from a series of earthquakes. Didn't happen.

World's going to blow itself up. Didn't happen.

Global ice age. Didn't happen.

Nuclear winter. Didn't happen.

We'll all die from pestilence. Didn't happen.

We'll all die from lack of water. Didn't happen.

We'll all die from lack of clean air. Didn't happen.

We'll all die from lack of food. Didn't happen.

We'll all die from chemicals. Didn't happen.

All the forests and plants will disappear from Earth. Didn't happen.

We'll run out of oil in 1970. OK, didn't happen, so 1975.

umm, 1980?

Definitely by 1990.

OK, 2000?


The ozone layer will be depleted and we'll burn. Didn't happen.

Millions of species will die off every year. Didn't happen.

And so on. One after another.

These things all have four things in common:

1. They are all based on horse shit. Science is almost completely ignored to push them.

2. They hurt people instead of help them.

3. Someone stands to gain financially from pushing them.

4. They distract from real problems that can be solved.

Some "activist" likes an idea and because it scares people and can control people, it gets pushed by other activists and then politicos.

Pretty quick people are being hurt.

How many species has the environmental movement harmed?

At some point, the lies must end. Science itself now has a bad name because of fallacies like no food, Global Warming, Global ice age, and the host of other crap "science" pushed for the last 200 years.

Why not require these activists to actually PROVE what they say when they try to scare people into doing something stupid? Rather than just assuming the latest scare is true and then finding out it was a lie all along?

Scientists have all but lost all credibility, thanks to the constant stream of "we gonna die" fads passing for science.

If We Can't Cheat, it's "Voter Suppression"?

Sep 11 2013

The recall in election in Colorado is being called voter suppression, quite frankly because the Democrats were not able to do the usual shenannigans. An organization took video of the polling places.

We can only guess at what was prevented by having cameras present.

The history of Democrat voter fraud, both recent and "traditional", makes that type of accountability needed all across the nation.

It's impossible to have a true representative government when elections are routinely tampered with.

Some of us haven't forgotten our own states' miserable histories of vote-tampering by the Democrats. Felons, Mexican Nationals illegally in the U.S., and other groups who can't legally vote have been instrumental in electing Democrats in Washington and other states.

In Oregon for several elections now, it's been common for the news to report a "lost" box of votes being "found" and vice versa. The voters stupidly put up with it. In 2012, how are we supposed to forget that Romney was declared the winner when the precincts had reported in, and less than 15 minutes later, Obama is 54%?

For three straight weeks after the 2012 election, it was one revelation of vote tampering after another, all over the nation. Voter turnout mysteriously doubling or more, hours after the last votes were counted. Voters magically all voting for Obama, with no votes for Romney. Etc.

What does the public think when Colorado Democrats essentially are whining that they were not allowed to cheat?

What does the public think when it's claimed to be "voter suppression" when Democrats can't cheat?

Why Environmentalism is a Failure

Sep 8 2013

With fires like that of Yosemite burning up national treasures like our public forests, since eco took over what used to be conservation since 1993, why has it failed? Why no species saved? Why are our forests burning up so spectacularly?

To be fair, the catastrophic fuel levels in many of our woods has more than one cause. First. fire suppression began in the 1920s. Carter signed the law that eliminated sustained yield, throwing open the public forests to rapid timber harvest, with most public lands west of the Mississippi being cut from 1976 to 1989. Forests grow back rapidly, though, so 20 to 30 years after being cut, the small trees tended to be crowded in with each other, with limbs, brush, and grass creating a "ladder of fuels" from the ground into the trees. Congress dropped the ball and didn't provide much money for forest maintenance and even went so far as to reduce personnel in conservation agencies like the Forest Service to the point of not being able to get much work done. Ecos started suing for most projects involving harvest of timber. Between the lack of funds for conservation and the dishonorable lawsuits, many of our public forests became fire traps.

So why do the ecos mess up nature so often, despite claiming to cherish it?

1. Most environmentalists have no practical knowlege of natural systems. You have a few with degrees in bio or conservation, but the typical enviro I grew up with and went to school with was a party degree person who was going to save the world. Most came from large cities and knew little or nothing about the nuts and bolts of ecosystems. Thus they've done a lot of stupid things like prevent forest maintenance.

2. Many in the environmental movement got in because of sex. Many women were taken in by environmentalism because of the parties, drugs and sex. Many guys joined up because there were women in the movement who lived to do drugs, party, and sleep around, while making this or that claim about nature. The eco movement traditionally has been largely about "getting laid." It was especially attractive to GenX men because most GenX women would not date a man who wasn't actively evil. I first heard the term "Earth Muffin" in the early 1990s, and it sounds cute until you realize what an earth muffin is. So, too, were many Earth Muffins. Cute, but full of s---.

3. Most environmentalists are drug users or former drug users. While the media and marijuana's addicts are trying very hard to get pot legal so they can get high, the drug still hurts people. The effects on the brain are predictable and I saw them in many of my generation's women. When someone is stoned, they don't think very well. The rationalization that people succumb to when using pot makes for some really bad decisions. Even when they go off the pot after using it for a year or two, they are not the same people. The damage is done. It's like wisdom goes out the window when someone uses pot. They don't seem to have much ability to see that if they do "A", then "B" will result.

4. Environmentalists typically are into alternate religions. Socialism is the primary religion of many ecos. Pseudo Buddhism, pseudo Hinduism, Wicca, and other religions are common in ecos. I say "pseudo" because most ecos who claimed to be Buddhist or Hindu typically only had a veneer of it. Wicca was popular amongst the eco women for the same reasons that it was popular in colleges: fun, parties, power, and sex.

5. Socialism is entrenched in the eco movement. One wonders if it was like so many other 1960s movements that had Soviet backing. It takes a truly stupid person to believe that Socialism helps the environment. China is the most recent example of pollution disaster, but it's not unusual. The East Bloc had no pollution controls on industry and power generation, with the results that massive areas were polluted with air pollution, water pollution, and food being polluted. In Czechoslovakia, carrots had to be screened for lead before being eaten by kids because of lead dusts from industry. Poland had it even worse. In the Arctic winters, a plume of smoke and other pollutants would run for 7000+ miles from European Russia and their satellites, all the way to Alaska.

It's a fact of life that richer countries usually start protecting their environment at some point, but poor nations usually can't. Socialism impoverishes a nation and takes away its ability to take care of its natural resources. It requires money to do the work needed.

6. Ecos tend to be very lazy. I personally have never met an eco that actually cleaned something up like a stream, or removed noxious weeds, or did the other common practical things that conservationists have traditionally done. One of the key differences between conservationists and ecos is that conservationists generally do the work themselves, doing practical things, while ecos party, protest, and file lawsuits.

It's Time to Get Serious About Viruses

Sep 1 2013

It used to be that most people would stay home when they got a cold. Viruses often lead to bacterial infections because the body is weakened. Then came the 1980s where people and even clinics and hospitals assumed that if someone got a bacterial infection from a virus or lack of cleanliness, it wouldn't matter. Just give them some antibiotics. And so most of the cultural and sanitary systems for preventing viruses in the 1970s were forgotten. People started going to church sick, sending their kids to school sick, sending their kids to church sick, going to work sick, going to social functions sick, and so on.

The idea in the back of peoples' and professionals' minds seems to be that since pneumonia and other bacterial ailments had mostly been beaten by the 1980s, it wouldn't matter.

By the 1990s, employers finally refigured out that they were losing a lot of valuable time when their entire crew got sick from a person who brought a bug in to work.

But most venues still have the 1980s mentality of just let it fly. Cough, sneeze, handle everything despite having a cold or flu.

And so we've seen an explosion of asthma, allergies, diabetes, and other problems where the immune system goes nuts.

It's also one of the major reasons that we have antibiotic resistance, along with millions of illegals bringing viral and bacterial ailments with them, and farms using antibiotics rather than cleanliness to keep their animals from getting sick.

When I was a kid, it was normal for gradeschool kids to have a cold about 1 time a term. Now it's "normal" for gradeschool kids to have a cold every month.

When my dad was a kid, it was normal for a cold or flu to make the rounds about once a month. Everyone would get it, get over it, and the body had time to get well between bugs.

Now we have kids in daycare exposed to all sorts of stuff on a daily basis. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the levels of problems from viruses has exploded. Parents think nothing of sending a kid to daycare sick, and if it's not caught by the staff, the bug spreads to everyone else.

And what about people with messed up immune systems? HIV is only one of the causes of immune system problems. There are a host of others. Asthma, lupus, and a host of other ailments are basically messed up immune systems. A cold or flu to a sick person can kill them or severely harm them. Indeed, it's been speculated since the 1960s that viruses cause most chronic diseases. Two of my family members developed asthma after having the flu, for example, and it's not uncommon for people to say I had a cold or a flu and then some chronic illness began with it. That is something that needs serious study.

Even something so simple as a questionnaire with questions like "Did something happen before you developed X disease? Did you have a cold, flu, or some other viral illness just prior to X disease's onset?" would be helpful if millions wrote back of their experiences.

Many parents and kids go to church sick, not having any regard for the mostly elderly who now make up most Bible-believing churches. That's not acting in love, is it?

When H1N1 first made the rounds, measures were taken to stop its spread. They worked so well that many in the public thought it was much ado about nothing.

It was a tremendous success because so relatively few got it. That is exactly the type of thing we need when dealing with ordinary colds and flus.

Why? Because when you have to fight cold after cold, your body can get really messed up in trying to fight it all off. One cold is often not a problem. But what about 3 or 4 at once? Or more?

Even an ordinary cold can result in pneumonia and other infections.

Why do Women Complain about "Players", When Women Created "Players"?

Aug 30 2013

After yet another whiny article about men, it seemed reasonable to give credit where credit is due. Originally comments, I modified the text below a bit for posting on this website:

Does it make any sense at all for women to whine about "players"?

Women reward such men by overwhelmingly choosing them as dates and temporary mates. In the second half of the 1980s and during the 1990s, about 10% of GenX men were "dating" about 80% of the GenX women. It came down to the women wanting "players", "jocks", "hollywood types" and so on. 80% of unmarried women voted for Clinton both times because he was a "bad boy."

Most men wanted marriage and family. Despite that, even today most genX women are still partying, even after 20-30 years. The result is a genetic bottleneck in Generation Y with most children born to a relatively small percent of men.

It's actually very easy for women to not date a "player". Don't be a party animal chasing the next drink, the next drug, the next bedpost. The explosion in STD rates for women should have been a wakeup call. (The relative lack of STDs in men should also be food for thought.) Don't chase the men that the other women are chasing. Don't look for endless fun. Look for someone serious about life.

It comes down to personal choices. Most women dismiss a man who is not a player without a second thought. They will make various shallow excuses like his hair is not perfect or he wears the "wrong" jeans. Many even go so far as to slander a person with "he's creepy" or "there's something wrong with him" because they don't like men of good character. The only thing creepy or wrong is in the mind of the woman who dismisses the man of good character.

The one I disliked the most was where women would return flowers because a would-be suitor was not of the 10%. No class.

I've seen guys finally get sick of female rejection, snap, and decide they are just going to bed women down. And the attitude of women toward them instantly changes. The women smile at them, date them, and so on. Suddenly the man was attractive to them, he's now a "bad boy", and women would make the usual excuses for jumping into bed with him. What does that say about how women choose their dates and mates?

Why do women overwhelmingly reward "bad boys"? Because most women want to do the things bad boys want to do.

That should give everyone pause when they think that through.

So, until a woman realizes what she is doing, she is forever going be dating "players".

Ultimately, all blame rests with women. Most women my age would turn down hundreds of good men for a movie or dinner but would jump in bed with a "player" the first date. If women didn't reward these men, there wouldn't be "players", would there?

Women before the Boomers didn't tolerate the attitude of players. They didn't reward them. Thus men tended to not be players.

Women created "players". For them to create a class of men— then to complain about it— is not rational.


I'm certain that made a lot of women angry. But consider this: is it reasonable for them to be angry? I merely describe what I've observed women do for 30 years. Seems to me that any woman who gets angry at what they've done pointed out to them needs to repent. I don't for one minute buy the Democrat idea that it's somehow worse to point out a wrong than to do the wrong itself.

I note in passing that as one who was almost an athlete-class bicyclist for many years, it would have been easy to be a "player". Socialite type women would try to pick me up. Even a playboy playmate tried to pick me up once.

Instead I saved myself for marriage.

And because almost none of the women of my age group did, I felt pretty stupid by my late 20s.

Even today, women try to pick me up. I always wanted something more than to be a woman's dalliance of the moment.

It's ironic that I don't hate women after what they did (and still do) to my generation's men. Indeed, if I could, I'd see them all Saved by Christ.

I'm Tired of Democrats Treating the Military Like a Toy

Aug 28, 2013

Starting with Clinton, the military became a toy. Something to take attention from other things.

At the same time that the military was denuded to less than a third of its former 1991 strength.

It should be clear from disasters like Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam, and now Afghanistan and Iraq, that you can't "do it on the cheap" and treat the military like a toy. You don't "show the colors" or "act like a policeman" and expect anything good to come from it.

Why did I include Afghanistan and Iraq in that list? Because President Obama turned victories into defeats. We've lost both nations under Obama.

The one bright point is that Saddam won't be killing another 400,000. Unlike Bosnia where the accusation of genocide of civilians turned out to be false, Saddam, as shown by Assad's possession of Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons, actually did have NBCs after all, and Saddam won't be using them on Iran, the Kurds, and his own citizens.

Even more importantly, Saddam won't be arming terror groups with NBCs.

But thanks to the bumbling of our president, radical groups took Iraq and have been allowed to win in Afghanistan. The Taliban or a similar group will take over when we leave.

If you go to war, you get a Declaration of War from Congress and you blow the hell out of the enemy, holding nothing back. You destroy his ability to make war. When the dust clears, you occupy that enemy and force them to adopt the Rule of Law like we did in Europe and in Japan after WWII, and the Phillippines after vanquishing Spain.

Otherwise, it's a waste of time and lives.

And you lose the war.

If the Democrats really want us to be the "Gendarme of the World", then they have to do several things:

1. The U.S. must be worthy of it morally. That means the Democrats must stop supporting immorality in the thousands of ways they support it with the law.

2. The U.S. must rediscover morality. You can't be a cop and expect to lay down the law on those with better morals than yourself.

3. The UN must be ignored. The UN is one of the major forces for evil in the world today.

4. The military must be increased to WWII levels with 15 to 20 million servicemen.

5. The military must have political-correctness removed. The addition of women and gays to combat units has severely undermined our readiness for battle.

6. When something doesn't work in the military, you quit trying it. You go back to the WWII model of "get the job done" instead of the Korea/Vietnam/Bosnia/Afghanistan model of kowtowing to every shithead with an evil agenda.

7. When something does work in the military, you keep doing it.

8. The Democrats must adopt a very careful decision process of attacking ONLY where it's in the U.S. interest.

9. When something wrong happens by the military or the Democrats, admit it frankly and prevent it from happening again.

10. When someone makes a false complaint about actions of the military, you don't act like it's true.

11. The Democrats must adopt personal discipline and goodness, rather than just assuming they can do evil and expect others to be better than themselves.

12. The Democrats must adopt the Christian faith again. As has been shown, when non-Christians run a nation like ours, it's one disaster after another.

13. The Democrats must go to the old system of hiring and promotion based on merit. Having perhaps 3/4 of the civilian service incompetent is not sustainable in the long term. Without a competent government, any war is lost.

14. The Democrats must stop bribing special interest groups with programs, and adopt a view of doing things in the benefit of American citizens as a whole.

15. Decisions on military equipment based on how a given item or system or vehicle being manufactured will benefit a given congressman's/senator's district must end.

16. Decisions must be forward-looking to probable outcomes.

17. The opinions of other nations who care nothing for our well-being should be ignored when they conflict with our national interest.

Only then will the military be able to do what the Democrats want it to do.

Hate is Not Political

Aug 24, 2013

The idea of "hate crimes" is a moral evil.

It's made worse by the fact that in almost every case, the person who is accusing another of "hate speech" is the hater in the situation.

Hate is not disagreeing with someone's love of violence.

Hate is not disagreeing with someone's love of immoral sex.

Hate is not wanting to keep people from harming themselves with drugs, STDs, or violence.

What is hate?

Hate is wanting to hurt someone or kill them because they EXIST. The colloquial phrase "hate someone's guts" is accurate.

Hate is the emotion we see in just about every person or group that accuses others of "hate speech."

For that reason, the moral iniquity of "hate crimes" legislation and political correctness must be ended.

As a people, we cannot enshrine hate by groups that hate others and by no means should we allow the false accusation of "hate speech" by those who hate others.

At its core, hate crimes legislation means a person who hates another group is now immune to the consequences of their own actions when they hurt other people. Hate crimes legislation is a cynical attempt to make a victimizer the victim.

It's unjust.

The very fact that hate crimes are routinely committed by some groups but they are never accused of it should end such moral evil as "hate crimes".

It's protecting those who harm others by our governments and media. If that isn't moral evil, I do not know what is.

Stupid Tech Fads

August 23, 2013

Ever get tired of fads?

I've been having trouble with emails because suddenly everyone wants a mobile number that has text capability. Like most people, I don't text. I'm not going to pay for text capability just to use email.

Kinda stupid?

What is it with these outfits that think that everyone has all the latest gagetry?

Consider that roughly 50% of the nation has computers in their homes. And of internet last year, ~80% were on dialup.

That means that the infrastructure for a lot of this stuff is simply not in place for most of the public.

Take photos. The geniuses in Oregon all seem to have gone to the crappiest film processor. Prints that are discolored and out of focus are not uncommon.

The department stores seem to think that everyone no longer uses film.

Again, if only half of the public has a computer, that's a really good bet they don't have a digital camera either.

What about the half still using film? That's a lot of potential customers.

Anybody out there stop to consider that before they make film processing a think of the past?

I use 35mm because 1. The two digital cameras I purchased (and returned) would not focus clearly in any light condition despite their cost, and 2. I've yet to see a 150 megapixel digital camera. I routinely scan at 10,000 dpi and 135mm film negatives are ~1.5" x ~1"

But instead of remembering that half the public is still using film, the powers that be are insistent upon making everything digital, despite half the public not being able to use it.

Seems to me someone is losing money somewhere on film services.

Suggested Generation Names

August 22, 2013

A scheme frequently used for generations is by the date the persons were born in, such as:

1946-1964 Baby Boomers

1965-1983 Generation X

1984-2002 Generation Y

2003-2021 Generation Z

I propose that we rename these groups based on their characteristics.

1946-1964 Nation Destroyers

1965-1983 Schism

1984-2002 Industry

Nation Destroyers: the Boomers have destroyed the culture, destroyed marriage for generation X, taught the women of GenX the ideology that has ruined them, destroyed the U.S. industrial base, destroyed the economy, destroyed opportunity for citizens, started the destruction of Christianity in the U.S., and will end up breaking the nation apart into at least two nations. Those that didn't take an active part in the destruction (probably the majority of Boomers) allowed it by doing nothing.

Schism: There were massive differences between men and women of GenX:

1. Sexual behavior. Most GenX women ended up with few or no sexual morals, sleeping with multiple partners, but only within a small pool (about 10%) of the men they all found attractive. This was the result of what they were taught by Feminist teachers and community leaders.

Most GenX men were the opposite, wanting to marry.

2. Religion. Approximately 80% of practicing Christians in this age group are male. The women were the group that abandoned the church in droves so they could party and sleep around. This was the result of what the women were taught by Feminists.

3. Treatment under the law. Women were (and are) typically given a pass for violence, for preying upon students, and various antisocial attitudes. The single worst treatment under the law was for women to be constantly seen as rape victims (with false claims like 1 in 2), while the most common form of rape in the 1990s and 2000s was for women to take advantage of men who were drunk or stoned. I've never once seen that be prosecuted, to our DA's shame.

4. View of life. Life was (and mostly is) an endless series of parties, drugs, lovers, and booze to most GenX women. This was the result of Feminist doctrines taught in school. Most GenX men wanted more out of life, wanting to marry, have kids, and a decent job.

5. Sanctity of life. Far more women of GenX believed that a woman had a "right" to murder her children via abortion than men. This is barbarism, but it was taught to them by the Feminists.

6. Privilege. GenX women had a far easier time getting into colleges, paying for college, getting jobs than non-minority men did, thanks to tens of thousands of programs. When I was at university, it was common for men to go to school a year, work a year, go to school a year, because they essentially had no financial aid. All financial aid was "targeted" to groups, rather than based on need. It was normal for women to be held to lesser standards in college and it the workplace. There was an unnoffial "women can do no wrong" throughout the culture, governments, businesses, and churches. Because it was so rare for any accountability for actions, most women saw nothing wrong with harming others.


This group tends to work hard, despite the stereotypes forced on them. It's very nice to see how many of this group married. The diametic opposite attitude that so much of Generation Industry has vs. their birth moms appears to be 1. Seeing how their moms chose to live, and 2. To be a result of being raised by their grandparents. It's ignored today just how many GenX moms were on drugs or booze or both and when they had their kids out of wedlock by the 10%, and they frequently were incapable of raising their kids. So the grandparents stepped in, en masse. Thank you grandparents, for saving Generation Industry! Thank you for interesting Generation Industry in Jesus Christ that their birth moms abandoned!

Quit Knocking the Kids, Boomers.

August 22, 2013

After hearing yet another Boomer wheeze about the younger folks, I have to say two things: 1. I'm sick of the generation that had it easier than any generation before or since complaining about other age groups. 2. It's really easy for someone who had it easy to denigrate others who didn't have their opportunities.

Both GenX and GenY (sometimes called the milennials) didn't have any of the advantages of the Boomers, such as high paying industrial work in practically every town, low college costs (or none in the case of California's tuition in the 1960s), relatively easy college programs (when I was at OIT, some professors wondered at how we kids could do so much compared to what they had to do to earn their degrees), low land costs, a functioning culture, the Rule of Law, or the relative lack of infectious diseases of all types.

The Boomers, when they took control, have succeeded in wiping out our industry, wiping out most business, and wiping out the moral and social fabric of the United States. They have destroyed the justice of our legal system.

Most of them are still fiddling while the economy crashes from their actions.

GenX was luckier than those that followed in that 1. They still had enough of an economy left that most could start their own businesses. (I really can't see most Boomers working 80 hour weeks like my generation had to.) But now, GenX and GenY are in the same boat. It all has been taken from them by the Boomers.

When Jesus Christ judges you for your acts at the White Throne Judgment, Boomers, consider that 1. You had it all, 2. You got it all easily compared to any other generation, and 3. You threw it all away because you wanted something for nothing.

Next time you villify GenX or GenY as "lazy", or for a "poor work ethic", or a host of other dishonest complaints, consider that the Lord is righteous, even if you are not, Boomers.

We Might as Well End Awards. Or Change the Way They are Given.

August 19, 2013

A recent bit on school leadership on the local radio turned my stomach and brought back memories. Unless it's changed a great deal, most awards in school were for those who did little or nothing to earn them.

Leadership is not to be confused with popularity. Popularity is usually the reason someone in school gets recognition, not for anything positive they've done. The number of guys or girls a student sleeps with should not be the underlying reason someone gets recognition. How much they party is a lousy reason for recognition. The ones who were popular in school in the 1980s and 1990s were normally the ones who got into drugs and crashed and burned.

Leadership is often doing the right thing when it's unpopular. By that standard, we don't see leadership actually rewarded in schools today or even 30 years ago.

Schools now reward evil and hate good. Leaders don't do well in that environment. The leaders are usually the ones that say "hell with that" when the school wants to push evil.

Just as in government and business, those who work hard and do their work well are usually not the ones who are awarded with promotions, raises, or the wall of shame. The flashy types normally get the awards while the worker bees are ignored. Despite the worker bees being the ones who hold things together and get everything done.

Maybe we should have a bit more perception by those giving out awards?

Giving them out for the wrong reasons sends the wrong messages, doesn't it?

Why the Hypocrisy?

August 19, 2013

Why did the EU and U.S. governments ignore when Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood was slaughtering people— even to the point of crucifying Christians on the Presidential Palace lawn— but now it's somehow different when the Muslim Brotherhood are killed when they are trying to kill others in "demonstrations"?

Now various governments are wheezing about human rights?

For Germany to support Morsi is very much like supporting Hitler— he hates Jews, Christians, and non-muslims. I NEVER thought I'd see Germany support someone as evil as Morsi in my lifetime.

Face it: the Egyptian military took over to stop the slaughter and restore the Rule of Law. When evil runs a democracy— such as is typical of muslim experiments in democracy— it does evil.

An obvious example of evil runnign a democracy is Hitler winning the Chancellorship in 1932.

The various governments that be must start paying more attention to whom they support. They supported Morsi despite what he was. They supported him even when voting irregularities got him into office. When he and his cronies started murdering his own people, they still supported him.

Open your eyes, fools.

Evil Needs No Motive

August 10, 2013

After hearing yet another RINO on the air claiming that the muslims are angry because of this or that that we did, consider this:

Evil needs no motive. It uses excuses, but it requires no actual motive.

Islam is motivated by 1. A traditional hatred of the west because of our Christian heritage, and

2. Envy. Envy because Islam does not build.

Turkey realized that under Attaturk. They built a western country, but only because they secularized and adopted some of Christianity's ideas for the Rule of Law, egalitarianism, and the Christian model of civil virtue.

Now many in Turkey have forgotten what it was like under the Sultanate and are pushing for a new Caliphate. Those cannot exist in a western nation. They must pick a representative democracy/republic or the moral evil of a caliphate/sultanate.

And that wanting the benefits of both and failing is one of the primary reasons to hate the west. That wanting to be a Muslim, but wanting the benefits of Christianity and Judaism that Islam makes impossible.

The excuse is often used that amount to claims of hating us because west returns the favor when Islam attacks, such as invading Iraq and Afghanistan. There are those imams and mullahs who use that childish excuse that amounts to "he hit me back", but it's not the true reason for Islamic hate.

Hate is enshrined in the Q'uran. Hate in the form of murder, maimings, and burning. Mohammed started more than two dozen wars. Those who follow Islam seriously desire to do what their prophet did.

Such hate uses excuses, but it needs none.

What is it With Retailers Having Poorly-designed Websites?

August 7, 2013

The idea of having a retail website is to sell things. Why don't retailers get that when they are not up front with prices, that it sends many potential customers away?

What brings it up is that I was looking for simple polycarbonate roof sheeting in standard sizes (for a relative) and almost every site had "call" for price.

For standard sizes.

If you are not going to have the prices, there's no point in advertising something on your site.

I'm not going to waste several minutes calling a company just to get a price when I can find another website where the prices are listed in a few seconds. All too often "call for price" means the price is higher than the competition or they want to talk you into buying something else. In the past when I got a catalog with no prices I just threw it away. The web is the same idea. The web ultimately is about moving information about. The web is often used for shopping around and if you can't get an up front answer, it tells the would be customer many things that the retailer doesn't want to be saying.

When a site plays games like wanting you to call for price on a standard stock item, go to another site.

Why is Firefox not taking its Crash Problem Seriously?

August 5, 2013

The newer versions of Firefox crash or lock up my machine without warning. I've tried doing what they recommend, even going so far as to remove everything firefox from the registry and program files and start clean. Still locks up and locks up the computer when it does.

The impression one gets from the computing forums is that no one is being taken seriously. The recommendations don't appear to work.

Sorry, Firefox. Your product has been really good, but unfortunately, I can't afford to have the computer lock up or freeze without warning when firefox stops responding. If it didn't crash windows, requiring the computer be restarted, it would at least be tolerable.

What's With Sports Leadership Today?

August 4, 2013

There needs to be a complete overhaul of the powers that be that govern athetics in this nation. It doesn't impress the public when unfair and arbitrary rulings are made.

Take Penn State. The kids were penalized for the actions of their college administration. They were not the ones who committed the crimes, but they are effectively penalized by having the games they won suddenly not counting and the honors thereof removed. Immoral in the extreme by the NCAA to harm those who were not by their actions to blame.

How many people in baseball now have been given the shaft for that which wasn't against the rules at the time, or someone was picked to be the scape goat for actions commonly done, often by both players and administration? Fairness doesn't even enter into it.

Making an example of someone is always unfair and it's immoral. Doesn't matter what the crime is, going outside of what is right is always wrong.

Why is it OK for some football players to say racist things, but not others? Hypocritical political correctness is immoral.

Why do basketball players frequently get out of accountability to the law? Drugs, fights, drunk driving, and so on?

See a few problems? Read the headlines about this or that sport;s administration being unfair, immoral, or both.

Something Less Serious Than Usual

July 31, 2013

Went up into the woods near Ikenick Snow Park. The usual place is becoming overgrown, but it still had a large number of red huckleberries (Vaccinium parvifolium) in spots. Not many blue huckleberries this year, but winter did last a month longer than average. Last year there were almost no blue huckleberries, apparently from the winter lasting 2 months longer than usual.* The blue huckleberries were small, but not tiny like the few last year. We brought back 9 cups—enough for two pies. One red huckleberry and one mixed red and blue. I made them after we came back. Hadn't made the red ones into a pie before. Tastes pretty good.

Learned something today. I had no idea that the red huckleberry hybridized with the blue huckleberry. Ran across a dozen or so bushes that had intermediate characteristics between the blue and the red. They had purple berries. The taste was good, but otherwise unremarkable. Not as sweet as the red nor sour as the blue.

(My favorite is the whortleberry or Vaccinium membranaceum, but I've never found a spot that had more than a few. The few I've eaten in the Mt. Hood area were very sweet.)

The few salmonberries didn't taste as good as they usual do and the berries looked strange, having only a fraction of the usual drupelets per berry. One wonders if they were partly frosted.

Toward the end of the afternoon, it became cloudy and there were many thunderclaps in the distance. It had been raining on the east side of the Cascades.

*For those not familiar with the west coast's weather, the Pacific High is a weather system that normally starts in May and runs to the second or third week of October. The high pressure system blocks the rain from the Pacific and that allows for a summer growing season in the Pacific Northwest. In 2013, the summer dry pattern started in June. In 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, it started in July. I've never seen black mold here on the desert but winter/spring 2012, there was some at the local shopping mall on an outside wall.

Conservatives Must Form a New Party

July 22, 2013

Those controlling the money that goes to the Republical party have created a system where there are few individuals with the courage to do the right thing.

The Party itself has made some truly stupid errors, such as not disputing their "losses" on Nov. 6 2012 when the numbers in state after state were so badly tampered with.

Alienating their base, who have no desire to be democrats/InterNational Socialists, is by far the most stupid thing they have done. It's like they've forgotten that there is a public that is divided into moral and immoral halves and the half that they used to represent was the moral half.

How many elections have to be lost before Republicans quit trying to act like Democrats? From Bob Dole's loss to the last few elections (except the 2012 election), it's been consistent: act like a Democrat and you are going to lose.

The Republican leadership is mostly acting like idiots. They ignore their constituents and reach out to people who won't vote for them, they ignore obvious lawbreaking in the last election, and so on.

A second problem with most "conservatives" is that they have insulated themselves from their constituents. It was refreshing that Romney actually had a physical address to send letters to.

Try contacting Sarah Palin's office. Good luck unless you are media or a rich donor. The same with most otehr Republicans except Romney. The same with talk show hosts. For example, I've tried to send books to conservative talk show hosts, but with no physical address, it can't be done. Nor will they even bother to answer if asked for one to send a book.

When I take the time to send a letter to my local Republican House of Representative member, Greg Walden, I don't even get a form letter in return. Not even when I mentioned in a letter that I'd been turned down for more than 1500 jobs because I was white and male, using my own experience to call out Obama's executive order that will make agencies essentially white-male-free.

Both the politicos and the radio pundits ignore their listeners and supporters and it's a foolish policy. What happens during those frequent times when something really important comes up, but they can't be contacted? They find out the story much later. It's happened frequently.

For example, when I wrote up an Op-Ed about the muslim brotherhood at the start of the Arab "Spring" it was ignored. WND would have been several months ahead of the curve if they'd published it. WND and other newspapers used to publish my Op-eds, then quit without notice. There was no logical reason for it, but it's part of the new censorship, and Republicans are leading the way.

Since republicans in office are now acting like Democrats, it really is time to start a new party, before next year's elections.

How About Some Consistent Standards for Light Sources?

July 21, 2013

They supposedly exist. There are even SI units for them. So why does an incandescent 100W 1600 lumen bulb put out so much more light than the claimed 1600 lumens of compact fluorescent or LED lighting?

Why are CFL's usually claimed for 5x the efficiency of an incandescent, when they are usually so much dimmer than the wattage they supposedly replace? Most CFLs in my experience put out something in the vicinity of 3 times, not 5 times their base wattage, a 13W CFL being the equivalent of a 40W incandescent bulb, a 17W CFL a 60W incandescent bulb. There have been exceptions, but not often. Lights of America had a warm CFL that really did seem to be the equivalent of the claimed 100W incandescent bulb, but I haven't seen that type of CFL in recent years.

Why are lumens often different from CFL to CFL? I've seen bulbs supposedly rated as the equivalent of given wattage incandescents in lumens be a fraction of the brightness of the incandescent. A lumen is supposed to be a lumen, whether it's an incandescent, a CFL, a tube, or an LED.

Hand held incandescents are not immune. Why was a 500,000 candlepower halogen light I bought in college like a car headlight in brightness, but a million candlepower halogen light a relative had only a fraction as bright?

Another fudge factor is color. Why is "full spectrum" that supposedly is the equivalent of the sun is mostly white with a slight blue cast? The mix of wavelengths in sunshine make for an overall color of bright yellow.

I normally use warm CFLs and kitchen-bath tubes because they are the most sunlike in color. Warm bulbs have great variation, though. Warm white is usually somewhat yellow-white. Some are yellower or even light orange. And some are very similar color— when you buy two bulbs that were markedly different claimed color temperatures on the box, but the color when lit is almost indistinguishable, there's a problem in the claimed color temperatures. Why is a bulb that photographers and screen monitors list as orange for color temperature so often yellow, not orange, when it's turned on?

I've been fooled by packages advertising "sunlight" bulbs that turned out to be very bright blue. Never bought them after that. If I want bluish light, I'll get a shoplight bulb.

Some standards for bulb/tube color, lumens, and wattage that are consistent would be wonderful. Photographers and computers have used standard colors for years. Given our equipment today, measuring the total brightness of a bulb, tube, LED, or group of LEDs should be simple to do.

So why the ridiculous amount of variation?

It's Time for Homeowners' Associations and Covenents to be Illegal

July 20, 2013

Can you think of a single positive example of a homeowner's association or a subdivision covenant?

A Truly Foolish Group

July 16, 2013

I don't pretend to understand the racists in our culture.

When Mr. Martin allegedly tried to murder Mr. Zimmerman and Zimmerman killed him instead, that was a clear case of self-defense.

Now we have mobs of black Americans attacking Mexicans.

Wake-up call time: there are more than twice as many illegals in the United States as black Americans. They are unlikely to tolerate black mob violence like white America has done.

It would be very wise for black leaders to get their followers to stop attacking mexicans before mexicans return the favor.

Because if this race war that is brewing between the two gets rolling, its not the mexicans that are going to lose. They survived under the most corrupt government in the western Hemisphere and they tend to be very tough individuals. They have no respect for the Rule of Law as a group, and this means that when attacked, they will retaliate.

Black America is doing a very foolish thing by provoking them.

When BSA Violated their Federal Charter, Why has No One Sued?

July 10, 2013

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916. " —36 USC § 30902

Important words.

I doubt very much if homosexuality fits that description.

So, why has no one sued? Why hasn't Congress pulled their charter, now that they have violated it?

When is the Lying About Mexican Nationals Going to Stop?

July 9, 2013

In 2008, the official number of illegal aliens from mexico was 30 million. Before the election it was mystically reduced to 12 million, despite there being that many in California at the time.

Then after the election, how many articles expressed "surprise" at how many "latinos" voted in the election?

I'm sick of the lies.

College students who worked in agriculture for their summer jobs were displaced. "The jobs Americans won't do" was the lie then. The kids did the work well, but most were honest and they wouldn't stand for being paid under the table or the other shennanigans so common in agriculture since the late 1990s. The Boomers running businesses and farms wanted something for nothing. Some went so far as to have Mexicans work for a summer, then would call the authorities to come pick them up. The Book of James has something to say about that:

"5 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.

3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter." —James 5:2-5 (KJV)

(If nothing else, it's plain stupidity to decrease wages across the board, because if the wages are reduced, then the greedy so-and-so's pushing for low wages get hit with reduced sales. Money doesn't come from a vacuum. Something for nothing never works.)

Then it was displacing the college students who worked in construction and in fighting forest fires and grassland fires. Once again, "the jobs Americans won't do" was claimed by dishonest stinkers in office.

Then it was food prep jobs, once again, usually done by college students. Same lie again. And the number of recalls has exploded. It's not safe to eat raw eggs in eggnog, rare steaks, and one has to wash produce in something like vinegar because of the possibility a food handler didn't bother to wash his/her hands. E coli, Salmonella, Listeria, you name it.

As an example of sloppiness around food, the state of Oregon lied through its teeth last year when they tried to claim that E coli contamination in strawberries was spread by "deer" and was not the result of contamination by workers. UV from sunlight would have tended to kill off bacteria in splashes of stuff on the surface from diarrhrea. It's not likely that pellets would affect the large berry plants, being at ground level, and also being in the sun. I'm truly starting to hate the lies.

Now, despite congressmen in recent years stating that we have 6 million over the border each year, the numbers are MAGICALLY back to 11 million. There's more in California alone.

We have at least a full third of the total Mexican population in the U.S. with at least 60 million.

When these "people" in office want to talk about the true numbers of Mexicans here, then a real debate can be had. As long as they are going to lie, then anything coming out of this is almost guaranteed to screw the American worker yet again.

At some point the lies MUST STOP.

Calling Evil Good Doesn't Change its Nature

July 5, 2013

It's been in vogue off and on to legalize or endorse things that are by their nature harmful.

The 1973-1997 "experiment" with pot decriminalization in Oregon was a disaster for GenX women and their kids.

And yet the same people who pushed it then, have apparently forgotten the drug wars in Portland that were slaughtering 850 to 1000+ people annually in the first half of the 1990s. Drug crime and violent crime exploded when pot was legalized in the state, and other drug addictions increased.

They are forgetting what happened when it was legal (a $100 never collected fine, which might as well be legal). The carnage, the crime, the road crashes, the kids born with defects, the neglected kids.

How many people started with pot and went from one drug to another and finally ended up in prison or dead?

How many kids had to learn how to use can openers and open food packages to survive at ages where most kids are trying to learn how to speak sentences because their stoned parents couldn't be bothered to feed them? (It didn't help that CSD and later DHS tried to keep kids with drug-addicted parents without trying to deal with the drug addiction that was hurting the kids.)

How many girls got stoned, then got addicted to sex? That sounds like a cliche, but what usually happened was that a girl would start using drugs in high school, she'd start experimenting, and by graduation of college, she couldn't remember how many she'd been with and wouldn't care if she did. Sex became a drug.

God help her kids in that situation because the State usually wouldn't. 

What is it about fools that they have to force the same things on us, again and again?

I'm guessing the powers that be that are pushing marijuana again have never had to deal with an addicted person. Or dealt with the results of addiction.

Ever Get Tired of Hypocrites?

June 30, 2013

What is a hypocrite? A hypocrite was an actor, someone who played a role in Greek theater.

It's not the person who believes in the role.

Ever get tired of people who are only playing a role, claiming that the person who believes in their role is a "hypocrite" because they are not perfect?

How many hypocrites claim to have "tried church" and because it wasn't "perfect", and the people in it weren't "perfect", they hypocritically assume that Christians are hypocrites.

How many hypocrites in the Democrat Party claim that because a person is not "perfect" that they are a hypocrite?

Seems to me that the accuser is the hypocrite: someone with few or no morals attacking someone else for having morals who is not "perfect". The Democrat is playing the role of a moralist, but has few or no morals.

It's an excuse. It does not excuse the person with few or no morals from doing the right thing.

The idea here is:

1. A person without morals can do whatever they want because those with morals are "imperfect" and can thus be called "hypocrites", rationalizing their own rotten heart.

2. If you just call someone a "hypocrite", they have to "prove" they are not, despite the accusation being a lie.

3. Attacking others somehow makes their rotten behavior and reprobate mind "OK".

Don't fall for that excrement. Make THEM prove their accusation. Use logic.

It's time to Create a New Party

June 27, 2013

For years, I was against creating a new party. Back when the Republicans did the right thing, had morals, and endured criticism, there wasn't any point.

But after seeing—

—The Republicans failures in the 2012 Primaries and Caucuses, weeding out the very best candidates in short order.

—Republicans calling a whistleblower a traitor.

—Republicans whining, but doing absolutely nothing of substance to clean up the massive lawbreaking of the Executive Branch under Obama.

—Republicans allowing the most extensive voter fraud in U.S. history to go unchallenged.

—Republicans abandoning moral principles.

—Republicans abandoning their base.

—Republicans doing exactly the opposite of what their voters wanted.

—Republicans acting like Democrats, devoid of morals or honor.

—Republicans now acting against American interests.

—Republicans pushing homosexuality in spite of what it does to people.

—Republicans pushing every wrong that they once were against.

—Republicans wanting to make 60+ million Mexicans legal, thus dooming the U.S.

— After seeing those things, I have to ask the question: what good are Republicans?

Roughly 35% of America is born-again Christians. Who represents us?

It's time for a new party. I suggest calling them the Christian Democrats. One that follows the New Testament as written. One that follows the Constitution as written. Not just a wishy-washy "I believe in God", but actual born again Christians.

Why the name Christian Democrats? Because it would be a party made of born-again Christians. And because we have an amazing number of fools who "have always voted democrat" despite the party leaving them decades ago. Give them an alternative to vote for.

Some Questions to Ponder in Spare Time

June 27, 2013

What happens to GenY in an epidemic, when about 10% of GenX men fathered most of them?

Instead of using lasers or other current methods for removing tattoos, could a match be made to the person's skin color and an opaque color implanted under the skin, over the tattoo, to cover it, like paint over an old coat of paint?

What would have happened if Isaac had followed God's Will as revealed in Genesis 25, specifically "the elder shall serve the younger." (KJV)? Instead Isaac apparently ignored that and favored his older son. Consider all the machinations required to bring about Jacob's being blessed when Isaac was not following what the Lord had indicated. What are the results of that today?

Why do so few of our Federal officials now consider right and wrong in their decisions?

Why have our Congress, Senate, and two of our presidents acted in direct opposite of American interests, starting with President Clinton?

Why no vaccine for hantevirus, given how so many rodents are carriers?

The Failure that is Feminism

June 25, 2013

Our culture needs to take a look at Feminism's record of failure.

The very fact that all it takes to get most of the female vote is to promise support for murder of unborn children and to be a "bad boy", says something and it's not good. At the time, for example, it was claimed that 80% of women voted for Clinton, despite what he allegedly did to women.

Despite the cliches and claims of wanting equality, the typical situation is to have to change the nature of a job to accomodate women and since most women have chosen not to get the same degrees or experience that was expected of men, this has meant many jobs were done poorly or not at all.

Was that really what equality was supposed to be?

Unearned "firsts" have been common. Does it really matter when someone is given a place she has not earned? When she was given preferrential treatment over dozens or hundreds of others because of her gender? Does such a "first" really mean anything?

Compare that to Josephus mentioning in passing about a "female physician" who in the Roman culture would have had to be really good at what she did.

For 20 years, all a person has to was be female and politically "reliable" in order to get senior jobs in government. Requirements for degrees and experience were waived, starting under Clinton. It would have been reasonable to try to get people who were qualified, and there are certainly women who were, but that wasn't the way it was done. We have a plethora of persons who literally have none of the basic qualifications for their jobs, because the idea was to get bodies into job slots. 

And not surprisingly, having gone from 51% women in 1992 who were well qualified to an absolute majority of women in government, most of whom do not meet their job's requirements, it's been a disaster. It's not uncommon now to have an entire office who has no one who knows how to do their jobs.

One of the key failures of the G.W.Bush Administration was not cleaning house. While he did hire well-qualified women and minorities, the typical person in government during the Bush years had been hired under Clinton and we are still having the fallout today. Employees with hands in the till, kickbacks, bribes, false accusations, etc.

Women CAN do it right. Indeed, the entire idea of affirmative action, i.e. give me what someone else earned because I "can't", should offend the h--- out of those who were given their jobs because of it.

Clara Barton worked very hard during the Civil War to help troops. She created something new after the war, the Red Cross. That is a first that means something. Before the organization went political, it helped innumerable numbers of people, all over the world.

Margaret Thatcher started from the grass roots and became Prime Minister. She earned what she had. That was a first that meant something.

Fanny Crosby wrote immense numbers of hymns and other songs, some of which are still with us today.

There's no reason women can't do well on their own merits.

The problem today is that most didn't have to, and thus chose not to.

When you as a person are not qualified for your job because you didn't have to be, even if it's the first time someone like you has held that post, is such a "first" of any value at all?

And what about the person who did it right, but has no job because you took their job via affirmative action?

Feminism is largely about taking what a person has not earned.


Besides theft, the legacy of feminism has been to turn women into barbarians. 50+ million kids have been killed. That is barbaric. Even the Nazis didn't do that to the extent American women have.

There is no one on the planet with the ability to rationalize evil like the American woman. And it makes sense: there has been no accountability expected of women from the 1990s on and more to the point, if a person has commissioned the murder of their child, what then? A person who has murdered or commissioned a murder has nowhere to go from a moral standpoint, having done the worst crime a person can do. What is lying, cheating, stealing, or other evils to such a person?

It shouldn't surprise us when a woman does some truly awful thing. When a person can rationalize murder, they can rationalize anything. 

There should be no surprise when I make a statement in a book that the only time I overheard two women my age speak with concern for another person's feelings, I was 25.

Selfishness is hardly a virtue. But that is largely what feminism is about. Me first, me only, hell with everyone else. Be your own "goddess" and use everyone around you, finally ending up with no family, no friends, and nothing but bitter emptiness.

Some Boomers are already there. Never had family. Just a series of flings. Just a series of parties, drugs, booze, and so on. It catches up to a person. And you wonder if they ever think about what got them to that condition.

Feminism wiped out what it was to be feminine. For two generations, women tried to be men, but not really, not wanting to do the same things that would be required of men, but still wanting what men had. Wanting it the easy way. And they did a truly lousy job of being men.

They wanted something for nothing.

That is now the dominant thinking after 20 years, in both governments and business.

Should it surprise anyone that tossing all responsibility, but wanting everything on the cheap, didn't work? The divorce rates, the drug addiction rates for women, the STD rates for women, the number of kids with no fathers, the increase in birth defects and childhood disease, and any number of other indicators are your true measure of what feminism did.

What will feminism's price really be, in a generation or two?

Cyclotronic Logic

June 24, 2013

Something lighter for a change.

You've heard of circular logic? How about "cyclotronic logic", wherein someone's argument goes in circles, picking up energy and speed as it goes?

Courtesy out the Window

June 24, 2013

I went in for a doc's appointment this morning. The clinic had decided to pave the parking lot, so including walking through the entire complex, it came to about a third of a mile. Normally, it wouldn't bother me a bit, but this last week I had a severe allergic reaction to something and it made it hard to breathe for days. So, on the course of the walk, I had to stop several times, something that as a runner, I normally don't have to do.

I ended up 9 minutes late for the appointment. (Getting a bunch of garbage phone calls from companies ignoring the "do not call" law contributed, but I would have been less than a minute or two late if I hadn't had to park so far away) Then it turns out the clinic had changed my time without telling me. Oooo. Lovely.

I filed out a complaint at the front desk. A phone call saying "we need to change the time" (or the date in one case, or rather two, as I would find out that afternoon), would have only been courteous.

I called to make an appointment to see the doctor I was supposed to see this morning. Turns out they'd also changed the July 15th appointment at 11:20 to 10:00 on the 23rd. So, a fourth time.

I can't help but wonder: what happens if someone is coming from an outlying area like Burns and they drive 130+ miles and find their appointment was changed?

When I make an appointment via phone, I read it back to the person to check for mistakes. It's saved a lot of grief when someone on the other end realizes they read off something wrong. When it's been a card with the time and date, it's pretty hard to argue with it.

I know I don't normally spout off this way, but courtesy has been taking a beating in recent years. When I used to write a senator or congressman, I'd normally get at least a form letter. Today, it's unknown if their staffs even get a letter.

As mentioned as a foreward to "Why Should Anyone Vote Republican" it's become normal for companies to just ignore contacts.

I quit applying for Federal jobs after almost 2000 times (out of 2150+ jobs applied for with various outfits over 8 years) because I'd normally apply, go through all the hoops, get to the last 3 to 5 candidates, and... nothing. I'd never hear from them again. If I asked through people I knew with the agency, invariably it turned out that I wasn't the race or gender they wanted to hire. And it was apparently OK with the agencies in question to just leave people hanging.

Courtesy. It's not dead, but it's sure on it's way out...

Stop Being Hypocritical About Republicans

June 20, 2013

After seeing several Republicans in the last few months be derailed by hypocrites looking to cry foul and start shooting, it's clear that the media and even many Republicans, expect the individual Republicans to be "perfect".

No person is perfect. When I vote, I want to know what the consistent pattern of behavior is.

I don't care about media-manufactured scandals. I don't care when a person does something completely out of character when there is a massive provocation that causes it.

The public shouldn't care either.

If you applied the same standards to Democrats that our media and public applies to Republicans, it's hard to think of a Democrat that would stand up under the scrutiny— they'd all be resigning in a day.

That's pretty damned hypocritical.

Oh, he/she cussed!  Ooooo! (Never mind that the accuser did something far worse, probably in the prior hour...)

It's pretty damned hypocritical to expect perfection.

No one is perfect.

Stop expecting perfection and maybe, just maybe, more people with morals would run, hmm?

As it is, the best people get turned off to politics because of the requirement to be "perfect" every day, every hour.

Heaven help you if you slip up, even once, not matter how little.

How many get angry after being attacked? And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked.

And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked. And attacked.

The person finally get mads and says something stupid? Consider what happened to cause it.

Because no one is perfect.

Especially imperfect is the media, the Democrats, and the Republicans whose standard for Republican conduct is "perfection".

That is hypocrisy.

Quite frankly, it's garbage.

Republicans Must Strategize to Win, Not to Not Lose

June 19, 2013

Republicans worry so much about losing that they don't win. That may not make a lot of sense until you think about that for a moment. Trying to "not lose" means you do a lot of stupid things because you have a defeatist mindset. Trying to win means you are planning to win. You do the things to win.

If you are trying to not lose, you:

—reach out to those who will never vote for you,

—dilute your message in the vain hope that you can bring more people in, and instead chase your base off,

—you drop your morals in order to try to mollify every voice that complains,

—you don't listen to the public, developing some really strange ideas of what they want,

—you lose

If you are trying to win, you:

—stick to your guns and do what is right, despite criticism,

—you develop a thick skin, ignoring the petty garbage,

—you pick battles you can win,

—you do what your base wants you to,

—when the other side breaks the law, you don't let it go. You get justice with the teeth of a tiger.

—you support your base, just as they support you,

—you keep a constant, simple message, and stay on target.

—you win.

A constant simple message of right and wrong is what is needed in the Republican Party.

Think that "woe is me, I don't wanna lose" excites the voters?

A Whistleblower is a "Traitor", Boehner?

June 11, 2013

The denouncing of whistleblower Snowden by Speaker Boehner as a "traitor" is reprehensible.

Snowden revealed the extent of NSA illegal surveillance.

Has it occurred to the Speaker that at least 3 Constitutional Amendments have been shattered to flinders by the NSA? The 4th, 5th, and 6th at a minimum.

Has it occurred that it's not a "national security matter" to cover up felonies and misdemeanors committed?

Has it occurred that surveillance of the public at large has not helped us stop the hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorist events that have happened since 911? From railroads sabotaged to shootings by muslims?

Has it occurred that doing the wrong thing, NEVER results in good things? Making a deal with the devil (stalin) in WWII extended the war, killed millions, and resulted in 40+ years of slavery.

Doing evil that good may result never works. It will be no different with the NSA.

Attacking someone who exposes wrongdoing is a moral evil.

My respect for the Speaker just took a nosedive.

The Mormon Model

June 9, 2013

The typical "interest group" from the 1960s on harms other people, then claims to be victims. Doesn't matter if it's a cult, a racist group, or a group wanting to bring Socialism. They attack others, then claim to be "victims."

What I call the Mormon Model, would be more effective, don't you think? Read about it.

The Mormons started as most cults do, harming others around them. While most Mormons don't know their churches actual history, in the early years of the Mormon church, they alienated those around them through theft, dishonest business dealings, polygamy, and so on.

But something happened. Unlike most racial groups in the U.S., unlike most cults, unlike the Socialists, someone in the Mormon Church set them on the road of respectibility. It was a deliberate choice to win people over by doing good to others. By being upstanding.

By the mid 1900s, Mormons were respectable people. They were the Eagle Scouts, the business leaders, the farmers who wouldn't lie. They were for family and honor.

I grew up with a lot of them and I wish most Christians acted that well toward each other.

But this had to have been a deliberate choice. You don't go from lying, cheating, and stealing, to respectable and honest without making a deliberate choice somewhere.

Unlike our Illegal Mexican Nationals, most of whom sponge off everyone else, unlike half of Black America, who stews in racial hatred toward others, blaming everyone for their own actions, unlike the Socialists who attack everyone else, this group apparently made the decision to do right by others.

And they were respected for it.

It's too bad that other groups haven't tried the "be good to others" route.

Where would black America be today, if they had made the decision to be good to others instead of hurting themselves and those around them? If they had chosen to value the family? If they had chosen education rather than activism? If they had chosen honest dealings rather than "the quick buck"? If they had chosen kindness over violence?

Where would they be today?

Think people would want to be like them, if they had chosen good for their life's pattern?

Where various other groups be, if they did the same?

You impress people by doing the right thing. You don't impress them by hating them. You don't impress them by attacking them for doing the right thing.

The fact is that people don't like being like these radical groups because of the awful way they act toward each other and toward others.

Look at how GenX women earned the contempt of the culture and the rest of the world. Think that people want to be single mothers by the same small group of fathers? Think people want to be poor, drug-addicted, childish? Think people want to be hateful and always attacking others who do good?

GenY is not following in their footsteps, put it that way.

What would have happened if GenX women as a group had chosen to be good people? Helping others instead of harming them? Sober instead of drunk or stoned? Dilligent workers instead of choosing to sponge of the system? Serving God instead of their appetites?

Think things might have been different?


June 9, 2013

What is it about the media on both sides of the Atlantic that they can't simply be honest about the hole the U.S. and E.U. economies are in?

Since 2009, it's been constant statements of "recovery" when we have roughly half of our workforce idled. The E.U. has had "crisis" after "crisis" in their monetary sector.

The bottom line is that first the E.U. and then the U.S. tried to "get something for nothing".

As a result, half the U.S. workforce is out of work.

Now, before you blame Obama for all of it— yes, he made it a LOT worse— consider that it took us from 1991 to get here.

It didn't happen overnight.

The 102nd Congress under Foley and Byrd put a tax increase over world stability. They were playing games that the changes in Central and Eastern Europe would continue. Taking a large amount of money from the economy had the usual effect of recessing it.

To put it in personal terms, in 1991, most of the students in the Civil Engineering Technology program at OIT had jobs waiting before they graduated. By 1992, when I graduated, I was one of the few that had an engineering job.

The 103rd Congress under O'neill and Byrd cut infrastructure spending almost entirely, from personnel to grants to the states and funnelled it to social programs to buy votes. At the same time, the Democrats constantly spoke of infrastructure, as if they still were funding it.

The problem is that these personnel, plus the rest of the 100,000 arbitrarily and capriciously cut, were performing real things for public benefit. Roads, bridges, dams, public lands, electrical interties, etc.

The Republicans of the 104th Congress didn't see fit to restore infrastructure.

So, now, everything in the public sector is coming apart. Basic things like water and electricity are now having problems because of the lack of maintenance for 20+ years.

Our public lands are now a disaster, thanks to cutting their personnel and the constant lawsuits by environmentalists.

Most of the expenditure in government now is payments to individuals to buy their votes. And that doesn't build anything, nor do the public at large any good.

Love him or hate him, Roosevelt started the trend of doing large projects that benefited the public. These things were very useful and allowed other things to be built by the private sector. How do you have commerce if your roads, your waterways, your ports, and other infrastructure don't function?

That's just for starters. The real job killer, just as predicted at the time, has been "free trade". You can't have a country with morals free trade with a nation that has none. The result is that you export your jobs and run a trade deficit. You lose the income from industry and end up trying to finance your country through debt. That is exactly what happened with the Clinton Administration, Bush Administration, and now the Obama Admininistration. With more than 3 trillion held by China, more than 3 trillion held by the E.U., we are reaching the limit of how much debt we can finance thing with.

We have to restore our industry. The country must have income.

It's clear that "free trade" doesn't work, that it's all but destroyed the U.S. economy, but how many fools today try to claim it's "good" for America? Or otherwise B.S. about the effects?

Having half your nation idled from lack of work is hardly "good".

Having to finance everything through debt is hardly "good".

Despite the ecos--thead "ideal" of "sustainability", i.e., you produce nothing and let someone else do it for you, you cannot get something for nothing.

California and Hawaii are a splendid examples of that. They import almost everything they need. And eventually both will collapse because of their lack of industry. There simply won't be enough money in the U.S. to prop them up any more.

You have to produce something that others want to buy.

As states like Oregon found out, tourism is no substitute for industry. Crap art is no substitute for real work. We can't all be "artists" who spend their days stoned or drunk, sponging off everyone else.

Environmentalism has produced nothing worth having, having wiped out a number of national treasures and wrecking the public lands. It's easy to be against everything. It's much harder to be for something.

Given what they've done to endangered and threatened species, why does anyone listen to them? How much has been lost in terms of human potential and natural resources, from listening to this lobby?

Given what's been done by Democrats since 1991, why does anyone vote for them? The answer is that half the nation is dishonest, and they choose people just like themselves to vote for.

It comes out in their talk. Blaming those who are not to blame. Taking no responsibility. Supporting those who are actively evil.

Consider how most women vote Democrat because the Democrats believe in sleeping around. The Republicans don't and thus most women won't vote for them because they want politicos who make them "comfortable" with sexual sin. There's no soft-pedaling that. They love it and because they love it, those politicians like Clinton who engaged in such things were "cute", "ohh, he's so eeeevil" and similar things heard on the street.

I miss the days when women were a civilizing influence in the culture, not its shredders.

The suffragists would be tearing their hair out to see what women vote for today.

Nor is it limited to women. The rage many Democrats feel is because their brand of dishonesty and socialism didn't work like they foolishly assumed it would. But instead of blaming themselves for evil decisions made, they still try to blame others. They couldn't have their endless party and still have a functioning country.

The Democrat mindset today is that of a child: nothing is ever their fault. It's always someone else to blame.

You can't fix a problem if you don't accept responsibility for your part in it.

At some point, the Democrats in this nation are going to have to rediscover personal honesty, hard work, and critical thinking. Just letting everyone else do their thinking for them while getting blasted on the weekends or being onstantly stoned has brought us to economic near-collapse and moral collapse.

The alternative is economic collapse. That rides upon the Democrats' shoulders as there simply are not enough of the rest of us left to maintain them. They must join the rest of us and accept personal responsibility for what they do.

Today, we have a large number of violent children running the nation. Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and most other major cities act like little kids, wanting everything, wanting an endless party, but producing nothing to pay for it. Wanting no responsibility.

And worse, those violent children attack everyone who produces what they want. Oil, gas, food, manufactured items. That selfish, brutal mindset must change or the U.S. will soon not be able to function at all.

Just the Facts, PLEASE. Hyperbole is Counterproductive.

June 7, 2013

Tonight, there was a broadcast on the local news and instead of giving us the facts on animals and kids left in cars, it was hyperbole. It was claimed that it was constant calls locally on animals and kids left in hot cars.

When was the last time that actually happened to where someone was harmed in the central Oregon area? I've never heard of such, despite living most of my life here.

Were I doing the news segment, I would have asked when the last such police call was and how many in a given week?

I don't remember the number, but the claimed internal temperature of a car seemed much more in line with what one would see in Riverside County or Pima County.

In a cold climate like Bend's, where a hot day is 80 degrees and it may well dip to freezing at night. What are we looking at? 110? 120 internally? Yes, it is fatal if someone or an animal is trapped inside, but it won't melt the car's internal plasticwork.

Why not simply give us the facts? Why not just say they don't want anyone hurt? That would be reasonable. Why not give an example of the last time it happened? Instead of saying it's constant?

Caution is a great thing.

Hyperbole is not.

The use of hyperbole is counterproductive. People tune out the warnings when our governments are not honest. Because hyperbole and it's opposite are both lies.

How many times have we had minor problems blown up by local governments in Oregon? Or the reverse?

Take the constant complaining last year about people not pulling over for emergency vehicles? I've driven for 27 years, many long distance journeys, and I've yet to ever see a car, bus, or other vehicle not respect a stopped emergency vehicle.


So why lie about it and claim its constant? Just say what the law is, remind people once in a while, then drop it. Lying about it just makes people more likely to ignore the next complaint.

When a problem in traffic is by ODOT or contract crews, why are the motorists usually blamed? I used to work in engineering. I saw and heard what crews would do. Person forgets where they are and steps into traffic. But it was always magically the blame of the motorist. (For those who were around then, in 1993, while with USACE, I wrote up a letter on proper signing that ODOT sent around. It was getting to the point where motorists didn't know if a sign was accurate or not. Freeway exits "closed" that were open, the reverse, signs directing traffic into the wrong spots, construction signs without construction, etc.)

If a problem in driving is by drug users or Mexican Nationals, then be honest about it. Give credit where credit is due. Don't claim it's "everyone" when it's not.

When it's an unusual bicyclist who obeys the traffic laws or is courteous to others on the road, then be honest about that. (I biked from 1982 to 2000 and I saw what was done and by whom. I was in the 1% or so that obeyed the traffic laws. I didn't run into the problems bikers ususally do, because of it.) It makes no sense to blame motorists for the actions of bicyclists. I would like to see bicyclists share the road with others. Indeed, one wonders why there is no program that does something for those few bicyclists who actually are courteous and obey the rules of the road. It seems that bicyclists need a reason to do the right thing and acknowledgeing when they do right by others would be a good start. At this point most of the attention is by bicyclists riding illegally and blaming motorists for what happens.

The "problem" of walkers not instantly being able to go across a crosswalk has been played up. And police  wasted time with "stings" that slowed down traffic for no point. (And since one preferred site for such was near the hospital, one wonders if anyone was harmed by the delay.) The most common problems I've seen are walkers who do such things as: instantly expecting 100 cars to stop for them; turning 90 degrees and expecting to be able to instantly go; or standing and gabbing at the edge of a crosswalk while traffic repeatedly stops for them.

Are any of those worthy of "stings"?

Are they worthy of complaints or hyperbole?

My least favorite lies, hyperbole, and the reverse, have been concerning the water system. Since the 1980s, it's been routinedly claimed that 1" or even 1/2" of water once or twice a week is enough for a lawn in Bend. Gardeners and lawn care professionals have laughed at that because it's the amount of water for wet climates and clayey soils. Not our dry climate with it's well-drained soils.

It was not OK to such false claims.

I wrote the state during the time the city was pumping hard water to northeast Bend, but claiming it was "soft". My main complaint was calling it soft when it was comparable to hard water in Vale, Oregon. I wrote in National Wave of Foolishness, volume 2:

       "They claimed it was "soft, " despite hard water during the summers of 2009, 2010 and 2011. During much of the year it was soft. But come summer, 2009 the quality markedly changed. Some days it was quite hard, depending upon whether one was getting water from the watershed or from the wells. It varied tremendously from day to day and "averages" don't begin to tell the story. One day the water was good. It was complete garbage the next day and after a day or two it was back again to good water, with no way to know what one would get on which day. Soap and detergents worked one day and not the next. Summer 2011 saw it become hard the entire summer.

"Soft water" does not form precipitates from dissolved cations in it binding to soaps and neither does the watershed's water, being quite pure. However, the water from the City's system in those summers left dissolved minerals behind on glasses— if you dribbled a little water in a glass, dumped it out and left a few drops on the surface to dry out, you would get "spots." That is quite hard, being comparable to some of the hardest water in the nation. The buildup from the hard water was not seen before about 2009 and the water was not noticeably hard to the touch until 2009. It was noteworthy that the City used "grains" to describe it's water hardness the last time I checked (Sept 2011). Despite having done such things as compiling water quality data using PPM, mg/l and similar scales, I actually had to look up how "grains" worked."

Seeing is believing. This was a white layer of minerals left when a 100ml container of tap water was dried:

Yummy, isn't it?

I'm very glad indeed that the water became soft again. Particularly difficult was when it varied by day in 2009 and 2010. One literally never knew how much soap/detergent to use because of the variability.

Being honest, telling it like it is, makes people respect a government. Doing hyperbole and it's reverse, causes people to tune it out.

And when people tune out a government, what happens when there is a REAL issue that needs to be addressed? Half the locals would figure it to be the usual hyperbole.

Funny How Everything is Fluid in a Democrat's Memory

June 6, 2013

We now actually have pundits with bad memories trying to claim that Bush did this or did that.

It's like the little kid who tries to mollify an adult by claiming eveyrone does something.

When they DON'T.

I wrote of the Democrat hypocrisy in wiretaps National Wave of Foolishness, page 359:


"Our culture, one that is now predominantly Liberal, is replete with double standards. It would take more than one book to list them all. Here are a tiny number of examples out of the Ceres-sized Liberal pile of hypocrisy:

When President Clinton allegedly used various government agencies to pursue illegal taps on phone calls of political enemies and also allegedly to find those who didn't agree with his policies and allegedly used the government to place cookies and other illegal software on ISPs and personal computers— this was apparently OK with people on the Left as they didn't complain about it.

The liberal media was fine with it— or they would have complained. However, when President G.W. Bush signed the Patriot Act— an Act that required a warrant to start tapping the phones of terror suspects— it was somehow horrible and awful to the Left that the government was tapping the phones of known terrorists in Iraq who were calling terror suspects in this country.

The media screamed, Democrats complained and the Democrat Congress fought it. The sheer volume of dishonest "complaints" I heard from liberals and read in the news services could fill lake basins with bad-smelling horse-derived plant food.

What is wrong with requiring a judge to issue a warrant before a wiretap?? It is in the 4th Amendment, isn't it? (It's like the Left took what Clinton was allegedly doing and transferred it to Bush.) Matthew 23:13-36 applies to the actions of Democrats of the last 20 years, doesn't it?

Hypocrisy. It's either OK to illegally wiretap/surveille or it's not. Party shouldn't enter into it, should it? The Constitution should be the law, should it not?"


Now, of course, we have a judge illegally issuing orders for MILLIIONS of customers' information. Not quite the same thing as a court order for a specific person calling a known terrorist in Iraq as the Bush wiretaps were?

It's not permitted by the Patriot Act, either. How do you get from a court order required for a wiretap for one person, to millions?  There's nothing in the Constitution to allow such an iniquity.

The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant. It's always been understood that a person or business entity can have a warrant written against them. Not the population at large.

But because it makes the Democrats feel better to try to claim everyone is a crook, as usual, they try to shift blame.

What Do the Attacks on our Embassies, IRS Misconduct, EPA Misconduct, and Voter Fraud in 2012 Have in Common?

May 18, 2013

In each case, no one has been held accountable.

20 attacks happened on our embassies and people are dead because of them. While Benghazi has had some media attention, none of the other 19 embassies have been mentioned other than they were attacked on the same day. There was a ridiculous coverup with trying to blame a filmmaker for the Benghazi attack, but what about the other 19? It's been one lie after another.

What does it say about the state of the Democrat Party that they feel comfortable in putting out one lie after another? What does it say about our media that they accept the lies? And what does it say about Democrat voters who defend the actions of the Democrat Party?

Nothing good.

The IRS was apparently ordered to persecute Tea Party and Christians. This is official misconduct of several types. Resignation is not enough: these are felonies and misdemeanors. It says something about the IRS that few seemed to have any qualm about breaking the law. The IRS misconduct has also been the subject of one lie after another— what does it say about the ones lying?

Nothing good.

What does it say about the Democrat voter who defends the felonies and misdemeanors committed by those in their Party?

Yet another bout of lawbreaking has occurred where the EPA chose causes they liked to expedite permits and other paperwork, and dragged their feet on those they didn't like. Completely illegal. And the lies are beginning to circulate about the IRS lawbreaking, too.

What IS IT that the typical Democrat in office feels it's OK to lie?

What IS IT about the typical Democrat voter who votes for these people and makes stupid shitheaded excuses for them when they do wrong?

Worst has been the altering of election results on November 6, 2013. For three weeks after the election, it was one news article after another from all over the nation about this or that vote tampering or voting fraud. From precincts that had multiples of the number of actual registered voters to

And almost nothing was done about it. Congressman West seems to be the only one with any guts in the matter. Everyone else just seems to have "let it go" despite the magnitude of the voter fraud.

The Republicans did nothing, despite the election being stolen from them in several races. Instead, they talk of changing strategy to be like the Democrats. Or trying to get votes from blocs that expect to be bribed for their votes— they will never vote Republican. What do the Republicans not get that letting such massive voter fraud go means there will be more next time and thus they CANNOT win because of such fraud?

These are not "scandals." These are concerted efforts at lawbreaking. Prosecutors must be appointed, investigations and trials in court held.

The very idea that one Party can cheat in elections, lie almost constantly, and nothing they do wrong is ever their fault is just plain wrong.

When is something practical going to be done about it? Like investigating? Prosecutions? Not letting witnesses lie with "I don't know", "I don't recall" and similar perjury?

What happens if these lawbreaking events also go without justice being done?

What happens to our country if justice is not served?

Comet Hype

May 15, 2013

With the comet that was hyped up but no one seemed to actually see now behind us, one wonders if the next comet will be a bust as well.

I looked for comet Pan-STARRS, following the directions given to see it. Despite living in some of the darkest skies left in the U.S., where star colors are routinely visible, I didn't see it at all. I wonder how many people did.

I'm hoping ISON will be visible to the unaided eye.

In 1986, the chemistry professor across the street and I went to the edge of town and looked at Halley's Comet. It wasn't spectacular, but it was visible just above the horizon. Looked better in the scopes we brought.

But at least we could see it. There have been several comets since then that were hyped up but were either invisible without a large scope or required extraordinary measures just to see them at all.

Mars in 2002 or 2003, I forget which, was spectacular. Driving between Oregon and my job in California, it was fascinating to have the bright red-orange spot in the sky during the summer. 

The dust storm from China during the full moon (again, I forget which of those years it was) made for something really spectacular, with much of the sky the color of translucent milk.

But comets? Never had much luck with them. I just can't get all that interested in something that turns out to require ridiculous means just to see it.

Hopefully ISON will be visible. Be nice if it lived up to the hype that usually accompanies comets.

Democrats Are Like Little Kids

May 14, 2013

One of the key things of Democrats is that, no matter what they do, no matter how responsible they are for something, it's always someone else' fault.

Like little kids, they blame someone else.

And because of that dishonesty, they never deal with their problems. They never fix the problems they cause because one has to be honest about something to know how to fix it.

What makes a person remain in a pre-teen, I'm never responsible, mold?

Honesty/Dishonesty: People Generally Vote for the Politico they Identity With

May 13, 2013

When I was in college, I noticed that people tended to vote for a person of similar honesty or dishonesty. Or at least whom they perceived as honest or dishonest as they themselves were.

The people who lied to themselves tended to vote for politicians who were dishonest and at the same time badmouthed those in office who consistently did the right thing. And badmouthed those people who were more honest. People of sterling character were pariahs to be attacked as far as most of these were concerned. They rationalized bad behavior both in their chosen politicians and in themselves.

The people who wanted to know the truth about life and about what was going on tended to vote for people that kept their promises in office and didn't lie. They futher wanted accountability for those that lied or did wrong.

Yes, people tend to vote for the people that is just as dishonest or honest as they are.

Which says something pretty bad about how many voters who vote for today's modern Democrat. The party went actively Socialist in the 1980s and today half of the country supports them. Socialists not only see nothing with lying as a general rule, but Socialism cannot survive the truth because it's based on lies about people and governments. The Soviet Union survived on lies. The National Socialists of central and eastern Europe got into office by kying and maintained their hold on the populace by lying.

When half the voters in the U.S. vote for those who are actively dishonest, what does that say?

When President Clinton lied and when President Obama lied, what did it say when poeple rationalized it? Or how most women, despite what Clinton allegedly did to women, still swooned over him and most voted for him?

Anyone Wonder About Syria's Chemical Arsenal?

May 10, 2013

The media's ability to spread lies is fascinating. Even more interesting is how many choose to believe them, despite knowing they are lying.

For example, take the Democrat lie of "Bush lied, people died". Iraqi NBCs were found in places like Amman, Jordan (20 TONS in 2004), in the jointly run Libyan/Iraqi complex, and they keep showing up in different places.

And what about the Syrian chemical weapon arsenal today?

While some might be of Soviet vintage, that stuff has a limited shelf life. How much today in Syria are from the flotilla of trucks leaving Iraq in the five months between the time it became clear we would invade and the actual invasion?

Hmm. Haven't seen any news on that. I suppose it would mean admitting they were wrong and our media has a nasty habit of going down with the ship instead of simply admitting they were wrong about something.

And what about the 400,000 we've found to date in mass graves in Iraq. How many more would have been in graves if Saddam were still in power?

As opposed to Bosnia?

Bosnia turned out to be untrue. In 2011, the third, count them, third "mass grave" of less than 200 was found. As opposed to "hundreds of thousands of civilians". Indeed, the number of casualties reduced almost every time the media reported it.

Unlike the defeat of Saddam's forces in Iraq, which was one of the most brilliant campaigns, not one military objective was actually successful in Bosnia. Inflated numbers of this and that. I'll never forget the TV images of Bosnian tanks that had been hidden appearing from haystacks and buildings when the shooting stopped.

So why do people believe the lie?

Courage? Or Going with the Flow of Evil?

April 30,2013

Rush Limbaugh spoke briefly of courage and the lack thereof on 4/30/13

I would go a step further and remind people that there is no courage in doing evil. It's been very easy for those people who love evil to do this or that thing they know to be wrong, from communism/international socialism to drugs to "coming out of the closet" because our media is devoted to moral evil and will support them.

What is courage? It's doing the right thing when it's going to cost you dearly. It's doing the right thing when you are afraid to.

Evil requires no courage. It's easy to do evil when you have a legion of evil people who will support you. There's no courage in that.

When "demonstrators" since the 1960s have done evil, attacking others then claiming to be victims, there was no courage in their mob violence. It's easy to go with the crowd.

When GenX women were encouraged by their teachers and community leaders to adopt feminist ideas of "do it the easy way", "sleep with the best", "no consequences", "everything is men's fault", there was no courage in those GenX women who tossed their church upbringing and acting like alley cats. It was easy for them. When they attacked men for doing the right thing, there was no courage, because they did it as groups and our media applauded them.

It's much harder to do good— you know you will be attacked from all sides in our culture of evil today. It takes courage to do that. Chris Broussard showed true courage, knowing that ESPN would choose moral evil. He did the right thing, anyway, despite the cost to him personally, and he reminded us that not everyone loves evil.

The newspapers and TV wasted no time in attacking him. They have chosen evil and the Lord will eventually judge them for that.

It takes no courage to be part of a crowd that does evil. You are just going with the flow.

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV) "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

What credit is it to our media when they love evil and endorse those who do it?

When most GenX men didn't marry because they did the right thing, knowing that women their age hated them for doing right, that was courage.

Evil requires no courage.

A Key Difference Between Pot and Alcohol


Despite seeing the results of both people getting drunk and stoned over the years, particularly the latter since most GenX women in Oregon used pot in college when it was legal ($100 never collected fine from 1973 to 1997, so it was effectively legal), a key difference between the two never occurred to me despite seeing it over the years.

The moment of shame.

When someone gets drunk and does something stupid or criminal, such as taking part in a "protest" or getting into a fight, or driving drunk, or smacking around their significant other, the "next day" comes.

"Oh, S---!! What did I do?"

The person who goes on a bender/binge sobers up— the elimination time for alcohol is hours. That moment of shame happens when they realize what they did while drunk. Either they remember or someone tells them. Some will get drunk again, but most who get drunk have still that moment of "what did I do"? They may well do it again, but most binge drinkers and alcoholics will— sooner or later— stop drinking to excess. It may take years, but most will wise up and avoid getting drunk because of what has happened.

Compare that to pot.

Most have no moment of shame.

When someone gets stoned and does something stupid or criminal, such as taking part in a "protest" or getting into a fight, or driving stoned, or smacking around their significant other, or beating up someone and going to jail, or they sleep with ten people, or take part in a full-blown orgy like most GenX Oregon women did occasionally, the "next day" shame does not come. They are still almost as stoned the second day, the third day, and so on.

There is no moment of shame because sobriety does not come "the day after", unlike with alcohol or even most other street drugs.

The incredibly long elimination time for marijuana means they don't sober up the day after they got stoned and did something wrong. They don't have that moment of "oh, sh--, what did I do" that the person who got drunk did. They are still stoned after doing something stupid or illegal and they have an easy time rationalizing what they did— or flatly denying they did anything and convincing themselves they didn't.

Rationalization of evil is typical of the pot user. Unlike someone drunk, they normally don't sober up to see the mess they made. And so just rationalize.

And rationalize. And rationalize. They lie to themselves and they lie to others. One of the most common rationalizations and the one I hate the most is "it's not hurting anyone" when they are hurting EVERYONE around them. When their kid was born hooked on pot, with classic fetal marijuana syndrome, it's magically something else to blame, like vaccinations or the doctor must have done something. Despite their kid's condition being the mom's damned fault for using pot while pregnant.

No moment of shame. That lack of a moment of "oh, sh--, what did I do?" makes pot exponentially more dangerous than alcohol.

The stoned person is a master of rationalization while stoned, i.e. constantly, day after day, and usually year after year. They hurt someone else and just rationalize it. They steal and just rationalize. They commit an act of violence and they just rationalize it. They hear about the effects of their drug and just rationalize, usually lying about it and lying to themselves and others about what it does to themselves. They end up in jail and it's magically someone else' fault. They do stupid or illegal things and then just rationalize.

Or worse, they didn't do something they needed to do. It was very common during the 80s and 90s in Oregon for drug moms to let their kids go without food for days while stoned. The typical child who was hungry during that period was hungry because the mom would not feed them because she was stoned, not because food wasn't available. Most kids of drug-addicted moms had to learn to fend for themselves at ridiculously early ages, or their neighbors and relatives would try to take care of them despite government interference in that— what used to be call Child Services Division had a nasty habit of trying to keep kids with their stoned moms and the results were not good. The lucky kids were adopted by their grandparents or other relatives who took care of them.

Pot users are stoned long term. Because pot, unlike alcohol, is absorbed by the body fat and then slowly released/eliminated, pot takes 14 to 21 days typically to clear the system. Some health services have studies indicating a month. A German study of hard-core drug addicts indicated 18 days, but one wonders about the results because it was not with a large group of pot addicts and mostly with other types of addicts, unlike many of the studies out there.

The person is affected the entire time that the drug is released from their fat to the blood stream. Assuming a person quits smoking the pot and tries to sober up, they are usually still somewhat stoned 2 weeks later, despite often assuming they are sober and thus safe to drive. They wonder why the cops pull them over for what the cops initially think is drunk driving, and rant and rave about being "profiled" or something else, despite it being their stoned driving that tipped not just the cops off, but made it hard for everyone on the road that they nearly hit. (Or did crash into. It's become very common again for stoned accidents. There was a period where pot's popularity declined and thus the accidents and violence declined, but it's on the rise again with a new generation rationalizing the evil they do while stoned.)

From what I've seen, a week without pot hardly begins the process of sobering up. They often think they are sober, but they have the telltale signs of being stoned. If they are a regular user, there's no fooling anyone around them, but they seem to think no one can tell.

I've occasionally met a person whose body seemed to fight it more effectively, but they were still impaired after a week or more. One wonders if they just didn't use much to start with and thus had less sobering up to do.

Consider that the typical person in Oregon on pot in the 80s and 90s was stoned for years at a time. That appears to still be the case. Because the person is stoned, they often forget they use it every day and claim it's twice a week or "just the weekends". Even if they use it every two weeks, something I've never heard of, they are still constantly stoned.

But the thousands of studies out there indicate that pot is very different from alcohol in the length of time it takes to sober up.

Two weeks to a month to completely sober up. We've known that for decades, but it just gets rationalized or ignored. (Or lied about by addicts. I get tired of them trying to make this or that false claim about pot in our media. They forget: my generation saw the horrific effects of mj. Few are unscathed.)

Alcohol does not stay in the system like that. Meth does not stay in the system like that. Coke does not stay in the system like that. Toloache/Jimson Weed does not stay in the system like that.

It's hard to find any substance that is so effective at staying in the body like that. It's like the Devil designed the stuff to wreck people's minds.

Measure 5 Spoiled Kid Writ National


In 1992, Oregonians passed Measure 5 to limit the astronomical increase in property taxes. Various  Democrats from Governor Roberts to our legislature sought to "punish" the voters for daring to limit the amount of taxes they could collect.

Suddenly it was "budget cuts" despite the total tax money increasing. The amount the tax money increased yearly and so it was "budget cuts" despite the total monies available for the budgets going up. The powers that be cut items from budgets without any actual moral reason to do so— they wanted to hurt the Oregon voter for Measure 5. For example, the two most popular programs at the Oregon Institute of Technology were cut despite the demand for them by employers. Conversely, garbage courses were not cut at the other colleges.

The state police were cut to about a third of their prior numbers. Stoned and drunk drivers must have loved that.

Now, we have the Democrats come up with a misnomer called "sequester" and are doing the same type of thing as Oregon's did at the national level. The President and other Democrats in office want to punish the voter for not somehow coughing up more money to fund their pet programs. Never mind that the money has increased, not decreased, it simply has not increased as much as they want.

Boo hoo.

They are acting like little kids who don't get their candy, just like Roberts and much of the rest of the Democrat power structure in Oregon did.

All it accomplishes is making the voters mad. Just like it did in Oregon.

Has anyone considered that some 89 million are out of work, according to the Labor Dept's numbers earlier this month? Half of those since 2009?

Where does the money that these people want come from now that they've created a Second Great Depression?

Stupid Talk or Criminal Intent?

April 26, 2013

The news that two kids were allegedly planning to commit murder and made a video to that end begs this question: were the kids actually were planning to do something or was it the stupid talk that kids engage in?

Most kids never will commit crimes, but they joke about them.

When I was a kid, kids would make up crazy fantasies that they would never actually entertain the thought of doing. Just silly talk. For example,when I was in grade school, one of the jokes was to throw a dummy with a tape recorder off the crooked river bridge. No one had any intent that it would happen and any teacher back then would have just dismissed it as the silly stuff kids joked about.

Today, however, thanks to our foolish, party animal K-12 teachers who addled their brains in college with drugs, alcohol, and types of fornication that the 1960s generation would have found disgusting, every idle stupid comment is now potential terrorism. The average teacher is a poorly-educated fool (in the classic sense of the fool being a person bent on self-destruction) and so, because a teacher themself might well do something wrong, everyone else is seen as potentially doing something wrong. Like the kleptomaniac who worries about everyone stealing from him/her, today’s morally-bankrupt teacher can see others doing what they themselves would do.

And that is the best reason I know of to end public school— the awful people now teaching in the system.

The California incident this week where a teacher allegedly stole makeup from a student, allegedly stole her phone when she called to complain, then the student allegedly lost her temper and attacked her, is a pretty good illustration of how bad our teachers are getting. It's easy to blame the student for a lack of self-control, but it's the teacher's JOB to be professional. When I was in 1-12, no teacher I know of would have stolen from a student like that. Most teachers had morals back then.

Fire them all, and start over.



A nymfits (Greek for weasel), is a person who attacks another person, then claims to be a "victim." Since the 1970s, the United States has gone through a series of groups that viciously attacked others in the country, then hypocritically claimed to be "victims."

Many are stereotypical, complaining about "stereotypes", but acting like the stereotype they are accused of.

Bicycles are not God


As one who bicycled from 1982 to 2000, it might be considered strange that I have no sympathy for bicyclists, but consider that I only got into trouble twice in that span. Why? Because unlike almost every bicyclist out there, I made a point of 1. obeying traffic laws, and 2. was courteous to others.

Those two things are almost completely unknown to most American bicyclists.

I have come to hate the entitled attitude of the American bicyclist. Today, it's assumed by bikers that if they are "special" or "saving the planet", and can thus ignore stop lights, ignore traffic signs, ignore stop signs, zigzag across traffic, ride the wrong way, ride without paying attention, use intersection crosswalks without regard to the walkers, ride across intersections the wrong way and on red, ride in the lane when there is a bike lane, and can impede traffic without a single thought to anyone else.

That is pathetic.

So, to bicyclists whining about motorists, I say an unequivocal "shut up." Do the right thing and you will have few or no problems.

Share the road with others, bicyclists. Quit being so damned selfish.

The Scams of Child Support and Alimony


The excuse of "it's for the children" is often used as a dishonest "justification" for child support. The question is: how is it in a child's interest to have women deliberately getting pregnant out of wedlock in order to have an income? Consider what kind of life the child is going to have with a mom like that.

At this point, some will be asking about children from a marriage. Consistently, the money from child support is used for the mother's lifestyle, not for the kids. If the mom had any consideration for her kids, it's very likely that she would not have divorced in the first place. The "reasons" for most divorces requested by women are things like "he didn't make enough money", "we didn't party enough", "I was bored", and so on. With that kind of attitude, why would it shock us that the money from child support goes to things like the mom's car, her wardrobe, her partying, etc.?

How often have you heard a mom whine about child support when she spent her money on cigarettes, drugs, creature comforts, and so on?

Child support has become a support for irresponsibility. That is hardly "in the interest of the child".

Indeed, what is a kid's life like, when living with the typical woman who receives child support?

Consider, too, how most GenX children were born to a small percentage of men that GenX women passed around amongst themselves. Not only is there a genetic bottleneck now in GenY as a result, but when those "attractive men" that GenX women had their kids by typically have had multiple kids by multiple women, how would child support even work? It's not like a guy with 60 kids by fourteen women can make payments. Presumably that is the reason that some courts have tried to make men pay for kids not their own.

There is also the problems that courts have often assessed more in child support than a man makes. Excuses are used, but it's still wrong.

Get rid of child support and responsibility would return practically overnight.

As for alimony, what is the point in making it attractive to divorce? It too has become a scam. Why is it OK to steal what another person has earned? That is typically how alimony has been used in the last few decades. The idea that somehow a woman has "earned" a paycheck simply by being married is not right.

It's theft.

Thus the courts are engaged in the grossest of moral iniquity, both from alimony and child support. They will have to answer to the ultimate Judge, Jesus Christ, for taking part in such evil.

Truth or Denial


It's assumed today that everyone has the same weaknesses and the same problems. Worse, circular logic is used to claim that— despite not actually having a given weakness— that if you don't "admit" to a problem, you are in denial.

That is a problem with untrue assumptions. The idea that all have the same weaknesses is not true— each person has their own weaknesses and they usually don't correspond directly to that of others.  Some people have no problem with lust, but you have to nail down everything they could steal because their drug habit is everything to them.

Some of us have had such a disgust of what drugs and alcohol do to people that we have never had any interest in either.

Some covet like the world is going to end. Some could care less what another person has.

Some will never steal, but they cannot control their lust.

Some have anger problems. Others do not, having wonderful self-control.

And some of us, our weaknesses result from a body that does not work. That is particularly true in my case. I've had to spend inordinate amounts of effort to not just survive, but to function effectively.

In the case of the Socialists: they assume everyone else is motivated by greed, lust for power, etc, like they are. And most are not.

Illogical Comments and those that Ignore Them


Mr. Reid ridiculed various groups because of "conspiracy theories" earlier this week.

A slight problem: a large number of conspiracy theories of the 1990s ended up being true, such as the dismantling of the American economy from its former 1st status to the Depression of today. If the the "conspiracy theories" had been proven false, i.e., not happened, then it might be reasonable to listen to the derision of Mr. Reid.

It's part of a larger trend of casual slander and libel by the Left that one sees in TV, radio, newspapers, and other media. What is amazing is that they think they are listened to. When something happens and the Left lies about it, most do not even pay attention to them.


Too many lies told too often.

Too many hate-filled comments, "opinions", ridicule, and so on, expounded too often.

For example, the "tea partiers" are frequently derided by Democrats and various media personalities.

But what credit is it to the Left to 1. Lie about a group, 2. Attack a group with superior morals, and 3. Show themselves to be fools by spouting such nonsense?

The base motivation for such things comes down to that of evil hating good. Evil has become overt, blatant haters of the good in our culture, and so the Left feel there is nothing wrong in slandering, libeling, or attacking Christians, tea-partiers, Republicans, and so on.

It's caused a break in the thinking of most Americans, though. The days when most people of good character were concerned with what the Left thinks of them are just about done. Too many attacks for doing the right thing.

It's similar to how I quit being concerned about what women my age thought of me, many years ago. I simply got tired of being attacked for doing the right thing and shut them out. It's how so many others quit worrying about what women thought of them. Most GenX women chose evil and thus attacked everyone who wasn't doing wrong in order to make themselves somehow feel better. Didn't make them fell better, that much is plain. Because of the attacks, most men eventually stopped caring what they thought. Once one realizes that no matter what one did, one was going to be attacked for doing the right thing, one stopped caring about the attacks.

In a similar way, eventually Christians, Republicans, and other persons of good character will be fully immunized to the slander, libel, and other attacks of the Left. They will no longer care about what the Left thinks.

Indeed, why listen to someone who is evil?

The Left is to be pitied. When must explain their actions to their ultimate Judge, Jesus Christ, at the White Throne Judgement in a 1000+ years, what are they going to say? No lie will do them any good. The only thing that can do them any good is to accept the free gift of salvation that Christ provided. I hope they do. I don't wish hell on anyone.

The Terrorizing of the Public


What is it with trying to terrorize the public with crap science?

As one who has worked in several fields with several degrees and who has been harmed by radioisotopes released from Hanford, I don't get the playing up of Fukushima.

The WHO, whose job it is, tells a very different story from the "we gonna die lobby."

There are actually claims by dishonest activist groups out there that I-131, which drops out of the atmosphere quickly due to its being 4100+ times denser than air, has reached the United States, despite winter storms that would cause it to drop out of the atmosphere rapidly.

There have even been claims that sensors in this country have detected I-131. If true, then someone raided hospital I-131 stocks and spiked the sensors.

So, what the terrorizers are essentially saying is that— 1. Despite small particles becoming the nuclei of rain drops and snow flakes and thus dropping into the ocean rapidly, 2. Being very much like a chunk of metal in water in terms of density and as demonstrated by prior releases, only goes a few hundred miles, and 3. Despite only a small amount of actual radioactive particles released— somehow went 6000, 8000, 10,000 miles by MAGIC?

I rebuke them for lying in Jesus' Name.

I'm tired of people who are dishonest trying to terrorize the public.

Social/Economic Classes in the U.S.

April 3, 2013

Britain is trying to redefine its classes. Here are the general social/economic classes in the U.S.:

1. The Uppermost Class. The thousands with 100 million in assets and above. Most inherited from an initial ancestor who broke the law or was otherwise extremely unethical Most in this class tend to be extremely immoral individuals in personal conduct and business conduct, as evidenced by almost continuous scandals since the early 1990s on Wall Street.

2. The Upper Class Socialist. 1 million to 100 million in assets. Also mainly of inherited wealth, this group currently controls most of the United States politics. Most in this class have a "something for nothing", "if I've got mine, who cares about anyone else" attitude that causes them to be immoral personally or in business conduct.

3. The Upper Class Capitalist. 1 million to 100 million. This group typically started from little or nothing, having started small businesses that became large ones. This group tends to be the ones who "give back" to a community because they came up from it.

4. Middle Class. Once the dominant group in the United States, it has mostly disappeared with the elimination of more than 11 million industrial and 45+ million middle-class wage jobs immediately dependent upon the 11 million industrial jobs with the advent of Free Trade, starting in 1993. Most of the remaining Middle Class are small business owners making from 50,000 to 1 million, most of whom started their own businesses.

5. Lower Class. Once Middle Class, these dominant in the United States today, with wages half that of 1973. Many are employed in jobs that once paid two to four times what they pay today. (Bureau of Labor).

6. Unemployed Class. From all races and ethnicities, these were typically working class of one type or another, but are now among the ~89 million persons without work in the United States. (Bureau of Labor) More than half of them became unemployed since the Depression started in 2009. These survive by family, friends, and government handouts.

7. The Criminal Underclass. Predominantly the 60+ million Mexican Nationals living in the United States, along with portions of other groups that have are at least peripherally-involved in criminal activity. Most crimes are drug crimes such as trafficking, property crimes, and ID theft crimes. Income typically near minimum wage, with the exceptions of those involved in drug-trafficking from Mexico to points in the U.S. or Canada.

8. The Violent Criminal Drugclass. Various races have members in this grouping, but predominantly a subclass of black American where drug crime and attendant violent crime has become their chosen life. Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that 8,000+ of 11,000+ murders annually are by black Americans, essentially all drug-gang related, with four times the crime rates of other ethnic groups in the United States. Income is extremely variable by individual, with drug dealers making millions weekly, ranging to petty drug users in minimum wage jobs.


Typical Personality Types of GenX Pacific Northwest Women from the 1980s through the 2000s

Typical GenX Women of the Pacific Northwest in the 1980s through 2000s. Many women had some combination of the first six types below:

1. The Pretender. This is the girl who is an honors student or close to it. Prim, proper, and responsible until she meets her first "bad boy." She claims to not be interested in dating, turning down 20, 30, 50, 100 "nice guys" for dates. She secretly lusts after "bad boys", and may well not even really know it herself. She concentrates on her schooling. At some point in high school or college she is noticed by her first "bad boy". The clothes instantly come off. This normally starts a pattern of only dating the "attractive" "bad boys", usually for some period of years. One after another.

All but one of the women I knew who became porn stars were of this personality type.

2. The Spinner. Oddly enough, this is the second most honest girl after the Wise Girl in this list. This girl likes to party and sleep around and makes no bones about it. Often they didn't even try to rationalize their lifestyle; they liked doing it and that was that.

At least they usually didn't add lies, deception, self-deception, and other sins to what they are doing like types 1,3,4, 5 and 6.

3. The Coward. This is the girl who is considered "good looking" in high school or college, who only will date "bad boys". She is holding out for a "bad boy" with a heart of gold. Initially at least. So, she avoids dating, then gets burned by a "bad boy". She "gets scared" and turns down every date by "nice guys", one after another, because she is afraid of having a bad relationship.

Eventually, she's noticed by another party animal "bad boy" and she is so interested— "she gets the 'hots' for the guy", is how it was described— that she forgets her fear because of her desire to get him in the bedroom. She only briefly forgets her cowardice, because she burns herself again on him, despite knowing what he is. She's essentially hoping that the rat will somehow turn out to be a prince, despite knowing inwardly what he is.

After that it's boohoo, whine, cry, and back to "all men are awful, lousy," etc. and she turns down "nice guy" after "nice guy" for dates. And then another "bad boy". And then another period of cowardice. And then another "bad boy." And then another period of cowardice... and so on.

Most Cowards repeated this cycle for years at a time. Some still are doing the same after 30+ years. This one tended to earn men's contempt, because it was completely self-inflicted and pathetic both.

4. The Sinlover. If it's evil, she loves it. If a guy is evil, she loves him. She hates good and she hates "nice guys", especially Christians, because they remind her that not every person loves evil like she does. She constantly badmouths every guy who is not actively evil. She rationalizes drug use, rationalizes lying, rationalizes sexual practices that would make prior generations puke, she enjoys hurting others, etc.

5. The Hypocrite. This is the girl who will jump into bed on a first date with a "bad boy", and generally will repeatedly do so with different men they've just met— but then will claim a "nice guy" is being "forward" or "too fast", if he dares try to ask her out to the dance or to a movie. Like the other dishonest women types here (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6), that type of dishonesty didn't impress the guys that much. They saw it for what it was.

6. The Crowd. This is the girl who goes along with one of the others of types 1-4. She doesn't want the responsibility of doing what she knows is wrong on her own, so she does it with a group. These tended to be amongst the worst alcohol-abusers, party animals, drug users, the most promiscuous etc, because they rationalized bad behavior as being someone else' responsibility and they tended to "get carried" away— deliberately— so they'd do things they wouldn't do sober. It was standard practice for a girl to get loaded on something so that she'd grab a guy to have sex with. Before their morals went entirely from their lifestyle and drugs, there was usually a peculiar psychology that went this way: if she was inebriated/stoned/hashed/etc., somehow that made a sexual sin "OK."

7. The Wise Girl. These were maybe 20% of the population, mostly non-Christian. The girl who knew what she wanted out of life, saved herself for marriage, and marries a "nice guy" not long after high school. These have typically been the only GenX women who stayed married. They avoided the pitfalls of the other women here.

They tended to get asked out a LOT; there were not many women like this and since men's desired roles as workers, husbands, and fathers hadn't changed, the men tended to gravitate toward this type of woman.

Unfortunately, there were simply too few of this type of woman and thus most GenX men have no experience with GenX women as a group other than working in the same office, being attacked by them, cleaning up after them, being expected to support their lifestyles without anything in return. The 3:1 women:men rate for some STDs says it all.


It's perhaps strange, but the majority of GenX women in the Pacific Northwest grew up in the church, then left it to become one of the types above, but usually not "The Wise Girl". Indeed, a woman who was not a church-goer as a kid was more likely to be "The Wise Girl" than their church-going compatriots. By the time I got to college and throughout 21 churches and ministries in various cities, the typical composition of GenX groups of college age was 4:1 men:women. Most women latched onto sexual sin, drugs, partying, and never let it go.

And created lives of misery for themselves, their out-of-wedlock kids, and for those around them.

The part that aggravated everyone else the most was the adamantine refusal to take responsibility. It's like our president— everything done is somehow someone else's fault.


Woe to Those Who Call Evil Good and Good Evil

Rand Paul is a typical libertarian. He makes a wonderful stand for freedom, then essentially declares that life has no absolute value, and then says that we should reward people who break our laws.

Seriously, what is it with people who are schizophrenic about morality like that?

It’s like being against murder but endorsing burglary.

I've news for Rand Paul and his ilk: people who are immoral don't vote for those that are moral or halfway moral like Paul. The dishonest person tends to vote for the dishonest office-seeker. That is why the 60+ million mexican nationals in the U.S., even if legal, will not vote for Republicans. That is why most U.S. minorities and half of the non-minorities vote for the Democrats. Their votes are a reflection of the evil they allow to dominate their hearts. From crime to expecting to be bribed for their votes.

If the Republicans follow the Democrat path of trying to make intrinsically evil things to be good, then the nation is doomed.

You can rename arsenic, but it's still poison.

But somehow, if we just say something is ok, that makes it good?

Take pot. it was an absolute disaster in terms of human potential during the 23 years it was legal in Oregon. ($100 fine, never heard of it being enforced.) Most GenX women became hooked on it and frequently other drugs. Accidents on the highways, kids being born with neurological problems, etc. Most kids who were born normal either were raised by their grandparents or by the state. The waste of life was and is incredible.

You can’t make something that is harmful by its nature like pot "good" just by legalizing it; it still harms the person and everyone around them. The murder rate alone was proof of that. Over a thousand homicides in Portland just in 1995. The health cost alone of so many addicts was astronomical. Many now are virtual invalids, mentally crippled, their personal morals gone completely.


For a time the lesson was learned. It was made illegal again.


But now, a new generation is here, and they want to legalize it again. So we can go through all that again.


The current carnage should have dissuaded people. Almost all of the 8,000 of 11,000 homicides last year in this nation are due to the drug trade. (If people quit using their drugs, most homicides would be gone completely.) Over 100,000 in mexico each year for the last few years. Canada’s legalization turned the highway 2 miles from my house into a drug highway from mexico. Washington’s legalization made it that much worse. California and Colorado’s legalizations were further windfalls for the mexican cartels. Maybe the body count will be 110 or 130 thousand next year as a result?


Video Cards with Astigmatism

What is it with the last two years where half the video cards seem to have developed astigmatism?

Why do so many of the produce and image inferior to older cards, having "ghost imagery" or being too sharp?

If you've used a sharpness control, you know what I'm talking about: where it goes from being crisp lines to having a halo or other artifact when you turn up the sharp too far.

So why do so many cards now produce an image that you can't look at comfortably for long periods?

I ended up non installing the video driver for my card this last time because the images were much cleaner than with the video drivers.

That is pretty bad.

From the comments online about cards, it appears to be a common problem.

How about some emphasis on appearance, not just performance?


Flaws of Remote Weapons

There is are two flaws in the current and proposed military arsenal of "robot" drones and other remote-fighting machines:

1. They require human guidance via radio of some kind.

2. Hollywood and technonuts notwithstanding, machines cannot think past the relatively simple things they are programmed to do and thus cannot and should not act autonomously.

While the idea of not having to have our troops in harm's way is an attractive one, these remote weapons can only be used against enemies without high technology. Why? Because the first thing a technological country would do would be to trace the radio signal and destroy the transmitter, the satellite carrying the signals, or both. Artillery, missiles, air strikes would all be effective in silencing the transmitter and at least two dozen nations have that ability.

Artillery have done the same thing for years, calling it "counter-battery fire", necessitating the moving of artillery after a barrage is fired. "Shoot and Scoot." Artillery shoots, the enemy pinpoints the location and shoots back. Several nations have the ability to guide their shells and rockets to where signals are originating, and at least three have the ability to shoot down satellites.

What about jamming? Most nations with even moderate technical ability have the ability to jam communications.

The second flaw makes the remote weapon useless when radio control is lost: it has no guidance. Having a preset program is no solution— can you imagine letting something loose on its own with weapons onboard, given our buggy software? There is always something that the software people missed— in the early days of the heat-seeker missiles, they locked onto the strongest heat source, the sun. It wouldn't be safe for anyone to have uncontrolled weapons.

A person can be trained, and a person has judgement. When radio contact is lost, a person still has their mind. They still have their orders. They can make decisions.

While a supplementary weapon that can be used in third world nations like Afghanistan or Iraq to good effect, it's not likely that remote weapons will be very useful against an enemy that possesses high tech.

March 3/2/2013

Science vs. Activism

I originally was going to send this to ABC, but their system wouldn't allow anything but very short comments:

"ABC should be ashamed of articles like "Cancer Risk From Fukushima Found in Japanese Infants"

I've a pony in the fight: my family was downwind of Hanford. All of us have health problems as a result. The catch is that the exposure levels were many times that which was released from Fukushima, and at least 3 decades duration, not a one time minor outgassing.

It's the difference between science and activism.

What happened was bad enough. But we have people who take a bad situation and lie through their teeth about it.

People were actually saying with a straight face that I-131 reached the East Coast, despite such particle dropping out of the atmosphere almost immediately( chernobyl's went a few hundred miles) due to being 4100 times as dense as the atmosphere. (I'd like to know who spiked the sensors, actually.) The idea of a dense particle like I-131 somehow staying in the air during winter storms is irrational.

What is it with people that are smoking pot or using other drugs that are wrecking their health, complaining about amounts of radiation that will do them no harm?

There's something sick about that.

The people who ignored the science-based WHO report should be ashamed of themselves."


The question has probably been asked, "why does this guy rag on GenX women"?

The answer is simple. As a group, they were given some pretty amazing things by our culture, religions , and governments, and despite that, most of them chose to harm themselves and others with what they were given.

It hurts to watch someone destroy themselves and it hurts to watch them callously destroy others.

It hurts to watch it in almost every woman you have ever met in your age group, from more than 20 ministries and churches, to the workplace, to colleges.

The same old story of a love of evil, choosing to do evil, and then ending up on the rocks, again and again and again.

As a group, only the Boomer women were given more than GenX women, in terms of economic opportunity, freedoms, lack of responsibilities, and being able to blame-shift the results of bad decisions to others.

Thousands upon thousands of special programs and scholarships at every government level and college. Easy jobs, reduced standards for jobs, "professional" jobs without the required degrees or experience, kid glove treatment by governments, military, and businesses, and despite all that discrimination in their favor, constant complaints about "sexism", "glass ceilings" and such.

The fact is that most GenX women didn't have to work nearly as hard for what they had as other groups in the U.S. And most chose a life of momentary pleasure.

And that proves an old adage "those given too much, don't appreciate anything."

GenX women certainly didn't appreciate what they were given by our culture.

Now after 25 or more years, the Depression of 2009+ finally ended the endless party for many of them, but it didn't cause most of them change.

At least it didn't change the now-ingrained, hardened selfishness that allowed them to party, drink, sleep around, do drugs, abandon their kids, neglect their kids, attack men, and blame-shift.

Consider what this group did to kids. They weren't interested in marriage, so they had their kids by the 10% or so of men that they all were fighting to date. So, no one to be a father to their kids. And a genetic bottleneck, which in the future will leave geneticists wondering how it happened. Illness: while much of it is due to better detection of illness like asthma or aspergers, what about the explosion in childhood illness? How many kids grew up in day care, being exposed to virus after virus, bacteria after bacteria, and now have this or that condition as a result? (Medical science is only now starting to take viruses and bacteria seriously, having found they cause a multitude of conditions that were once blamed on stress or nutrition.) In a real sense, GenX women recreated the "New York tenement" late 1800s situation where preventable diseases ran like wildfire through entire populations.

A number of GenX women have finally realized that they were pushing 40 or in their 40s. That has caused some to look in the mirror. Trouble is, it merely made a group of them start looking for a mealticket, er, husband, having realized they've squandered their youth, the years that they could have a real family, etc.

That is not repentance. that is being sorry at "getting caught." It doesn't change the mindset that let them waste a quarter century.

You actually have women pundits complaining that GenX men are "not interested in marriage." Hmm, the women rejected most of them since the 1980s, and now they want to marry? Why would most men, who did the right thing consistently, have any interest in women who can't have fun without doing something wrong? Women who spent most of their lives doing wrong? Women who were always wanting men to clean up the messes they've made? It's not very flattering to have women chasing you who in the past turned you down because you were not actively evil like the men they sought. They made their choices when they refused to date anyone not in the party scene for 15, 20, 25 years and viciously attacked the other ~80% of men, who did the right thing day to day. The STD collection alone would turn off most men to marrying someone like that.

True repentance means a change of mind. Your motives change. The person who worked hard before getting Saved is going to keep working hard, but their reason for working hard— to please God— is different from the prior motivations of "to get promoted", "to get a raise", etc. The person who is stuck in an immoral lifestyle is going to try to change their life into something better.

"I've had my fun, time to find a sucker" is not repentance. "I'm 45, reduced by bedpost to shavings with notches for each man, but now I want to find a 'nice guy' to marry", is not repentance. (Those that actually were able to do that, divorced in a hurry, because there was no change of heart. They got bored, having trained themselves with the 'flavor of the week', parties, etc.)

Why do I "rag" on GenX women? Because they were given so much without restraints, and most of them chose to do evil with it.

Should I praise them for hurting themselves? Should I praise them for harming others? Should I praise them for hurting their kids? Should I praise them for attacking others who did right? Should I praise them for "drink 'till you barf" and "drink 'till you fornicate"?

The answers to those questions should be plain. No.

And so, when the usual excuses, the usual whining about sexism, the usual feminist diatribes begin, the usual attacks on men begin, when the same tired old lies begin, shouldn't it be answered?

You don't fix a problem by blaming the innocent. You don't fix a problem by shifting responsibility. You don't fix a problem by ignoring it. You don't fix a problem by lying about it, then expecting others to just accept the lie.

What a person thinks is funny says a lot about a person. One of the reasons I avoid GenX women nowadays is their "humor": it's normally obscenely biological in nature, cruel, or it's a thinly veiled attack on someone who isn't actively evil like them, such as is now commonplace in newspaper comics, television, and politician's speeches. I've not seen that a dominant condition in other groups: every group has evil people in it, but it's not the group itself, unlike GenX women.

Indeed, the fact that, despite living in many areas, working many jobs, being involved in many ministries and churches over the years, only once have I ever overheard two GenX women speaking with concern for another person's feelings.


Compare that with every other group in the U.S. and that alone indicates a problem with GenX women.


Can't Make Anybody Mad

At some point, the primary problem of the Republicans— that of a lack of courage in the face of opposition— is going to break the party up.

In issue after issue, the Republicans of the last decade have adopted an attitude of appeasement. Don't make anybody mad.

And evil is winning handily.


What Price Cheap?

The use of Chinese cans by our canners has to stop. In the last 3 years it's become common for canned items to last only a fraction of their stated lifespan.

Canned fruit eating into the metal of the cans a year before the date. Canned vegetables getting bulges in a year or two.

How does that compare to the ten years typical shelf life for canned items of only a decade ago?

Even if the thing is still sealed, you start wondering how safe it actually is.

Batteries? Same way. I've quit using "primary batteries" because they don't last as long as the shelf life before they burst. Before everything was made in China, one could leave a charged battery in a device without worrying about it bursting before its expiration date and ruining the device. I've lost two maglights I've had since high school because of the batteries, despite being charged, bursting anyway. The batteries "melted" into the aluminum and couldn't be removed.

When are the wisdom-challenged in our corporations going to figure out that cheap has a price greater than what they think they will "save"?

Because I have to return something that is dead on arrival essentially every time I buy from one of the computer outfits, I've quit doing business with them. I doubt I'm the only one. That means money lost for the companies that buy "cheap".



What is a hypocrite?

To a Democrat, it's a person who does not embrace evil in every aspect of their lives.

How's that?

Look at whom they call hypocrites. When a good person, who has a proven track record of doing the right thing time and time again screws up, does something wrong, they call him/her a hypocrite.

Consider what that Democrat just did. Because every person has weaknesses, because every person who does the right thing, can't do the right thing all the time in everything, that person is a "hypocrite"?

By that standard, the only person who is not a "hypocrite" is the one who has no morals at all.

Which is why that idea is crap.  It doesn't work.

When a person whose life is engaged in many sorts of evil, such as our mainstream media personnel or our Democrats in office, they use any excuse, any failure by others, to try to justify having no morals at all.

Ever notice that it's the people who are into evil most or all of the time, that call everyone else hypocrites?

That in itself is hypocrisy.

It's the idea of the habitual drunk driver accusing a person of hypocrisy the one time they drive drunk. (I'm not advocating anyone driving drunk.)

Or the person stoned on marijuana for years at a time accusing someone who is an alcoholic of hypocrisy because that alcoholic hates it and is actively fighting their addiction.

Or the drug user who claims that people are "addicted" to energy, such as oil or electricity.

Or the person who sleeps with everything that is capable of it accusing another person of hypocrisy because they bed down with someone out of wedlock once.

See a problem with the Democrat redefinition of hypocrisy?

What is the definition of hypocrite? To the Greeks who invented the term, a hupocrita was an actor or actress. Someone merely portraying a role.

Not a person who believes in the role.

What you believe, makes for what you consistently do.

You can't hit 100 home runs in a row, but if you are hitting most of them, that's still pretty darn good.

But for the Democrat, that means you are a "hypocrite" because you don't hit them all. Because you try and fail, you are a "hypocrite" to the Democrats.

If you are like most people and fail in an area, because you are not perfect, you are a "hypocrite" to a Democrat.

But who is the hypocrite?

Democrats play roles. When there is a mass shooting in the U.S. of white persons, they raise the roof. But when black Americans slaughter each other, it hardly makes the news. The Democrats don't care unless they can make hay with it. When a gang shot more than 40 people in New York, murdering at least 26, it hardly made the news. It was apparently not a group the Democrats cared about.

That is hypocrisy. Acting like you are something you are not.

The Democrats have that to an "art."

The Son/Daughter of Hell Attitude

It wasn't that many years ago that the truth was tolerated. Respected.

Loved even.

That has changed. Today, we are seeing an attitude develop among many of the Left of "I'm going to lie to you" coupled with "how DARE you call me out when I lie to you?" "How DARE you tell me the truth about myself?" "How DARE you tell me that I'm hurting myself and those around me?"

It's the result of a person hardened by evil.

A person loves to do something that they know in their heart of hearts is absolutely wrong.  And that evil thing affects them.

Their conscience affects them. They don't like it when they are reminded that what they are doing is wrong, because of inner self-condemnation.

It makes them angry. Rage, even. They are angry at themselves at first, then learn to rationalize. To make excuses.

Their anger can eventually reach murderous fury when someone confronts them on that love of evil.

I've seen people get that way with street drugs. I've seen them get that way with sex outside of marriage. I've seen them get that way from other sins.

It amounts to a person hurting themselves and others, and being angry when that fact is manifest to themselves.

The person who does that puts themselves in that position is in danger. Why? Because that unrestrained fury they have makes them think stupid things, say stupid things, and if they degenerate far enough, to do stupid things.

The person who has no sexual morals at all, but that inner voice condemns them for their own choices and it makes them enraged.

Or the person who steals because its fun and it becomes a lifestyle. They get angry when confronted with their love of evil.

We're seeing it with many evils.

It's most common with street drugs, because a drug-user is normally the best of rationalizers. The entire point for most drug users is to "escape" reality. Rationalizing is a natural thing to do in that state. They don't like their false idea of reality to be questioned by anyone. They come to hate the truth. They don't like what they've done to themselves and they bury it. The rage now seen by so many marijuana users when their habits and drug are questioned is a symptom of that.

Is there any hope for such people?

Yes. It's not pleasant, but the only way to get a person who has hardened themselves to that point is for the Lord to break them. The Lord must take them to a point where they have to change.

A person whose rock-hard heart is shattered by the Lord can finally see what they have done to themselves and to others.

The person who gets tired of feeling sick all the time. The person who finally goes to jail over something stupid/criminal they did while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both. The stark reality of what they've done to themselves and others finally gets through them.

Drug addicts used to call it hitting rock bottom. That point at which one's marijuana use, or heroin use, or cocaine use, or other drug use has cost them everything they once had.

Many never reach that point. Somehow, their rationalizations get worse, stronger, over time. Some can go for twenty, thirty, forty, or even fifty years hurting themselves, hurting others around them, and it never sinks in what they've done.

Much of our current culture is designed now to help a person avoid responsibility for what they do to themselves and others. With so many programs that support the lifestyles of those who love evil, it takes much longer for a person to hit rock bottom.

And they may never hit bottom, living the rest of their lives harming themselves and others around them.

And what then?

We are promised that the unSaved will face a Judgement by Jesus Christ. God's standard is perfection, and so the usual rationalizations used by those who love evil are not going to help them. The "I don't accept that" that such people live by, won't help them when they stand before Jesus Christ and are judged for every evil thought they had, every evil act they did.

Their destiny is Hell. For eternity.

In that light, isn't it better for a Christian to pray that a hardened person would be broken, and thus repent? To see their need for Christ?

God help those who are hardened today.

This is how bad that hardening in evil by some individuals will get. Combat that kills billions won't get them to stop doing what they are doing. Revelation 9: 15-21, American Standard Version:

"15 And the four angels were loosed, that had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, that they should kill the third part of men.

16 And the number of the armies of the horsemen was twice ten thousand times ten thousand: I heard the number of them.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates as of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone: and the heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceedeth fire and smoke and brimstone.

18 By these three plagues was the third part of men killed, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone, which proceeded out of their mouths.

19 For the power of the horses is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails are like unto serpents, and have heads; and with them they hurt.

20 And the rest of mankind, who were not killed with these plagues, repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood; which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk:

21 and they repented not of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."

How hardened would you have to be to see a third of the world killed by warfare, but to still not to want to stop doing the evil things that brought it about?

That's hard.

It's the Son of Hell/Daughter of Hell attitude that we are now seeing develop.

With that in mind, why does it surprise us when a drunk or a marijuana user kills someone on the highway just blows it off, not caring? Why does it surprise us when those who are actively evil and who love evil, don't care when they hurt others? Why does it surprise us when they rage against everyone who says what they are doing is wrong?

Why Should Anyone Vote Republican?

When the magnitude of the November 6, 2012 election fraud became clear, with state after state having one type or another of vote tampering, the Republicans were called by the nation to obey the Rule of Law.

The election laws were broken, en masse.

Most Republicans in the Congress and Senate did absolutely nothing about it.

Consider what level of betrayal that was: to know that the election had been stolen, that the largest election fraud ever perpetrated upon the United States had been done, and to do nothing about it.

The Republicans showed a complete lack of respect for the Rule of Law by "just going along with it."

They failed the character test.

So, why should anyone vote for them?

It's so Much Worse than it Actually Was.

Isn't it striking that today, we have groups like white males that are not hireable by governments, because of nation-wide discrimination, and that is "OK"?

Isn't it also striking that today, civil rights groups try to claim that things were so much worse in the 1960s than they actually were? The claim today that every white person, every Asian person, that every government, that every group, was racist against black Americans?

Except that it wasn't like that. Some governments were racist, some colleges were, some groups were, and some individuals were. But for every outfit and person that was, isn't it striking that the majority of Americans were not racist? That for every act of racism, there were multiple acts against it?

My own grandfather made a point of everyone shopping in his store in the 1940s. When called upon it by the one or two racists in his community, he said "their money is as green as everyone else'".

Revisionist history doesn't work very well when most people still alive remember how it actually was, not how racist groups claim it was.

Isn't it striking that we are far more racist now than we were in 1960? Simply calling it "affirmative action" doesn't make it any less racist. What makes it so much worse than 1960 is that it's government-wide. Not merely some groups, individuals, and governments. In 1960, the person who encountered racism could simply go to another part of the neighborhood, or work for another company, or work for another government. It wasn't everyone, nor even a majority, that were racist against black Americans.

Today, where do you go to escape racism against white males, when it's government-wide?


The Christian and the Drug Addict

The Republicans and Democrats are like a Christian husband married to a drug-using GenX wife.

Democrat: she's had special program after special program since the early 1980s, never had problems getting jobs thanks to affirmative action, she's "worked" jobs she wasn't remotely qualified for, she had her party degree in college paid for by grants and programs, she's treated differently by police, judges, prosecutors, media, and Congress— and she constantly complains about the deal she has, despite being given so much at others' expense.

She's into the drugs of Socialism, narcissism, power, and "getting away with it", whatever the "it" is. It's intoxicating to do evil and pay no price for it.

Republican: he's worked hard all his life and just wants to "get along." He's never had any of the advantages she's had, but he doesn't complain. Complaining about her higher status under the law and all the special goodies she's been given for the last 30 years would be "sexist," "racist," etc., right? He has no courage to say things as they are. He recants when he is called names.

She lies to cover up what she's doing. After years of getting away with lies, she lies on a daily basis, knowing that no one will call her on it.

He just wants to get along, and rarely complains when she lies and never has the courage to contradict her, even when it's clear to everyone that she's lying.

She parties year after year. He works and she takes money from him to pay for her parties.

She constantly attacks him. He just takes it, rather than defending himself. The media is enamored of her and so everything is his fault. He gets weary of the double standards, but he just wants to "get along" and never does anything about it.

She stays in office by bribing racist and sexist groups with grants, programs, and special treatment. Her programs of vote-buying bankrupt the treasury, and while he makes some noises about changing things, he simply caves after a time. He just wants to "get along."

When the public is fed up with her in November of 2012 and votes against her, she goes a step further than she's gone before and changes the results of the election through several methods, from packing votes to simply changing the results in computers in the last minutes of the election.

She gets away with it, just like she has gotten away with other lawbreaking since the early 1990s. After all, he just wants to "get along" and doesn't kick. He has no courage to do what is right, even when this many felonies and misdemeanors are committed by her. She has no interest in doing what is right, having abandoned all morality and the Christian religion that she grew up with.

The public is livid with both of them, but no one in either party truly asks their opinion. Or they would act differently.

He decides that he will do better in the next election if he becomes like her. He'll fit in better, he thinks. After all, he believes what the media tells him.

The public just about has a fit when the election is stolen and he does nothing about it, with more than a third of the public actively thinking of splitting them up. He just ignores it. She just makes some stupid comments and ignores how upset the electorate is.

Finally, their house starts on fire from her drug use. They have no choice but to split up. And those left of the public wonder if he had had the courage to do the right thing, if he had tried to rein in her evil, if the fire and split couldn't have been avoided.


It's time for the Republicans in Congress to Resign

For several years, the Republicans in Congress have had a "let's not make anybody mad", "ignore being lied to", "let's just let it go", "we don't know what the hell we want to do" as observed behavior.

This is useless to us as a nation. The Democrats have repeatedly broken the law of the Constitution, the U.S. Code, and uncounted State laws.

And nothing every happens. They just get away with it, day by day.

The Republicans in Congress do nothing.

November 6, 2013 was a joke. For three straight weeks afterwards, it was one story after another how votes had been packed, tampered with, illegal voting, and so on. When thousands of precincts reported severe "irregularities", the most common of which seems to have been a last minute packing with more than the actual number of registered voters "voting",  thus "winning" the election for Obama, what did the Republicans do?


Despite the felonies and misdemeanors being committed from Oregon to New York, Washington to Florida, most Republicans in Congress did absolutely nothing, or they essentially said, "we have to be like Democrats to win."

What the hell is the Republicans' problem? When they lost due to fraud, what is to stop fraud in every election from now on? There is no way for the Republicans to win when the election is stolen like that.

Why should any of these Republicans be in office when they won't do anything in the face of the largest single election fraud ever committed in this nation is committed?

What does it say when the Republicans knew the election was bogus, but certified it anyway?

What does it say when the Republicans in Congress do nothing when the President makes laws on his own, with no authorization from the U.S. Constitution for the President to make laws on his own?

Why should any of these people in Congress be there if they have no interest in the Rule of Law?

The Republicans in Congress are forcing a third party by their lack of action in the face of the most egregious, iniquitous lawbreaking.


When did Tolerance Change to Having to Love Evil?

When did tolerance go from accepting (but not necessarily endorsing) others who are different, to  requiring everyone to love evil, and actively attacking those who don't love evil?

The Bible teaches that we are to love everyone, but if that person is an evil-doer, we don't love what they do.

Today that has been changed to "you can't just tolerate my evil, you must love it, too."

And that is by definition, intolerant.


Where are "Executive Orders" in the U.S. Constitution?

Short answer: they are not in the U.S. Constitution. No powers are given to the President like that.

It's not uncommon to teach that "executive orders" are co-equal with Laws passed by Congress and Rulings of the Supreme Court. And it's absolutely wrong. No such power is in the U.S. Constitution.

Until the Clinton Administration, "executive orders" were those Presidential decisions given under the Constitution and the US Code. If Law A said that such and such was to be done, the President would enact orders that were congruent with that Law. Then, Clinton effectively created a handful of new laws by "executive order".

Such are illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

President Bush returned to the former Constitutionally-legal practice of executive orders being the enaction of laws passed by Congress and those laws in the Constitution.

President Obama wrote one executive order after another, as if he had been given the power to write his own laws. All executive orders written so are illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

That attempt to create laws by the President is worthy of impeachment on its own— the willful and consistent pattern of breaching of the U.S. Constitution by a President.


If we have "light bulbs", why not "light corms"?

From now on I think I'll call CFL's "light corms."


What Price Feminism?

In this age of Feminism, it should be asked what the results have been.

The numbers do not paint a pretty picture.

1. Most GenX women are either into drugs, or have been into drugs.

2. The typical GenX woman would only date 10% to 20% of the local men, usually those of the worst character. The "bad boy" was constantly being preferred in the 1980s and 1990s and to a reduced extent, the 2000s by women of this group. Most GenX women slept with this small group of men, effectively passing the men around amongst themselves.

3. It was typical for GenX's parents to have to raise GenX's out of wedlock kids.

4. As a result of 2, STDs are far more common in GenX women than GenX men.

5. Also as a result of 2, most of GenY were born to the same small group of fathers. This has created a  genetic bottleneck. (A PhD dissertation in biology or genetics there?)

6. As a result of 1 and 4, the rates of premature birth and birth defects drastically increased in the 1980s and 1990s.

7. Most women in Federal Civil Service do not meet the basic qualifications for their jobs.

8. Most GenX women still "live to party" despite Obama's Depression starting in 2009, which caused a percentage to realize "I'm not 20 anymore" and to start looking for men to marry to keep the party going.

9. Among GenX, practicing Christians are ~80% male.

10. GenX women mostly vote for those who lie, cheat, steal, etc. Persons of good character almost never get the GenX women's vote.

Why did this happen?

From National Wave of Foolishness, Chapter 20 Feminazism:

For ~50 years women were effectively taught these doctrines by Feminism by deeds and words:

1. Women could “have it all."

2. Women were “liberated.”

3. Women didn't "need" anyone.

4. Rebellion is a "virtue."

5. Motherhood and everything to do with it was contemptible.

6. Evil is fun.

7. Someone else is always to blame for what women do.

8. If I want it, it's a "Right."

9. Children are expendable. (Literally and figuratively.)

10. Me First, Me Only.

11. Men are to be attacked constantly.

12. Selfishness is your right.

13. Manhood is to be denigrated constantly.

14. Lies are "OK" to get what you want.

15. Compassion is to be shown to me only

16. Morals are patriarchal "evil."

17. Sex should have no attachments or responsibility.

18. False pride is a virtue.

19. Eliminate all differences between the genders.

20. If you want something, just get it.

21. Care nothing for the effects of your actions.

22. Rationalize the effects of your actions.

23. Birth control is for men to do.

24. Promiscuity is a virtue.

25. Go out and f'k: don't worry about possible consequences like feeling guilty, STDs or pregnancy.

26. If a woman sleeps around, she's "finding herself." If a man does the same, he's a "dog" or a "sex maniac."

27. If someone's in the way of what you want, get them out of the way.

28. Hate anyone who objects to Feminist ideas, questions them, or even those who just "get in the way" and attack them without quarter until they shut up or are otherwise out of the way.

Now, with that being taught to GenX girls in junior high and high school, and at other ages by the mainstream media in TV, books, and movies, is there any wonder why most of them have taken the path of selfish evil?

GenX American women are a textbook case of what can happen when trained to do wrong, and when all restraints upon behavior are removed.


Whom Did Armstrong Cross?

I'm normally the guy who criticizes bicyclists because of how they act.

We are being asked by the media and powers that be to believe something that on its surface appears to be a scientific impossibility:

Lance Armstrong passed more than 900+ drug tests over the course of his career.

We're being asked to believe that 1800+ vials of blood were taken and not even once did one of the hundreds of banned substances tested for show up.

0 for 900+? Statistically, it's impossible.

Something would have showed up if he was guilty of doping.

I care nothing for sports except: 1. The 50% of kids who get hurt in them (CDC claims 7 million kids of 14 million visit to the emergency room/year), and 2. The ~50% of typical school budgets that go for sports. i would get rid of K-12 school sports for those reasons.

I've never had any interest in pro bikers. As one who cycled from 1982-2000, it was plenty to see the lawbreaking of the typical cyclist. I had no interest in following it.

That being said, something is wrong with the entire hullaballoo about Armstrong.

We're being asked to ignore the science of it.

Since it's impossible from a scientific standpoint, whom did Mr. Armstrong make angry? Who had enough power/money to do this?

The actions of officials have been nothing short of disgraceful, regardless of whether Armstrong is innocent are guilty. There appear to be three possibilities in this matter:

1. All 900+ tests were somehow wrong. What would that say about the tests?

2. Some percentage of those 900+ tests had their results changed. What would that say about the officials and laboratories involved?

3. All 900+ tests were correct and Armstrong is innocent. What would that say about the officials involved?

See a problem or two with what we are being expected to believe about Mr. Armstrong?


Only the Left

In the current frenzy by the Left to create more crime victims of gun violence, let's explore how the U.S. could get rid of the majority of U.S. murders, and eliminate most of the 100,000+ murders per year in Mexico.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than 8,000 of 11,000+ U.S. murders annually are black American on black American crime. Almost all of these are gang-related.

What is it that provides the money for gangs?

Drug money.

Who uses drugs like marijuana, cocaine, meth, heroin, LSD, and angel dust in the U.S.?

The Left.

The Left provides the money that keeps the gangs going. The Left provides the money that keeps the cartels going.

What is the motivation for the murders committed by gangs?

Drug money.

What is the motivation for the murders committed by the cartels?

Drug money.

Drugs like marijuana, meth, cocaine, and so on, are the province of the Left. It's almost unheard of for non-Left to use recreational drugs.

Whenever drugs have been legalized, there has been an explosion in addicts. Oregon from 1973-1997. Alaska. Canada. Not just the legal marijuana, but other drugs increase with marijuana legalization. That legalization has meant a windfall for the gangs in our cities and a windfall for the cartels in Mexico.

Why? Because most street drugs are produced by Mexico or by the cartels operating in the U.S.

Legalization increased the demand for street drugs by several times. The money grew exponentially as a result of legalization.

As did the number of murders in Mexico. And the number of murders by gangs in the U.S.

Most "recreational users"/addicts can't grow their street drugs, nor chemically craft their own, and thus legalization merely meant many more tons of street drugs coming from Mexico than before legalization. More money to the cartels. More money to U.S. gangs. Legalization meant more murders.

Because so many of the Left use street drugs, they never have had any real interest in fighting "the drug war" and thus we lost it.

Most U.S. murders could be eliminated if the Left gave up their "recreational drugs."

But they have no interest in doing so. What does that say about the Left?

The majority of the 100,000+ murders in Mexico each year could be eliminated if the U.S. Left gave up its street drugs. Most of the remainder if the Canadian Left also gave up its street drugs.

No drug money, no drug killing.

It's up to you of the Left to stop the drug killings.


Give up your marijuana.

Give up your meth.

Give up your cocaine.

Give up your angel dust.

Give up your heroin.

Give up your LSD.

Give up every street drug.

It's your money that pays for the murders.


What is the Law in Unpaid Website Agreements?

When I took Contract Law in college (remember I'm not a lawyer), it was emphasized that for a contract to be legal, it required "consideration" of at least $1 in my state. A dollar had to pass from one party to another. Other states had this or that requirement for a contract to be legal.

My question is: all of these arbitrary, capricious, and often ridiculous agreements written up on common websites such as "I agree by clicking to the terms of use" and similar things: are they legal? Is the person who visits a website actually bound by that, or is it a void contract because of no "consideration?"

Only a lawyer could answer that one, and I'd guess it varies by state.

When some of the truly dumb stuff that happens that amounts to 'only comment if you are a good Socialist' now defacto required by some "news" websites, one wonders if it's actually legal to make a person "click" on such an "agreement."


Why Not be Honest?

Why not be honest about the Democrat's reasons for wanting gun control?

It's not to prevent crime. Countries with right to guns have lower crime rates. The U.S. crime rate at 1/4 of the EU makes that clear.

It's not to prevent shootings. The Democrats don't do one damn thing about black on black American violence, which accounts for ~8000 of ~11,000 murders per year (Bureau of Justice Statistics). When four or five kids are killed with a drive-by shooting or a shooting on a bus in the inner city, the Democrats and the Democrat media do nothing. They don't call for the elimination of guns then.

When a number of Democrat politicos since 2009 have been calling for "socialist revolution", it's clear why they want no guns.

I wish "gun control advocates" and the Democrats would have the honesty to admit that, instead of the usual plethora of excuses. Remember: an excuse is simply a lie that sounds good.


A Complete Lack of Compassion by the Left... or Worse

Every time there is an awful shooting of persons the media and other compassionless persons want to make for more victims.  (Isn't it peculiar that when ten, twenty, thirty, or more people are killed in New York, Chicago, LA, etc, it may not even make the news? Racism by our media perhaps?)

Their first thoughts are to get rid of guns. Not concern for the victims.

So we'd be better off like Europe with half again as many such shootings? With multiples of our rates of violent crime like Europe has? Where recreational rioters burn and loot?

No compassion for the victims has been shown by the Left. It's cold, calculated— what can WE get from this incident? Within moments of every shooting, the Democrats immediately start screaming for removing guns from the populace.

What about the victims? Don't they count?

When immoral politics by the Democrats is more important to them than crime victims, something is wrong with their hearts.

It's called evil.

What about the victims?

When guns are legal, crime drops. The reverse is true, as shown by our cities that illegally restrict them. It's the same pattern again and again, city after city, state after state, country after country— when guns are legal, less crime. When guns are illegal, more crime. I know of no exception to this.

So why no compassion by the Left? Why do they advocate more crime by gun restrictions for non-criminals?

I've lost two cousins in two states to criminals. If guns were completely restricted, they still would be dead. Why? Because criminals never have any problem getting them. Or making them. In those nations like Germany or the UK, only the criminal element has them.

All that is accomplished by "gun control" is 1. To make for more crime victims by restricting firearms to the criminal element, and 2. To make it more difficult to stop a government takeover.

I submit that second aim is why most Left politicians are for eliminating firearms. How many of them have been calling for "revolution" in just the last 3 years?

It's very much like what has happened in every socialist nation, where first guns were registered, then confiscated or otherwise restricted. All supposedly to stop crime.

No compassion. The Left's hearts are evil. Their motivations are evil.

I rebuke each and every politician, group, and individual, who seeks to profit from these gun incidents in Jesus' Name.


What is it with the Republican Party?

Do they realize just how it sounds when they are talking of changing strategy, when they lost because of the worst voter fraud ever done in this nation?

How does "changing their strategy" fix the problem of tens of millions of "voters" that didn't exist before November 6 and didn't exist after November 6?

How many precincts had more than the number of registered voters? When they usually get 50% or 60% of registered voters voting? Where did the "extra" come from? How many precincts had half again as many voters as registered voters? How many had even more? From sea to shining sea, there was one "irregularity" after another. A consistent pattern.

Truth be told, Obama probably only carried California, mostly due to the 13 million Mexican Nationals who, while they are not supposed to vote, routinely vote in California.

So where is the outrage at the highest levels? The public has been livid.

Consider how angry the voters are: when a million people from ~30 states sign a petition to secede , that's angry. More than angry. That is rage. Using the standard political letter/email factor of 1:100, that means about 100 million feel the same. Think a hundred million wanting "secession" is normal? These voters are as angry as voters are possibly to be.

And the Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to fix the situation.

Worse, many "conservative" newspapers are deliberately suppressing those who point out what happened on Election Day. For weeks we had story after story on fraud, and then it "magically" dried up.

Instead of speaking of investigating the obvious "problems" of this election, all the Republicans at the top seem to be speaking of is wanting to start acting like Democrats.

Where are the Republican's brains? If they lost this time from voter fraud, they will lose next time from voter fraud.

If the Democrats fixed this election, what's to stop them from doing it for the foreseeable future?

If the Republicans adopted ALL TEN of the Planks of the Communist Manifesto (Dems had 9 in their 2012 platform) and act like the Santa Clause of the Millennium, the Republicans are STILL GOING TO LOSE!

Fixed is fixed.

By ignoring the obvious, they are essentially claiming that a change in ideology will fix the problem of a stolen election next time.

It won't.

Republican leaders: stop wheezing about this or that "change in strategy" and DO SOMETHING about this fraudulent election.

Before free elections become a thing of the past.

Copyright 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved