It is worth going out and playing with Wolfram Alpha, it is pretty amazing and I would be completely unsurprised if it replaced Google for some classes of knowledge work.
I have "A New Kind of Science" -- I'm really not going to say that I understand it, but kind of like at the end of the video, I believe one has to take a "Super Programmers View of the Universe" ... it is all about software, "models".
Physics is a mathematical model that accurately predicts much of the physical universe, but it has to some degree broken down at the levels of the very small, the very hot and the very fast.
Wolfram believes that he has a better idea, Cellular Automata, as a better way than existing forms of mathematics to explain "virtually everything" ... the structure of the universe, language, thought, evolution ....
There are pieces that I think I kind of get ... sort of like reading the classics, Greek and Roman History, and a few thousand other things, I'm hopeful that I can reduce demands on my time in the future to undertake getting a bit smarter about this area.
(In my dreams, I may even take on and somehow come to grips with Roger Penrose: "The Emperors New Mind" ... sort of like "A New Kind of Science", I've taken a couple of runs at that one and decided, "I need a bigger brain, or A LOT more time" .... I have this sneaking suspicion that while "in theory", even a mortal ought to be able to figure some of this stuff out by taking longer, drawing on more supporting material, creating intermediate analogous models, etc, there is a fairly high risk this is "Non-computable in MooseSpace".
I think it IS fascinating to watch however!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tyranny of the Majority
Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe
There is a move afoot to make an end run around the electoral college that so many liberals hate. The idea that somehow politicians are going to pay more attention to "fly over country" is the big lie ... as is so often the case with liberal agendas, it is in fact exactly the OPPOSITE. TODAY you will see candidates stop in those states because the "value per voter" is much higher than voters in urban areas -- as the founders intended to help act as a brake on "the tyranny of the majority".
Well, maybe one thing -- why is this so? It is so because liberals believe that the ends justify the means. If the 60 vote rule in the Senate has to be subverted so they can take over health care, so be it. If they have to use direct lies and sneak around the US Constitution, so be it. They believe that in the end, they can create "utopia" if they just get their way --- history tells us that their utopia is either bankruptcy, the gulag, or both. To which, they say "so be it".
There is a move afoot to make an end run around the electoral college that so many liberals hate. The idea that somehow politicians are going to pay more attention to "fly over country" is the big lie ... as is so often the case with liberal agendas, it is in fact exactly the OPPOSITE. TODAY you will see candidates stop in those states because the "value per voter" is much higher than voters in urban areas -- as the founders intended to help act as a brake on "the tyranny of the majority".
What else can one say about this quote beyond "YES"!Presidential candidates now "ignore wide swaths of the country" they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.
"That's really what we're talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they're being reached out to," he said.
"The thing about this that bothers me the most is it's so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky," he said. "This is sort of an end run around the Constitution."
Well, maybe one thing -- why is this so? It is so because liberals believe that the ends justify the means. If the 60 vote rule in the Senate has to be subverted so they can take over health care, so be it. If they have to use direct lies and sneak around the US Constitution, so be it. They believe that in the end, they can create "utopia" if they just get their way --- history tells us that their utopia is either bankruptcy, the gulag, or both. To which, they say "so be it".
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Net Neutrality
Al Franken to Liberals: Don't Check Out Now - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
As a techie semi-libertarian, I've looked at Net Neutrality and pretty much said "who cares". In principle, "no barriers, little or no censorship, standards" seems just fine ... and as far as I can see, "we're there".
Now I see that Al Franken is really in favor of it and is certain that "Fox news is going to load faster than DailyKos", and my antenna quiver.
My usual rule is that if liberals accuse conservatives of planning to do something, then they are planning (or in the process of) doing exactly that. (We could do a really long list, but think of campaign finance complaints against Bush and what BO did, think of deficits under Bush vs BO, think of complaints of Rove and the Christian right and then look at Axlerod and Acorn ...)
So why DOES everyone need to have exactly the same access? Is this some statement like "since there isn't much of a market for liberal talk radio" (since NPR, CBS, ABC, etc already cornered it), we ought to either cancel conservative talk radio or subsidize a liberal version?
Oh, and who enforces Net Neutrality? I'm assuming that Al Franken is saying "the government" -- so while I'm sure the DailyKos will load really speedily, maybe Fox News won't even be possible to find if Al gets his way. His "neutral" and mine may be significantly different.
Haven't changed my mind yet, but "if Franken is for it, I'm against it" is often a really good rule, and the fact that he is for it at least means it needs some real thought and scrutiny!
As a techie semi-libertarian, I've looked at Net Neutrality and pretty much said "who cares". In principle, "no barriers, little or no censorship, standards" seems just fine ... and as far as I can see, "we're there".
Now I see that Al Franken is really in favor of it and is certain that "Fox news is going to load faster than DailyKos", and my antenna quiver.
My usual rule is that if liberals accuse conservatives of planning to do something, then they are planning (or in the process of) doing exactly that. (We could do a really long list, but think of campaign finance complaints against Bush and what BO did, think of deficits under Bush vs BO, think of complaints of Rove and the Christian right and then look at Axlerod and Acorn ...)
So why DOES everyone need to have exactly the same access? Is this some statement like "since there isn't much of a market for liberal talk radio" (since NPR, CBS, ABC, etc already cornered it), we ought to either cancel conservative talk radio or subsidize a liberal version?
Oh, and who enforces Net Neutrality? I'm assuming that Al Franken is saying "the government" -- so while I'm sure the DailyKos will load really speedily, maybe Fox News won't even be possible to find if Al gets his way. His "neutral" and mine may be significantly different.
Haven't changed my mind yet, but "if Franken is for it, I'm against it" is often a really good rule, and the fact that he is for it at least means it needs some real thought and scrutiny!
Monday, July 26, 2010
Journolist
Raw Journolist emails on ‘Palin’s Downs child’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Truth is often far stranger than fiction. While liberals are up in arms at the "unfairness" of the edited tape of Sherrod and how it "mislead" the poor NAACP and BO administration, the Journolist story just goes on and on, getting stranger and stranger.
Now they didn't happen to come out and call Fred Barnes a racist as they were discussing, but it makes one realize why they are always railing against the "vast right wing conspiracy" and "coordinated conservative attacks". They assume it must be true, because that is how THEY operate!
The difference is that if some "RightRlist" with a bunch of conservatives that contained a lot of hypothetical ideas of how to damage BO or some Democrat rights theft dejour, the MSM would go positively whack job nuts! Many of them already are over just an edited tape and the subsequent over reaction by their own beloved BO.
The thing that hits me the most is how completely out of touch they are with what something around 50% of Americans are like. We ALL know what liberals are like -- we see them on the news all the time, watch their movies, listen to their songs and get to hear them pontificating on the stupidity of religion, the nuclear family, people working to support themselves, monogamy, heterosexual lifestyles, having (and no doubt falling short of) moral standards, and all sorts of things "liberals" find to be abominations. There is nothing in the Journolist that I really find "surprising" -- it just provides extra clarity for "why they are as they are".
It isn't hard for a conservative to understand their thinking at all -- "there but for the grace of God". If I wasn't "saddled" with the belief in an immortal soul and eventual judgement, I would enjoy a whole lot more smugness and witty attacks of all sorts. It is very human to enjoy being "in with the in crowd", and Journolist is clearly that -- these are folks that KNOW of the rightness of their ways. No need to try to interpret the wishes of some infinite God or anything, just go with what seems like a fun approach to taking down the folks you hate --- forget "truth". Edit a tape where someone is talking to put them in a bad light? Why bother, just make up stories out of whole cloth -- that shows off a whole lot more of your "creativity".
The wages of complete fabrication is that it becomes the standard. BOTH SIDES will fall to this "standard", and when they do, the left will of course LOUDLY lament that the right has fallen to their standard. The IDEA of standards and the CONSISTENT application of them to everyone indendent of "race, religion, color, creed" or even political party, is that everyone benefits from the civility and predictabilty. When once side goes "JournOList", it is only a matter of time before the other side does as well.,
And who will the REALLY be to blame then?
Truth is often far stranger than fiction. While liberals are up in arms at the "unfairness" of the edited tape of Sherrod and how it "mislead" the poor NAACP and BO administration, the Journolist story just goes on and on, getting stranger and stranger.
Now they didn't happen to come out and call Fred Barnes a racist as they were discussing, but it makes one realize why they are always railing against the "vast right wing conspiracy" and "coordinated conservative attacks". They assume it must be true, because that is how THEY operate!
The difference is that if some "RightRlist" with a bunch of conservatives that contained a lot of hypothetical ideas of how to damage BO or some Democrat rights theft dejour, the MSM would go positively whack job nuts! Many of them already are over just an edited tape and the subsequent over reaction by their own beloved BO.
The thing that hits me the most is how completely out of touch they are with what something around 50% of Americans are like. We ALL know what liberals are like -- we see them on the news all the time, watch their movies, listen to their songs and get to hear them pontificating on the stupidity of religion, the nuclear family, people working to support themselves, monogamy, heterosexual lifestyles, having (and no doubt falling short of) moral standards, and all sorts of things "liberals" find to be abominations. There is nothing in the Journolist that I really find "surprising" -- it just provides extra clarity for "why they are as they are".
It isn't hard for a conservative to understand their thinking at all -- "there but for the grace of God". If I wasn't "saddled" with the belief in an immortal soul and eventual judgement, I would enjoy a whole lot more smugness and witty attacks of all sorts. It is very human to enjoy being "in with the in crowd", and Journolist is clearly that -- these are folks that KNOW of the rightness of their ways. No need to try to interpret the wishes of some infinite God or anything, just go with what seems like a fun approach to taking down the folks you hate --- forget "truth". Edit a tape where someone is talking to put them in a bad light? Why bother, just make up stories out of whole cloth -- that shows off a whole lot more of your "creativity".
The wages of complete fabrication is that it becomes the standard. BOTH SIDES will fall to this "standard", and when they do, the left will of course LOUDLY lament that the right has fallen to their standard. The IDEA of standards and the CONSISTENT application of them to everyone indendent of "race, religion, color, creed" or even political party, is that everyone benefits from the civility and predictabilty. When once side goes "JournOList", it is only a matter of time before the other side does as well.,
And who will the REALLY be to blame then?
Standing Up To Right Wing
RealClearPolitics - Time to Stand Up to the Right Wing
Here is the "short version" of the Sherrod video.
Here is a video of the Black Panthers voter intimidation.
EJ Dionne is all up in arms here. I can remember staying up late to finally be able to see the entire Rodney King tape -- it was months after the incident that had caused the riots. It was LONG and BORING ... things go on for a very long time before the "hot incident" that caused LA Cops to be branded as "racist", even though a number of those involved were black. Let's face it, once those snippets were shown, it was over, the MSM was completely not concerned with "context".
One could go on a long list of folks that have been smeared in the MSM over all sorts of things, or nothing at all -- Robert Bork, Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Ray Donovan ("where do I go to get my reputation back"), Clarence Thomas, ... I'm not going to waste time here, it is common. We now know of "JournOlist" with the discussion of just calling Fred Barnes a racist made up out of whole cloth to take attention away from the Rev Wright story. They didn't happen to do that one, but how many DID they do?
Take the very simple thought exercise of making Sherrod a white guy government worker talking at some "organization for the advancement of white people" -- I don't care how long he talks, he is toast, and NOBODY comes out to defend him.
Put some white hoods in the place of the panthers and have them saying the inverse of "cracker" at some polling station -- I bet the results are WAY different, and that the story doesn't go away.
The OTHER thing I'd ask be considered -- put the "conservative version of EJ" in the story in the other cases. The other stories are as I indicate above, NOW, have a conservative journalist come out saying "it is time to stand up to the LEFT wing!". How is that received? I bet it is received as "White politicians in government making questionable statements about blacks, and white racial organizations (if there were such a thing) cheering them on is not "partisan" it is "american"... it is something that all should be able to agree on".
Think about it. The fact that EJ can do an article like this with impunity says that the heading is very wrong. It is time for AMERICANS to stand up to the wacko liberal press!!!
Here is the "short version" of the Sherrod video.
Here is a video of the Black Panthers voter intimidation.
EJ Dionne is all up in arms here. I can remember staying up late to finally be able to see the entire Rodney King tape -- it was months after the incident that had caused the riots. It was LONG and BORING ... things go on for a very long time before the "hot incident" that caused LA Cops to be branded as "racist", even though a number of those involved were black. Let's face it, once those snippets were shown, it was over, the MSM was completely not concerned with "context".
One could go on a long list of folks that have been smeared in the MSM over all sorts of things, or nothing at all -- Robert Bork, Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Ray Donovan ("where do I go to get my reputation back"), Clarence Thomas, ... I'm not going to waste time here, it is common. We now know of "JournOlist" with the discussion of just calling Fred Barnes a racist made up out of whole cloth to take attention away from the Rev Wright story. They didn't happen to do that one, but how many DID they do?
Take the very simple thought exercise of making Sherrod a white guy government worker talking at some "organization for the advancement of white people" -- I don't care how long he talks, he is toast, and NOBODY comes out to defend him.
Put some white hoods in the place of the panthers and have them saying the inverse of "cracker" at some polling station -- I bet the results are WAY different, and that the story doesn't go away.
The OTHER thing I'd ask be considered -- put the "conservative version of EJ" in the story in the other cases. The other stories are as I indicate above, NOW, have a conservative journalist come out saying "it is time to stand up to the LEFT wing!". How is that received? I bet it is received as "White politicians in government making questionable statements about blacks, and white racial organizations (if there were such a thing) cheering them on is not "partisan" it is "american"... it is something that all should be able to agree on".
Think about it. The fact that EJ can do an article like this with impunity says that the heading is very wrong. It is time for AMERICANS to stand up to the wacko liberal press!!!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Praise for John Kerry
Power Line - John Kerry Does Something Right
Kerry has a $7 million yacht, he keeps it in Rhode Island rather than Massachusetts to avoid $500K in taxes. A completely rational and reasonable thing to do!! -- were he a conservative with actual principles, it would be hypocrisy, but since he is a liberal with none, I fail to see why one would have cause for comment.
I ALSO applaud his flying of a large American flag from the boat -- this is an act of extreme courage for a liberal, and many would not do as much. Kudos to Kerry!
Kerry has a $7 million yacht, he keeps it in Rhode Island rather than Massachusetts to avoid $500K in taxes. A completely rational and reasonable thing to do!! -- were he a conservative with actual principles, it would be hypocrisy, but since he is a liberal with none, I fail to see why one would have cause for comment.
I ALSO applaud his flying of a large American flag from the boat -- this is an act of extreme courage for a liberal, and many would not do as much. Kudos to Kerry!
Understanding Sherrod
Op-Ed Columnist - You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing - NYTimes.com
I had an interesting Thursday as I went up to the cities for a "Smart Grid" presentation at the U, so had a decent amount of car time. For my radio selection I got to hear, MPR, CBS Glenn Beck and Hannity. By listening to those outlets, here is what I heard on Sherrod:
I had an interesting Thursday as I went up to the cities for a "Smart Grid" presentation at the U, so had a decent amount of car time. For my radio selection I got to hear, MPR, CBS Glenn Beck and Hannity. By listening to those outlets, here is what I heard on Sherrod:
- MPR -- Conservative media is dangerous because they "take things out of context", Ag Sectretary made a big mistake, BO fixed it. End of story unless we could somehow get rid of Andrew Breitbart.
- CBS -- Conservative radio evil, Ag Secretary "mislead", BO a saint. Nuff said.
- Beck -- The point of the story was how the NAACP audience reacted to her statement that she wasn't going to help the white guy much -- in reaction to the NAACP calling the Tea Party "racist". The BO administration screw up is just their over reaction because they realize that many blacks ARE racist, so they assumed that she "got caught".
- Hannity -- Waste of time -- he just wanted to dodge the issue, so my guess is that he took the "she is a racist path" and was embarrassed. He did have one reasonable point how likely is a white speaker / audience could get away with this, context or not ??? I think we all know the answer to that.
- By design or otherwise, the real point of this, that the NAACP is more racist than any Tea Party movement got lost. It is NAMED as a racist organization, and surprise, surprise, it is ... I think there IS a "NAAWP" for whites, and it is racist. Surprise.
- Anyone that read BO's first book knows that he is a racist or very close to a racist -- the idea that he would even consider or include discussion of "purging white blood" would be seen as quite extreme were it reversed to "purging black blood". Even touching on the issue of "blood purity" has an awful lot of bad connotations and it is remarkable that he has been allowed to skate without even any questions on what he was thinking when he wrote that.
- The big screw up here is the BO administration. It is pretty surprising that Vilsak isn't under the bus already and there isn't a witch hunt to find out "who dunnit"? The IMMEDIATE media question under Bush would have been "was Karl Rove involved?" ... so here the exact question would be "Was Axelrod involved". One sees inside the different media approach a bit here. With Bush, the objective of the MSM on every story is "how can we most effectively damage the president?". They saw getting Rove out of there as a major objective, so the "puppet master" type question was asked over and over. That is how the echo chamber works -- ask and get some pundit to say "this has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it" enough times, and most of the sheep believe.
Eject, Eject ...
Photoblog - Pilot ejects an instant before fighterjet crashes
"The nick of time" doesn't really do this justice.
"The nick of time" doesn't really do this justice.
The Wilson Has Landed
 |
| Wilson Combat CQB, G10 Starburst Grips |
I took my Para Tac 4 hi-cap, LDA trigger out to the range for comparison. The only way to truly savor redemption is to face that which you have been redeemed from -- the Para is a fine weapon, at one level not a thing wrong with it, having 13 rounds of .45 vs 8 might come in handy. The fatal transgression is to believe that the metaphysical merits of the true 1911 could be bestowed by a double stack completely unrecognisable as a 1911. My handgunning soul has been redeemed, and I am free, truely free as only a real 1911 owning American can be, at last.
One beholds the Wilson with a sense of humility. Although the first outing was far and away my best first outing with a new firearm, including my best groups ever right out of the box, I realise this is a weapon that I will never do justice. I have some concern of being apprehended at the range by some life NRA member for possession of a firearm in excess of my demonstrated skill level. I'm not exactly sure what the penalty would be, but after one outing, I'd say that even if it were death, it would be worth it -- providing it would be "death by Wilson". If one must die by gun, it may as well be by the very best.
 |
| First Wilson Groups |
Naturally, since it was my buddy that had the F2F, I won't consider the potential that he "limp wristed" it.
I'm completely happy. Great gun to just admire, even better gun to enjoy shooting for a lifetime and then pass it on to the next generation.
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Rich
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/21/definition-of-rich/
All the Democrats in MN are very excited at what they hope is their future capability to "tax the rich" once they manage to get the Governor's office. As per usual, they have some arguments about "who is rich" ... basically they are sure it is either an income of $150k for a couple or $250K. Also, as usual, they are completely clueless.
MPR decided to get an economist from NYU into the mix (you can go listen on the link if you like), and he pointed out a "shocking fact" (for liberals) -- "rich" has a lot more to do with NET WORTH than it does with INCOME!!! Imagine that!!
He said that providing you had a net worth of at least $2.5 Million, a $250K a year income would be the "threshold of rich" ... but the NET WORTH was the more important factor.
The obvious point -- there are plenty of folks that make $150K, $250K and more that would be "on the street" if they quit working. It is very true that those are the kinds of "rich" that MPR and the Democrats love --- the kind that have less choice of restricting their income if taxed, but never the less, those people are far closer to "high income poor" than "rich".
You may have big debt because of going to medical school, setting up your small business, or just because you felt you needed a $400K home, a lake home, a fancy car, cool vacations, or whatever. It doesn't really matter WHY you are spending most of that income, but if you are, then you are not rich. You may in fact be very close to bankruptcy.
If you have to work, you aren't rich. Wealth has much much more to do with your assets and your cost of living (sometimes self imposed, sometimes not). Like health being a good input to help you be happy, but far from a guarentee, income may be an asset in eventually becoming rich, but it will depend MUCH more on what you do with it than the actual income figure.
HINT: Giving it to Democrats in taxes won't make you wealthy ... and given their philosophy and understanding of life, it likely won't help anyone else either. "Doing good" in all but the cases of really really good luck is going to require some exposure to what reality actually is, and mixing up income and net worth is just one more sign that is an area that Democrats are lacking in knowledge. Having "your heart in the right place" only goes so far.
All the Democrats in MN are very excited at what they hope is their future capability to "tax the rich" once they manage to get the Governor's office. As per usual, they have some arguments about "who is rich" ... basically they are sure it is either an income of $150k for a couple or $250K. Also, as usual, they are completely clueless.
MPR decided to get an economist from NYU into the mix (you can go listen on the link if you like), and he pointed out a "shocking fact" (for liberals) -- "rich" has a lot more to do with NET WORTH than it does with INCOME!!! Imagine that!!
He said that providing you had a net worth of at least $2.5 Million, a $250K a year income would be the "threshold of rich" ... but the NET WORTH was the more important factor.
The obvious point -- there are plenty of folks that make $150K, $250K and more that would be "on the street" if they quit working. It is very true that those are the kinds of "rich" that MPR and the Democrats love --- the kind that have less choice of restricting their income if taxed, but never the less, those people are far closer to "high income poor" than "rich".
You may have big debt because of going to medical school, setting up your small business, or just because you felt you needed a $400K home, a lake home, a fancy car, cool vacations, or whatever. It doesn't really matter WHY you are spending most of that income, but if you are, then you are not rich. You may in fact be very close to bankruptcy.
If you have to work, you aren't rich. Wealth has much much more to do with your assets and your cost of living (sometimes self imposed, sometimes not). Like health being a good input to help you be happy, but far from a guarentee, income may be an asset in eventually becoming rich, but it will depend MUCH more on what you do with it than the actual income figure.
HINT: Giving it to Democrats in taxes won't make you wealthy ... and given their philosophy and understanding of life, it likely won't help anyone else either. "Doing good" in all but the cases of really really good luck is going to require some exposure to what reality actually is, and mixing up income and net worth is just one more sign that is an area that Democrats are lacking in knowledge. Having "your heart in the right place" only goes so far.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
PJ O'Rourke, Driving Like Crazy
Like most anything from PJ, extremely fun, irreverent, totally Non-PC and witty -- a "guilty pleasure" that doesn't leave you feeling guilty, because mixed in with the mayhem are some nuggets of real wisdom about the world.
As the title says, it is a "driving book", but what he has done is taken some of his old stories, updated them, commented on his own "foolishness of youth" and in my opinion, used some 30 years of writing experience to just make them better.
There are a series of very entertaining and somewhat surprising vignettes -- as in PJ and Mike Nesmith of ancient "Monkees" fame running the Baja race in a supertruck named "TimeRider". PJ's introduction to NASCAR and a trip from Islamabad to Calcutta on the Grand Trunk Road.
Along the way, some very solid tips are thrown in -- the Indian Sub-Continent Diet for example: take one tablespoon of the local water a day and eat absolutely anything you want (not likely to be much) and lose weight faster than a hunger strike!
Caution, PJ is politically "not a liberal" ... I think he might be a libertarian, he certainly really isn't "conservative" in any sense of moralizing that the media likes to associate with conservatives. He may be an anarchist -- or potentially just nuts.
The point is, liberals will likely be offended. This is another of the "monster gulfs" between conservatives and liberals. While it is darned hard to watch or listen to any popular movies, tv, music without hearing the equivalents of "They're beating plowshares into swords for this tired old man that we've elected king" (Don Henley, '80s, song I really like in general -- not too subtle reference to Reagan) . Liberal thought is pervasive, especially in the mass media, so conservatives have to have "perspective", and a sense of humor even. We also have the solace that much like the line above, just wait around for a couple years and the liberal thought will be proven idiotic like 90%+ of the time.
I think reading PJ would be a GREAT way for a liberal to work on being just a little less grim, or as PJ puts it "less of a FunSucker" ... although I realize that one couldn't really stay a liberal at all and try to understand a broader view.
Rated a big F for FUN! If you have any interest in cars, driving, drinking, stupidity, wit and just a guy that is interesting and has no right to still be alive -- go for it. Highly recommended.
As the title says, it is a "driving book", but what he has done is taken some of his old stories, updated them, commented on his own "foolishness of youth" and in my opinion, used some 30 years of writing experience to just make them better.
There are a series of very entertaining and somewhat surprising vignettes -- as in PJ and Mike Nesmith of ancient "Monkees" fame running the Baja race in a supertruck named "TimeRider". PJ's introduction to NASCAR and a trip from Islamabad to Calcutta on the Grand Trunk Road.
Along the way, some very solid tips are thrown in -- the Indian Sub-Continent Diet for example: take one tablespoon of the local water a day and eat absolutely anything you want (not likely to be much) and lose weight faster than a hunger strike!
Caution, PJ is politically "not a liberal" ... I think he might be a libertarian, he certainly really isn't "conservative" in any sense of moralizing that the media likes to associate with conservatives. He may be an anarchist -- or potentially just nuts.
The point is, liberals will likely be offended. This is another of the "monster gulfs" between conservatives and liberals. While it is darned hard to watch or listen to any popular movies, tv, music without hearing the equivalents of "They're beating plowshares into swords for this tired old man that we've elected king" (Don Henley, '80s, song I really like in general -- not too subtle reference to Reagan) . Liberal thought is pervasive, especially in the mass media, so conservatives have to have "perspective", and a sense of humor even. We also have the solace that much like the line above, just wait around for a couple years and the liberal thought will be proven idiotic like 90%+ of the time.
I think reading PJ would be a GREAT way for a liberal to work on being just a little less grim, or as PJ puts it "less of a FunSucker" ... although I realize that one couldn't really stay a liberal at all and try to understand a broader view.
Rated a big F for FUN! If you have any interest in cars, driving, drinking, stupidity, wit and just a guy that is interesting and has no right to still be alive -- go for it. Highly recommended.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
No Mosque At Ground Zero
Forget the outrage -- it would be enough for me, but it isn't even 10% of the problem.
A whole lot of being human is about symbolism. Constructing this Mosque is designed to let the Muslim world know that we can be attacked and defeated. It memorialises a great Islamic "success", and shows that we are too decadent, foolish and confused to understand raw power.
This is an ACTUAL terrorist recruitment tool, not a fake one like Gitmo or Abu Girab.
Recruits like to see evidence that they can kick your ass, not that their ass is likely get beaten, locked up, and left to rot -- with a very long dry spell prior to any supposed virgin prospects.
How can we have liberals that go berserk over a Christmas tree but embrace a "religion" that condones the slaughter of those that disagree and the abuse of women in this life and the next -- for "diversity".
The liberal hatred of America truly trumps all -- there really isn't any other explanation that even remotely makes sense.
A whole lot of being human is about symbolism. Constructing this Mosque is designed to let the Muslim world know that we can be attacked and defeated. It memorialises a great Islamic "success", and shows that we are too decadent, foolish and confused to understand raw power.
This is an ACTUAL terrorist recruitment tool, not a fake one like Gitmo or Abu Girab.
Recruits like to see evidence that they can kick your ass, not that their ass is likely get beaten, locked up, and left to rot -- with a very long dry spell prior to any supposed virgin prospects.
How can we have liberals that go berserk over a Christmas tree but embrace a "religion" that condones the slaughter of those that disagree and the abuse of women in this life and the next -- for "diversity".
The liberal hatred of America truly trumps all -- there really isn't any other explanation that even remotely makes sense.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Democrat Strategy 2010?
Andrew Alexander - Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?
Some folks seem to think the Democrats are going to lose big in 2010. I certainly hope they are right, but Democrats have "other options". Just imagine for a moment if this intimidation had been done by a guy in a KKK outfit in some black polling place and he was being given a pass by a Republican administration? What would I think of that? GOOD!!! Voter intimidation is just plain wrong. That ought to be an AMERICAN opinion, not a left or right opinion.
Sadly, we see that not only is the current administration willing to let past intimidation slide, they are also willing to tacitly encourage more of it by lack of enforcement and statements to that effect. Add to that the MSM being willing to soft pedal the story in the extreme, and we have one way to "turn the tide".
Here in MN we find that more felons voted in the last election than Frankens margin of victory -- a story of very close to zero interest to either the MN press, or the election authorities.
Add to this the millions and millions of questionable votes gained by ACORN and other "Community Organizer" groups, and we have a recipe for control of our elections by "other means". The exact methodology espoused by BO's chief mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Some folks seem to think the Democrats are going to lose big in 2010. I certainly hope they are right, but Democrats have "other options". Just imagine for a moment if this intimidation had been done by a guy in a KKK outfit in some black polling place and he was being given a pass by a Republican administration? What would I think of that? GOOD!!! Voter intimidation is just plain wrong. That ought to be an AMERICAN opinion, not a left or right opinion.
Sadly, we see that not only is the current administration willing to let past intimidation slide, they are also willing to tacitly encourage more of it by lack of enforcement and statements to that effect. Add to that the MSM being willing to soft pedal the story in the extreme, and we have one way to "turn the tide".
Here in MN we find that more felons voted in the last election than Frankens margin of victory -- a story of very close to zero interest to either the MN press, or the election authorities.
Add to this the millions and millions of questionable votes gained by ACORN and other "Community Organizer" groups, and we have a recipe for control of our elections by "other means". The exact methodology espoused by BO's chief mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Santa and Frank
Townhall - Santa and Frank
PJ O'Rourke does a much funnier version of the Democrats being Santa and the Republicans being god, but the effect is about the same. People in general, and especially post "New Deal" Americans love to get stuff under the assumption that "someone else will pay for it". Prior to Reagan, the Republicans always played the particularly bumbling Charlie Brown foil, and their unwillingness to constantly 100% fall on their butts to clean up the Democrats latest drunken spending orgy has brought the nation to what I believe to be beyond recovery -- in an time frame those of us 50 and older are likely to see.
We started scratching the surface of this grave with Teddy Roosevelt, took some big scoops out with Wilson, dug deep and wide with FDR, started lowering the casket with LBJ, shut the lid, folded the flag with Bush (love that bi-partisanship), and now BO is furiously pouring dirt in on the grave of the USA.
Sowell does a good job with the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy though ... worth a read.
PJ O'Rourke does a much funnier version of the Democrats being Santa and the Republicans being god, but the effect is about the same. People in general, and especially post "New Deal" Americans love to get stuff under the assumption that "someone else will pay for it". Prior to Reagan, the Republicans always played the particularly bumbling Charlie Brown foil, and their unwillingness to constantly 100% fall on their butts to clean up the Democrats latest drunken spending orgy has brought the nation to what I believe to be beyond recovery -- in an time frame those of us 50 and older are likely to see.
We started scratching the surface of this grave with Teddy Roosevelt, took some big scoops out with Wilson, dug deep and wide with FDR, started lowering the casket with LBJ, shut the lid, folded the flag with Bush (love that bi-partisanship), and now BO is furiously pouring dirt in on the grave of the USA.
Sowell does a good job with the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy though ... worth a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)