Debate Wrap up

The first debate between Hillary and Trump is now in the can. My observations:

1.  I didn’t watch it.  I watched a Southpark re-run instead.  It was the World of Warcraft episode.  SOOO Funny, and actually had more to do with my real life than anything I was likely to see in the “debate”.
2. The Fox news commentary this morning shows a few clips of the two.  As I predicted a few days ago, the camera angles were adjusted to conceal Hillary’s saddle bags and not make her look shorter than Trump.  In the side-by-side clip I saw, she looked taller than Trump.  Pure media manipulation.  Some might say it was to reduce Trump’s unfair visual advantage since he towers over her.  But that height advantage is a REAL thing.  Any attempt to cover it over for “fairness” is in fact manipulation to shift the bias.
3. The media today is droning on and on about their “analysis”.  There isn’t any “analysis”.  All there is is opinion and no one’s opinion matters any more than anyone else.  Analysis uses tools like measures of effectiveness and objective scoring.  There was none of that in this debate.  Any talk of winners and losers is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.  There can’t be winners or losers because there was no score keeping structure in place.  If anything, the only score that would matter would be a tally of all the people who changed their vote on account of something they saw in the “debate”.
4. I predicted Hillary would find a way to skate out of the debate, likely by blaming Trump for something.  I was wrong.  Unless we discover later that her double actually did the debate, I would have to concede that she did go through with it.
5. Her health.  How low have we collectively set the bar for her when her making it though a 90 minute event is a reason for celebration instead of just “expected”.
6. Overheard in the hallway at the Pentagon this morning,  “That guy is such a buffoon.  He really made a clown of himself.  I can’t believe they let him get on the same stage as her.”   Just goes to show.  Everyone sees their team captain through their own filter.  Yes, these were black people.  Only liberal black people and women are allowed to openly express political opinions today in the Pentagon.

Scott Adams: Shut Up and Draw

Seriously.  This guy is so over-rated.  I love his cartoons. Dilbert is and has been my daily read for over ten years.  No other cartoon can say as much.  It is always an insightful slice of live that I always get on the first take.

Then he goes into presidential endorsements.  Dude, Stop it.  No one asked you.  Well, maybe someone did, but I didn’t.  Vox Day posts his latest on his site, which is where I found it.  Note that I happen to also endorse Trump (not that it matters) so my criticism of Adams is not related to any disagreement with who he supports.

My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!   I suppose that could be true, depending on how you define “credible”.  This sentiment betrays a mindlessly myopic view that is common among feminists that the abortion debate is a gender driven debate of men versus women and that if men just STFU, we would have free abortions for everyone all the time.  But the fact is that some of the most ardent pro-life leaders I have ever met are women and the best argument for abortion (other than kill moar brown babies) has always been male convenience.  But this idea, if followed in all aspects of law is so mindlessly stupid that it deserves to be laughed at.  Only people who have been murdered should be allowed an opinion about the legality of murder.  Or maybe only murderers should be allowed to have those opinions.  It gets a little confusing at that point.

So on most political topics, I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you…

He seems to be advocating that if you aren’t smart on every possible topic, you should not vote.  But that is totally opposite the American system, as designed.  You vote for people you trust, not people who agree with you on every topic.  You are electing representatives in Congress, and someone who you trust to run the executive branch for president.  You don’t need to know everything about their job, only that you trust them to do it.

I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.

Great.  So, on his pet issue, you should disregard his moral stand of neutrality.  But he doesn’t have a clearly articulated point to make on this issue either.  If he sees this one pet tax as theft, then why cannot everyone see any tax as theft?  What is the moral or intellectual line that separates them?  Does it matter?  NO!  The president doesn’t set tax rates.  Not even dictatorial ones.  Congress does that.  So, even on his pet issue of death taxes, Adams proves he is not smart enough to vote. He should just vote for other people who are smart enough.

4. Clinton’s Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn’t look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country.

So, if I understand Adams correctly, A healthy mass murdering psychopath is better than a sickly saint with a Nobel prize in economics.  He would rather have someone healthy than someone who is qualified.  This is utterly stupid.  A person’s health might be a discriminator when you are choosing between two people of equal talent and disposition.  But that isn’t even close in this case.  First, there is no guarantee that any candidate can finish his or her first term.  They cannot even guarantee they will live long enough to take office.  Second, the President doesn’t “lead” the country.  The president “manages” the executive branch of the federal government.  Period.  Stop.  Carriage Return. Everyone else in the country pretty much “leads” themselves.  Third, the Constitution provides for what happens if the president cannot fullfill her term.  This is that provision:

Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn’t be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!   She has never “taken care of him” before.  Why would she start now?  She didn’t even raise Chelsea.  She always used government provided interns, nannies, and staff to take care of her family obligations.

Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do.

NAME ONE.  When did “put America First” become an extreme position?  Or “enforce our laws”?  What is unconstitutional about anything he has ever advocated?  I have been listening for a long time and haven’t heard a peep that would qualify.  Likewise for anything impractical or evil.  Finally, there isn’t ANYTHING your military “wouldn’t do”.  Remember, your heroes in the sky were all set to shoot down civilian air liners on 9-11 and the only 2 things stopped them.  1.  Prior to 9-11, the Air Force didn’t have any fighters loaded with live ammo ready to go up against hostile civilian 757’s. Second, once the fighters got their missiles loaded, all the airliners got the word and landed on their own.  But let’s be very clear.  There is no law that would have permitted US Air Force pilots to shoot down civilian air liners in US airspace.   There still isn’t.  If they do that, it is, according to our law, an act of murder, on the part of the pilot.  It is an illegal order, the type they all swore they would never obey.  And one which EVERY PILOT said afterwards they were ready to comply with.  None of the generals in the Air Force resigned over it.  To this day, none of them have required congress to pass legislation making killing civilians in the USA “legal”.  The same goes for Army Generals who would cheerfully use those anti-air missiles around the capital.  If they would do that, there is NOTHING they wouldn’t do.

 

Trypophobia. I Haz it

I have always had it.  I just discovered that there is actually a word for it.  Trypophobia.  The irrational fear of irregular patterns or clusters of small holes or bumps.  This was only identified as “a thing” in 2013.  This is likely the one post I will ever do that I will never go back and read again, because I really can’t stand it.

Seriously.  Images like the ones below male my skin crawl and make me want to scratch my own face off.

The first is the lotus blossom.  This is a common one.

Some people are even using such images as tattoos, which just makes me want to hit them with a flame thrower.

So many of the images on the internet are not real but photoshopped, and I am thankful for that since I REALLY do not want to see any of these in real life.

It’s NOT ART!!!   IT’S CREEPY!!

Even common images have creeped me out since I was a child.  Like sponges.

But the seriously most creep-inducing images are those associated with the human body.  Any serious deformity of the skin triggers my flight or fight response, heavy on the flight.  I think it is an evolutionary adaptation to the plague.  God has hard wired me to avoid people with serious skin problems, as if my life depended on it.  No amount of socializing in the public schools or shaming me to be more accepting of people with acne is going to make me change this.  And now I have medically valid supporting explanations.

And DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SHOW ME THAT VIDEO OF THE FROG THAT GIVES BIRTH THROUGH IT’S SKIN!!!!

 

Lessons from North Carolina

There seems to be some uncivil unrest in Charlotte , NC this week.  I don’t know why and I don’t care any more.  To tell you the truth, I am race grievance indifferent now.  The little boy has cried “wolf” so often that I am looking to buy wolves on EBay and turn them loose in that area.  I really WANT a good old fashioned police beat down on “those people”.  There is no level of past injustice that possibly rises to the level of justification for people alive today to act this way.  They are savages and need to be treated savagely to remind them that their bread is buttered by people who go to work to make bread and make butter, not by people who complain that the bread is too white and the cows are being treated like slaves.   A government that cannot perform one of it’s most basic functions is not very useful to me.  In any case, there are some things to learn from this experience.

1.  No one needs a gun, until you REALLY need a gun.  Then it’s too late to go get one.  These people are late to the party.  But good for them.
2. These people are not going out looking for trouble.  They aren’t racists looking to start a race war.  They are rational people acting rationally to protect themselves.
3. If your government wants to control your ability to buy and keep and carry a gun, they are explicitly telling you that they don’t want you to have the ability to act rationally and protect yourself, EVER.  They would rather that you just die.  They would rather that you and your children are beaten to a bloody pulp for the entertainment of the person beating you because their demographic is more politically useful than you are at the moment.
4. If you follow the breadcrumbs and can think ahead to plan for your own benefit, you likely have a first aid kit.  You have a fire extinguisher. You have a few days of food and water stored in your house.  AND you have a gun and some ammo.  If you plan a little further ahead, you have a selection of guns,  more ammo than just a few boxes, a generator and some fuel, and a week or two of food and water.  If you really know how to think ahead, you are not just looking inside your own house, you are looking at your politicians and making sure every year that they don’t make any progress on disarming you, taking away your food and water stockpiles, or making it impossible to buy a fire extinguisher by regulating them out of existence.
5. I detect a higher order behind the scenes of this.  Obviously Soros money is funding multiple groups.  Obviously democratic party leadership is controlling law enforcement and city planning.  But there is something much more fundamental going on here.  Someone expects to be rewarded for bring all this together for some reason.  It’s a reason I can’t quite understand yet.  Whatever it is, it is not just a confluence of random factors.  There is a human being or two, who have names, making this happen because this is what they want to happen.  Those people need to be found, dragged into the public light, flogged, and hung from a lamp post.  No matter where that trail leads.  No one has the right to disrupt society and potentially destroy millions in goods and services and put human life at risk to further their own ambitions.  No One.  A country as large as ours should have the resources to figure out who this is and effectively squash them like bugs.   Stopping a riot of ten thousand people is hard and costly.  Stopping 8 people meeting in a conference room to plan the riot is trivial.  I am hoping that under the Trump administration, those people who were above the law under Bushs and Clintons and Obamas will no longer be shielded and will find their way to lamp posts that are suitable for their stature.

It is patently obvious to me that the people rioting have motives that are completely unrelated to the excuses they are using.  They are barbarians.  They want all the freedom to loot, burn and kill but want nothing to do with the crafting of a civil society that respects the human dignity of all citizens without regard to their skin color.  Their reasons are of no interest to me.  As far as I am concerned,  the reason is, “You have stuff. I want stuff. You give me stuff”.  The only answer any man could make to such a demand is, “Come and take it”.

But of course, here’s hoping that cooler heads will prevail and no one gets hurt… much.

The Next VP

Window-licker.  You know he wants to.  The glass is so cool and clean.  I am guessing a slight lemony flavor.

And if there is such a thing as “gay face”, this guy has it.

Russians going to the Moon… Some day

This article tells us of the ambitious Russian Space program attempting to do something so out there, so audacious, so resource intensive, and so unthinkably advanced, that the USA hasn’t even attempted it since we got bored with it half a century ago.  But, good luck to you guys.  This brings to mind a few points to ponder.

1.  Whenever I hear Americans taking pride in “landing on the moon”, I think of it as a criticism, not a commendation, since invariably, the person saying it took no part in that achievement and wouldn’t know the first thing about how to go about doing it themselves.  This really is a monumental achievement that was accomplished by giants who were capable of intellectual superhuman feats.
2. Every time I hear some moron say “we could put a man on the moon but we still can’t ____”, I fell like taking a hostage, making the hostage fall in love with a puppy, getting the hostage to choose between killing the puppy or killing the the moron.  I know, it’s a bit elaborate but we all need to have a hobby.  The fact is that lots of things are hard and some things simply are not possible.  Putting people on the moon was an engineering challenge.  Getting half of the American voting population to stop looking at the US government as their personal piggy bank, is a moral challenge.  The two are not comparable.  No level of will power of national funding will solve every problem.
3. I find it interesting that if the moon landing was simply a huge hoax, that the Russians and Chinese didn’t get in on the hoax.  For that matter, why the NORKs didn’t take credit for their own moon landings and colonies on Venus.  And now that the Cold War is over and the old Soviet Archives have been opened, where are the stories about how the Politburo decided to let the American “win” the fictional race to the moon?  Where is the “now it can be told” story about how it didn’t really happen?   If the cosmic rays really kill all life attempting to leave orbit, why wouldn’t the Russians know this and say it publicly?

The market provides what the consumers don’t know they need yet.

I saw this at the local Walmart.

It’s a flashlight.  It is intentionally longer and heavier than a flashlight needs to be with a nice handle on one end.  It obviously has a secondary purpose as a club.  Someone at Ozark Trails is thinking outside the box.

One might even say it has a primary purpose of self defense with a flashlight attached.  This is particularly helpful in a lot of parks where carrying guns is frowned upon.  Also very helpful for evening strolls in American cities with draconian gun control laws.  “Honest, officer. It’s a flashlight, not a weapon.”

I think I recall that the old mag light 4xD-cell flashlights were popular for the same reason.  Then someone said it was racist to have them since “no one NEEDS a flashlight that big”.