Why the Believers Win

Who do you think is happier? This person,  or this person?  Since you don't know either of these people personally, it would be impossible for you to say for sure, but what if I asked you this?

Of the people you know, do the people that are more like the person in the first link appear to be happier the people who are more like the person in the second? 

It's interesting that the second person attempts to tie a child's belief in Santa Claus to an adult's belief in God, especially since religious people tend to be much happier than people who are not religious.

If that the ultimate goal of most human beings is to achieve a state of happiness, then, debate between atheists and believers is over.  

Why Two New York Cops Were Killed

I struggle to even use tragic story for the selfish reason of supporting my position.

source: The New York Post

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops as ‘revenge’ for Garner

December 20, 2014 | 4:07pm
Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops as ‘revenge’ for Garner
Police pay their respect outside the Woodhull Hospital as two Police ambulances carrying bodies of the fallen heroes head to Bellevue Hospital.Photo: Paul Martinka
Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s ­assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

Two innocent people who died simply because they chose to devote their lives to the safety and well being of others deserve better.  Their grieving family and loved ones deserve better.  Something seems wrong with me using this story for an example, but something seems worse about me ignoring it.

Often, when a murder takes place, the question of why the crime was committed, adds to the pain and grief of the living.  We don’t have that here.  Everyone knows why this crime happened.

It happened because the media mindlessly gave attention to people who were only interested in getting attention.

It happened because people who due to their positions, should have acted responsibly and respected our judicial system, but did not.

It happened because media personalities attempted to downplay the seriousness of violent actions that were only one or two levels of evil, below killing.

It happened because the media is not only biased, they are outright liars.

It happened because athletes sided with violent thugs instead of the police and our justice system.

It happened because celebrities sided with violent thugs instead of the police and our justice system.

It happened because community organizers are really just self promoters,

and it happened because we had a president who encouraged all of these people to "Stay the course."

This wasn’t revenge, this wasn’t an eye for an eye.  This was murder.  Even the most ardent supporters of the “justice” for Michael Brown/Eric Garner protesters, cannot claim that the cops just snuck up and executed either one of them.

Even though none of the people I mentioned above pulled the trigger on those two New York cops, they are definitely responsible for getting (and keeping) this ball rolling, and it’s not going to stop here.  We haven’t seen the last of this, and the blood is on their hands.

Now watch, as the cowardly leftists scramble to distance themselves from the evil that grew out of the seeds they have sown.


I Need to Check My Privilege

OK, I suppose in order to do that, I need to understand where privilege comes from, or how someone gets a privilege.

Let’s see now.  The privilege of having a Super Bowl ring comes from being on a team that won the Superbowl. (Is it OK for me to say Super Bowl, or do I have to say “The Big Game”?)  So therefore, privilege comes from being the best at something, or even merely from being part of a group that was best at something, and often, the groundwork was laid down by that group, long before any individuals that enjoy that privilege were around to be part of that group.

How else might someone be able to enjoy a privilege?  The privilege of having a driver’s license comes from understanding the rules of the road, paying the fee, and obeying the law once that privilege is obtained. Behaving yourself is one way of getting and keeping a privilege.

How else might someone or a group of people be entitled to a certain privilege?  I know!  By being first, like winning a race.  Coming in first at the Daytona 500 means you get the privilege of having all the fame and fortune that goes with that.  You know, I would imagine that being first to be on a certain piece of unclaimed land entitles you to the privilege of calling that land yours. Right?  At that point, your only responsibility is defending it from foreign invaders who can rightfully take it away from you if they have the strength to do so, and the whole world agrees with me on this since I have seen no worldwide effort to reverse the effects of all of history’s wars.

“I know where you’re going with this.”

No, you don’t, Mr Liberal, who speaks in italics.

This land is your and, this land is my land,
  because the Europeans
 got here before the Indians.
 From California,
 to the New York island.
 This land was made for you and me.

image found at: Free North Carolina

First-Americans-migration-map-8 (1).jpg
Ha, ha!  Looks like the Europeans beat everyone else here by about 4000 years!  They’d still be here too, if it wasn’t for the genocide and disease brought by the invaders from Asia that came over some 40 centuries later.

No matter how you look at it, white Europeans got this land, fair and square.  Like with everything else, they earned that privilege, for all of us, including our founding fathers who were gracious enough to grant that privilege to all free people, and unlike most other countries, America didn’t think that went far enough, so we fought a great war with ourselves to make sure that all people were free.  What other country did that?

Americans of European descent have the privilege of having absolutely nothing to feel guilty or be ashamed about.

Why I Hate Liberals

Author’s note:  I gotta go Christmas shopping, and I don’t have time to proofread this, so I’m just going to let it fly.  Maybe one of you could proofread it for me.  I think I found the linked story below on Bad Blue.  I can’t even remember anymore, but aside from the many spelling and grammar errors in this rough draft, I think it’s a better article than the one Susie wrote.  Maybe, I’ll come back and clean it up some, but I probably won’t.  Who’s gonna see it anyway?  Maybe I worry about my spelling and grammar more once I get my stuff posted on Bad Blue.

It was late November during an unusually wet fall.  At least one inch of rain fell each week during October on fields that were already saturated by a September storm.  It was no big deal, those few weeks before Halloween.  Everything would dry up soon enough, just like it almost always did in years before.  Even if it didn’t, a freeze in November would make those fields like dry pavement.

But it didn’t work out that way.  Not that year.  The first three weeks of November consisted mostly of cloudy days with highs in the 40’s and 50’s with lows rarely getting below freezing.  Although the amount of rain received did let up some that month, just enough fell each time the ground was almost dry enough to support the weight of harvesting equipment.

It was now a week before Thanksgiving and the extended weather forecast warned of heavy snow within a weeks time.  If that happened, harvest would be impossible.  Even if there was a miracle snow melt, followed by an immediate deep freeze, there is no way that it would be possible to convert that standing corn into cash in time to satisfy creditors.

The fields are just as wet as they have been all those weeks before, but the combine gets fired up and heads out anyway. The equation has changed and the farmer finds himself doing things he wouldn’t have dreamed of doing only a few weeks before.  He’ll take his combine out and get what he can get, counting on his knowledge of his fields to help him avoid the wettest spots.  He’ll just have to go around the corn standing in small lakes that dot his fields.  It’s a very inefficient way of harvesting and the question of how close he dare get to those lakes is constantly burning in his mind.

He’ll have to load his semi-truck right on the highway.  It’s illegal, but he does it anyway.  Even the gravel shoulder is too soft to support support such weight.  He’s breaking the rules now, but following the rules guarantees that he loses the game.  Following the rules has been replaced by hoping nothing bad happens.

He manages to get his headlands done without to many problems and starts making trips across his field.  The standing corn vanishes six rows at a time, each pass a little further down a slight incline and then, it happens.  With the grain tank almost full, he considers whether he should unload after this pass and then notices an almost imperceptible loss in speed.  Something doesn’t feel right, and he knows exactly what it is.

It’s wheel slippage.  The ground is too soft and begins to give way as tire treads peel it away.  What does he do now?  If he stops, he will lose momentum and surely be stuck, probably not too bad, but he’s all alone.  Rounding up someone else and a tractor will take precious time.  He could try to power through it, but if he doesn’t make it, he’ll be really stuck, a totally different situation than merely being stuck.

Everything in that last paragraph and more, runs through the farmer’s mind in a matter of seconds, and he makes the call.  He pushes down on the lever and increases his tire speed to make up for his loss of forward momentum and makes it through, but now he’s at the point of no return.  With two huge muddy ruts behind him, he has no choice but to try to make it to the end of the field.  The headlands are only twenty five yards away and he knows the ground there is firm, but suddenly his machine drops down several inches, as it grinds to a hault.

There’s about a one in ten chance that he could make it out of this mess alone, ramming the machine between forward and reverse, hoping that traction may lie just a few inches ahead.  But that means risking breaking a final drive on his front axle, a costly and time consuming repair.  Trying to pull out a stuck combine forward, is less than ideal, and to the rear lay 100 yards of soft, muddy ground.

What does he do now?  Tens of thousands of dollars, and maybe even the farm itself is on the line, if the farmer is in a precarious financial position.  His whole world depends upon him making the right choice, right then.

Now let’s compare the farmer to a college professor.  I’m going to now tell you a story that actually repeated itself several times in my life and I’m sure that anyone else who has attended college or tech school can tell the same type of story.

Almost every college professor and tech school instructor have his or her own way of doing things.  Some use multiple choice exams where you fill in the circle with a number two pencil and a computer scans and grades the test.  Some use test that require written answers in essay form where although there was a time limit for students taking the exam, there seems to be no deadline for when the exams will be graded and handed back to them.  Still others feel that is a useful learning experience for the students to grade each other’s exams in class, and I couldn’t agree more.

In fact, I learned something from this type of experience that is more universal than anything I ever learned studying any one particular subject, and that is - why people are, the way they are.

For those of you who never experienced it, this is how in class grading of test worked.  At some point after taking an exam, the students would exchange test papers and the entire class would review each question.  Each student would take turns reading a question and the answer that their classmate had given.  The instructor would then declare if that answer was indeed, the correct answer, and then we would move on to the next question.

Occasionally a dispute would arise as to what the correct answer actually was.  A student might have said something like, “The correct answer is B”, and the instructor would concur.  Suddenly several students would go up.  One student might say something like, “According to notes I took during your lecture on the 28th, the correct answer should be C.”  Another student might say, “Yeah, and according to the textbook, the correct answer is C, also.”

Such problems were usually solved either by giving everyone who responded with either B or C, credit, or sometimes the  entire question would be thrown out and treated as if it were never even on the exam.  The instructor was clearly wrong about the answer to the question and readily admitted it, but didn’t have to pay any price of any kind for his error.

Who else gets to live in world, free of consequence, like that?  Not the students.  Except in instances like the one described above, if they got a question wrong, they got it wrong, and they couldn’t solve problem by simply giving themselves credit for being right, and they couldn’t just throw that question out.  In other words, they paid a price for being wrong.

The real world treats business owners, like the farmer described above, even more harshly, and does it much more often.  Almost every day, sometimes several times per day, a private business owner, like the farmer described in the beginning of this piece, must make decisions at a moment’s notice, that mean the difference between profit and loss, between success and failure.  There’s no “do overs” and there’s no “throwing that question out”.  There’s only the consequences of those decisions, whether they were right or wrong.  Living in the real world and dealing with the consequences of ones actions and decisions tends to make one conservative.  Conservatism is dealing with reality, what works and what doesn’t.

Most college professors have never experienced anything like that in their entire lives. Their whole world is scheduled by a syllabus.  Everything is already known and planned out in advance, and if for whatever reason, something is not addressed by a certain deadline, it simply isn’t covered.  They get their paychecks regardless.  There’s no working around the clock to get the job done, and there’s no taking risks because the consequences of not taking action are greater.  There’s no picking corn in a wet field before threat of twelve inches of snow.

About the only way a college professors can fail is to do or say something deemed as racist or sexist, so it’s easy to understand why they go to such ridiculous extremes to “prove” they are neither, and it’s also easy to understand why they are liberal.  Their incomes are independent of what takes place in the economy and most errors they might commit.  Their careers have been reduced to not offending other liberals.

There are plenty of liberals outside the world of academia, but they almost always in one form or another, are detached from the consequences of living in the real world.  Liberalism is avoiding the harsh realities of the real world and blaming the shortcomings of individuals on someone or something else.

So now we got this chick (Susan J. Douglas), who has worked up the “courage” to say that she hates republicans.  How dare she?  If you click on that first link, you will see that she has never done anything in the public sector in her entire life. (At least nothing that she felt was worth reporting.)  How can she even pretend to be able to pass judgement on anyone?  Republicans are elected by people like the farmer mentioned in the beginning of post.  People whose livelihoods depend on the economy and the consequences of the decisions they make.  She is dependent on neither, has no understanding of either, but still is somehow in a position where more people will hear her voice than mine.

Well, Susie, I hate liberals, and in particular, I hate you.

The Bad-0-Meter: What Really Scares Me About Obama

What really scares me about Obama is that I am always wrong about him.  I've never been wrong about him being bad for america, but I have always come up short when assessing just how bad he really is.  At least I'm not alone on this.  Rush and many other conservative commentators, readily admit being guilty of the same thing.  Of course, even if anyone would have been able to see the future back when Obama was first elected, it wouldn't have done any good.

If Rush, I, or anyone else, had predicted that Obama was going to be even half as bad for America as he actually has been back in 2008, everyone would have said that such a person was a racist, right wing fringe, lunatic.  Many accused us of that anyway.

This might be easier to explain with visualization.  Imagine that we all have a "Bad-O-Meter" in our brains. Back in 2008, many conservatives thought they had Obama all figured out and they predicted that he was going to be this bad:

But after things like Pigford, the Fast and Furious, NSA spying, and IRS scandals, etc., it turned out that he was this bad:
He broke our Bad-O-Meters by burying the needle to the left, and we had to have them sent out to be repaired and recalibrated.  We then thought we were all good, we finally knew what Obama was all about, and our Bad-O-Meters read like this...
...and then we got comfortable with thinking we knew exactly how bad he actually was.  But then, we had the whole illegal immigrant amnesty thing, and our Bad-O-Meters went back to this:
Now this whole Bad-O-Meter repair/recalibration thing is getting kind of inconvenient and expensive, but what really worries me is this - What if we are still wrong about Obama?  If we reset our Bad-O-Meters to read like this...
 ...when taking amnesty for illegals and everything else he has done in the past year or so into account, what in the world is he going to do next to make our Bad-O-Meters read like this...
...during the next two years?  I honestly don't even know what it could be, or how anything could be that bad, but as history has proven, I've been wrong before.

A Guy that Deserves Respect

Check out this comment I received opposing my point of view..  It's not the usual knee-jerk emotional crap.  It is well thought out, clear, and concise.  I felt it was deserving of its own post because I can't even remember someone countering one of my arguments and making sense at the same time.  I don't even know who this guy is, but he has my full respect.

Well, there is one problem with your analogy, as given: you know of the existence of the $5,000. Therefore, you have a way to sift truth from untruth when interrogating Ryan. He can't misdirect or misinform you, except within the parameters of your game. Also, you and Ryan are of the same culture, and you can read his 'tells' to a greater or lesser extent.

Now, admittedly, I am not a spy or a torturer, so I am only speculating about the ability of same to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to tortured prisoners singing to you. But, the track record of the CIA would suggest that the torturers are not as bright as the movies would like you to think. Also, any student of human nature would suggest that torturers are more than likely drawn to torture because they are sociopaths and would like nothing better than to torture "legally" for fun and profit, in the manner of Josef Mengele. Which is to say, that extracting useful information and being intelligent and well-trained enough to recognize useful information from bullshit, are lesser concerns to torturers than the kicks involved in torturing a prisoner. How many 'patriots' do you think work for the CIA, etc.? FWIW.
  1. That is an excellent comment. I'm really impressed, and I'm not being facetious. I can't ever remember being countered by a better argument. Your's was clear, concise, and convincing. My hat's off to you. You did a very good job.

    That being said, I still believe that if it were I, that someone was trying to get information from, I would be much more likely to reveal that information if they were torturing me, as opposed to using any other information gathering technique.

    What you said in your last paragraph is almost certainly true, but all things considered, that does not mean that would necessarily a negative when it came to extracting information. If a country, crime syndicate, or whatever, had a reputation having of people like you described, in charge of interrogation, I would have to imagine that any prisoners would be spilling their guts(figuratively) before they even got near the interrogation room, where they feared they would be spilling their guts, literally

    Maybe, your last paragraph holds the key to avoiding unnecessary torture while still being effective at retrieving information. We don't need to be ruthless, all we need is the reputation of being ruthless. Of course, that would mean being ruthless to a few unfortunate souls and allowing it to be made public..

    The simple fact is, that is an awful, scary business, where the other side is almost certainly not going to follow any new rules we set for ourselves about holding back, which gives our enemies not only an advantage at efficient extraction of information, it also gives them a psychological advantage against any of our captured operatives, who would be certain what awaits them is guaranteed to be more harsh than anything we could ever dish out. Likewise, enemy operatives would consider us weak and have little cause to give us any information they may have.

    Thank you for the comment. Once again, it was awesome. It almost convinced me to change my mind, but not quite.

Oh Yeah? Then why do the Mafia and drug cartels use it?"

Ryan Cooper is an idiot, and by the end of this post, you’ll know why.

Why torture doesn't work: A definitive guide
Dick Cheney says torture is effective. But the Nazis (and the Soviets and the Viet Cong and the Stasi) would disagree.

Enough. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
In the wake of the Senate report cataloging a whole lot of torture committed by the CIA, Dick Cheney has been reduced to arguing that torturing people — even innocent ones — is worth doing if you eventually get good results. The ends justify the means.
I can see why he makes this argument — he's simply got no other option. It is now obvious that what the CIA did was illegal, brutal torture. Claims that it kept the nation safe are all that Cheney has left.
But Cheney is wrong: Torture doesn't work and never has.
Read more.  Don’t bother.

Here’s a more believable headline:  

Torture always works.  Why do you think it’s been around so long?  I always assumed that liberals were sissy little nerds when they were kids, so obviously Ryan Cooper never had an older brother, or was ever in a situation where older neighborhood kids wanted to extract information from him.

Perhaps, Ryan would like to participate in a little experiment with me.  Here’s what we will do.  Ryan and I will play a little game called “Who gets the money”.  We’ll give Ryan $5000 to hide in a secret location within a designated area.  I will then, attempt to extract from him, the exact location of the money.  If Ryan is able to go one hour minute without revealing where the money is, he can keep it.  If however, I am able to get him to reveal the location, the money is mine.

I have quite a few tools at my disposal that would do well for extracting the information, but I think that I would choose to go with this:


The seven and one half inch right angle grinder with optional wire brush attachment.  After attacking a piece of rusty steel in front of him with that bad boy, I’d probably wouldn’t even have to touch him with it.  Of course, then he would have to admit that torture (even the mere threat of torture) does indeed work.

Where do these people come from, and how do they get into such prominent positions, when they say such things that are so obviously ridiculous and wrong?

Humvees, Hummers, Ha ha

I’m in the market for a vehicle.  It’s got to be expensive, impractical, uncomfortable, and not be able to haul much.  What do you recommend?

Well, have you considered a Humvee?

Who are the bigger idiots?  The people who bought these?

source: defensetech.org

Humvees Sell for up to $42K in First Public Auction of Military Truck
Humvee-Auction-600x400It was a military bake sale of sorts. For the first time in history, the U.S. military auctioned off some of its surplus Humvees to the public.
And truck-lovers responded in kind, paying as much as $41,000 for the iconic military vehicle that entered service in the mid-1980s, spawned a commercial version called the Hummer in the 1990s and was replaced in the 2000s by bigger, more blast-resistant trucks known as MRAPs during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Or the people who bought these?

Overpriced, under-practical, but at least you get to show everyone what a fool you are with your money.

I can still remember when the military first started using Humvees and some people predicted that one day, they would be able to score a used one for next to nothing, like with a surplus military Jeep, right after WWII.  Coincidentally, this happened just as the last of the rumors of the availability of unused surplus army Jeeps still in some secret warehouse, finally died.

Well it didn’t turn out that way, did it?  Partly because there were many, many more Jeeps available in the mid to late ‘40’s than there are Humvees today.  With the Jeeps, the supply side was easy to understand.  After WWII, our government had literally thousands of Jeeps that they didn’t know what to do with.  Selling them for whatever they could get, made more sense than scrapping them.  The demand side of the surplus Jeeps was also easy to understand.  There was a huge shortage of consumer vehicles after the war, an equally large increase of consumers, consisting of soldiers being discharged from duty.  Also, the Jeeps filled a market niche that had never been successfully filled by auto manufacturers before the war - a small, cheap four wheel drive vehicle.

It’s only natural that some people would predict that once the first Humvees were retired from military service, we would see a repeat of the WWII Jeep scenario, but they failed to take into account that the supply/demand equation is totally different with the Humvees.  The difference with supply is obvious.  There are nowhere near as many used Humvees available as there were Jeeps and the Humvees are much, much more used.  WWII only lasted about four years.  How old could most of those Jeeps even have been, after the war?  

You will often hear stories about wastefull military spending.  Not so with the Humvees.  Our armed forces made sure that they got every last dime out of them.  The used Humvees available today were made in the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s.  Old enough to have antique license plates, if they were street legal, which they are not, and that leads us to the demand side of the Humvee equation.

The WWII Jeeps were everything the Humvees are not.  Cheap, easily accessible, cheap and easy to repair, street legal, virtually no competitors in the current civilian market, and with a huge supply of parts and accessories available from both OEM and aftermarket manufacturers.

The demand side of the used Humvee market is the puzzling thing.  Given their shortcomings when compared to the WWII Jeeps (and any other truck, for that matter), what idiot would even consider buying one?  At least we now how many retards are willing to part with $40,000 for worn out quarter century old, piece of junk that you cannot even drive on a public road.

The used WWII Jeeps didn’t explode onto the civilian market because they were any good.  It was because they were cheap and about the only game in town.  They were actually pieces of crap, even by mid-twentieth century standards.  They were crude and woefully underpowered.  As soon as the auto manufactures recognized the market for four wheel drive trucks, the Jeep brand all but disappeared.  For years, they were glorified Gremlins, when owned by AMC, and since have been injected with Chrysler K-car DNA. (not entirely true, but I love saying it.)  Yeah, you’ll see various suv’s with a Jeep name on them, but they are really no more of a classic Jeep than a Dodge Durango.

Jeeps have always sucked compared to almost any other manufacturer, but don’t take my word for it.  Just look at sales figures.  Think about how many more Ford and Chevy 4X4’s were sold than Jeeps.  It’s not even close, not to mention all the other competitors.  Think about how many more Toyota 4X4’s you see than Jeeps.

To fully understand just how poor a vehicle Jeeps really are, all you have to do is look out the window of your car when you go for a drive.  How many Jeeps do you see with ladder racks or snowplows?  None?  That’s because people that really need to depend on a truck to make their living, know that Jeeps are about the worst choice you can make for a practical work vehicle.  Don’t try to dispute me on this.  It’s not me, buying all of those thousands and thousands of non-Jeep vehicles.  If you disagree me, you’re saying that all those thousands of people are wrong and you’re right, and if you want to stand on that dangerous ground, be my guest.

Now don’t feel too bad, all you Jeep lovers out there.  Compared to a Humvee, a Jeep is a marvelous vehicle. I like Jeeps.  If they are the right ones with the right modifications, and even if they are not remotely close to being practical.  There are few things cooler than an old Willys Jeep with an aftermarket overdrive (four stickshifts, what chick could drive that?) and small block Chevy.

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

There is one other vehicle that all Jeeps (even the Compass and Liberty) stand head and shoulders above, and that is the civilian Hummer.  The Hummer when you consider initial cost vs practicality, is perhaps the worst American vehicle ever made.  Once again, don’t argue with me on this.  It’s hard to think of a recent nameplate with a shorter lifespan.  When GM was in trouble, they didn’t discontinue Chevy or GMC trucks, did they?  They dumped the Hummer like a hot potato.