Being Right (it doesn’t always mean ’staying right’)

I was in a class recently and commented on a word origin that I had first heard in some class in college. To be fair, the Professor probably presented it as a “possible” word origin (even the dictionary is often vague on direct attribution, as in “probably from the archaic”).

Word origins are often that way in that many cultures will make their claims, but what I found interesting was how quickly another class mate “jumped” on my assertion about the word and said that it had been “debunked” on a web site devoted to urban legends.

I told the fellow student I’d notify my Professor of his error.

The point in this is just how this society has begun to put such confidence in this thing, the internet.

I had a friend from high school who used to say “if it is in the newspaper, it has to be the truth. They are not allowed to print lies”.

Well.

This is the reason that research requires, mandates even, that one must go further than a single source.

It is easy when all the sources agree, but more difficult when there is controversy.

Global warming cheerleaders, holocaust deniers; ethanol saving the planet, ethanol driving up food prices and starving the world; polar caps melting in the North, yet solidifying on the South Pole.

So what’s the answer.

Quite simply, the answer is - further research.

Just because someone makes an assertion, the assertion is more palatable if backed up by facts, preferrably by more than one, independent source.

It is the nature of science to test a hypothesis and then hand it over to someone else to see if they can repeat the results. Then accuracy and some degree of a “warm fuzzy” is achieved.

Confidence is important, especially in dealing with facts and assertions.

Doubt can be placed on practically anything.

The truth resides with those who are willing to explore the details and consider the clues.

The smoking gun alone raises doubt, but add to that cordite residue on the hand of the shooter, his finger print on the shell casing, his name written in blood on the floor by the victim and a history of animosity between the two and things look pretty bad for the fella holding the gun (worse for the victim).

Where many assertions are concerned, the elements above do not always exist.

Global warming could be caused by a number of assassins, and not necessarily only man’s influence on the environment.

Volcanoes, the sun’s influence, dust in the atmosphere, ocean currents, the magnetic field around the earth, the earth’s core and plates…all these have been speculated to affect changes in the weather. One theory even holds that a butterfly flapping its wings in South America could through the turbulence created at wingtip cause a tornado in Kansas.

Dorothy will have to remember to use care when chasing butterflies lest she hit her head on a branch and then get caught up in a coma-induced maelstrom.

I think the rest of us should take a lesson from the Wizard of Oz and use a little care as well; we all need to be careful in chasing single theories and relying too heavily on singular sources for our information.

The man behind the curtain usually gets revealed. Sorry, Mr. Gore.

In real life, sometimes revealing the error in a person’s thinking can take the form of a world war (remember, Hitler hated intellectuals, and was prone to believe in mysticism and dark arts - it took a world war to change that thinking).

I believe the time is upon us to consider where we stand intellectually. To move forward and advance in our knowledge means that we need to take that chill pill and consider the facts, as well as the sources and not rely on any one, single outlet, but rather tested and true sources (and as many as we can get).

This writer will continue to write, and I’ll base my assertions on the articles you will see referenced in my work.

If I err (and I will), my errors will at the very least be based in more than just an assertion made on a page debunking urban myths. My source will not be “the internet” (as is becoming the catch-phrase), but rather through a network that allows access to the journals of the world.

Did I mention that you really need to go see Stein’s movie?

The Scientific Method (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Dual Attribution in Journalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Expulsion, overturned

Along with a lot of other “things”.

I got around to seeing Mr. Stein’s flick last night.  Mother and myself.

I remember how when I saw “Apocolypse Now” that I was affected…for DAYS.

For a brief moment in time, I felt I could understand “the thousand yard stare” (which I had “studied” in a class entitled “contemporary issues in American public policy - this was in the 80’s, which all the way back in the 80’s (which is almost exactly as far away today as were the 60’s then) liberals even then were stuck in the 60’s).

If any of that made sense, then you really need to go see “Expelled”.

I have a feeling that unlike Copolla’s work (and yes, I am most willing to make the comparison), Stein’s will stay with me much longer than three or four days.

I’m a hunter and have seen a lot of gore in my life.  Within two or three days, I stop thinking about it, and when the meat in the freezer runs out, I’m ready to tackle it again.

When I was in college, I read “Up From Liberalism”…now it has “stayed with me” for all these years.

You know, I believe that Stein’s work is that profound.

He asked questions that I was asking in school.  Questions about what is really “real”.

I believed (sort of) that I was getting a “universal” education and that because of this, I’d have to “endure” the liberal spin.

I now realize that I did not receive a “universal” education - I received only what the liberals wanted me to hear.

They call me a “mind-numbed” robot because I occasionally listen to Limbaugh (and a number of other “conservative” pundits, I might add) - but I now sense that I am really numb, but mostly thanks to their liberal education.

It is time for a change…time break away and cast off this thin snake skin…this veneer placed by liberal “educators” (more like brainwashers, in point-of-fact).

It is time to begin truly thinking…truly using my God-given capacity for reason.

I implore you, my loyal readership, go see this movie!

And to you, Mr. Stein, thanks for reading my column…I appreciate your kind e-mail, and I look forward to another movie…this one was truly thought-provoking (and like an old, familiar friend - to actually “think” again - it is truly “liberating”).

Kudos to you and yours!

Question…let’s drill, unbiased and unmitigated

Most of my friends already know this, but the CS Monitor is, like, my hero.  Since my days in journalism school where I was taught that in spite of their religion, it is the MOST unbiased paper in the nation (yes, my journalism prof was a conservative, if you can believe that).

Before FOX news, there was the Monitor.

SOOooo…I read them religiously.  My question in response to this article is…ain’t we capitalists?

How come we are not using our capital know-how to get all these markets “corrected”…OPEC has been making econ-war on America since the 60’s…turnabout is fair play.

With record profits in oil industry (I know from my days in biz school…this means capital reinvest to keep the tax man off yo arse, and to make sure your grandkids have a place to work)…so with record profits, how come we don’t turn them loose and let them drill for and refine American oil?

Can you answer that, Madam Pelosi?

No post…no need, read the following…

Says everything I wanted to say (times ten).

precipii

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger101102.asp

Star Wars

Hey, this is a neat link (for researching many things) - but I just liked the reference in there about the Rumsfield doctrine, and how his concerns over nations that could “reach out and touch US) came true.

Thank God for the foresight of Ronald Reagan; they laughed at him then the way they mock George Bush now…I think the future will play out similarly for him as well (as you can see in the turn-around in Iraq right now).

Decentralization of authority is a great thing, and the one area that makes me a cheerleader for President Reagan (and Bush)!

Crock Rock, Mr. “John”

Well, Elton, I had no idea you were such the judge of all humanity.

Come now, sir, do you really believe that Americans hate women as is characterized in your comment that we are misogynists? What is next, hegemony?  Perhaps you’ll start a tirade on homophobia.

Well, here ya go pal…most of us have, or have had Mothers who we love and respect very much.  Some have sisters of whom we feel the same.

Now let’s not discount the myriad aunts, cousins, grandmothers and community role models up to whom we look.

And now in your arrogance you will brand we Americans as purveyors of hatred.  I suppose it is easy to do, really, considering.

All we hear from gays is that we are caught up in hatred.

From the public schools we are taught “erase the hate”, and the hippies have their mantra “why can’t we all just get along”.

Well, if getting along means adopting or accepting, then I don’t want any of it.

Here is my analogy.  I go to Louisiana. Now, I meet people who to my eye seem to be white people, and then I might think “just like me”.

Well, guess what.  They are not “just like me”…their cultural heritage is different.  They have different customs.  They do things differently from their cousins, up in the hills where I come from.

Do I automatically hate them because they are different?  Hell no.  They have great customs, and I loved the fact that they were willing to invite me to participate in them.

Now, what about queer nation.  What is the difference?  Well, I’m not so interested in dressing up like a Mardi gras parade queen when I visit New Orleans.

Eat the creole, of course.  Have a beer or two and enjoy the festive scene, absolutely.  Strip of my clothes and paint myself to look like Wonder Woman - no thanks.

Does this mean I hate them?  Not at all.  What I hate is being made to feel as though I am a bad person because I do not want to participate in the activity (other than a casual observer seeing something I would probably never see in the hills).

When I go home, I think about the food.  I think about the beauty of their state, and the hospitality of their people.  When I think of the parades I think of something akin to the circus - curiosities.

Do I sound dismissive here?  Do I sound as if I hate homosexuals?  Because you and your combined experiences in your life may make you FEEL as though I am full of hatred, does the act of your saying so make it so?

I’m sorry, but I’m tired of being branded just because I have my own sets of mores and values.

I do not hate women simply because I do not support Hillary Clinton.  I’m a huge fan of Margaret Thatcher.  I think Jean Kirkpatrick was as good as Henry Kissinger, or Ronald Reagan.  I think Condi Rice is a fabulous leader and would vote for her tomorrow.

When are you arrogant so-and-so’s on the left going to realize that just because we oppose you, it does not mean we hate you?

Hate what you stand for…that may be a possibility.

I know I hate being branded - but you know about brands, Mr. John.

That pink triangle is hard to forget - or is it?

Who spiked the dems punch with downers, man?

Watching General Petraeus at the hearings yesterday caused me to wonder how it is the demonrats can win any elections with their attitude.

I tell you, this bunch would have found something to complain about on VE day.

What is more disturbing to me is that somebody must be listening to it. They do and say everything in accord with the latest polling data, right? So somebody is gobbling up these Sultans of Doom.

Sultans of Doom…hmmm. Appropriate, given their cozy friendship with Syria (1, 2, 3, 4,) [how 'bout something positive...] .

I’m just wondering when supporters of Democrats will wake up and realize that their candidates are not simply the proverbial “turd in the punchbowl”, but in fact have turned the whole “party” into an open sewer.

Nothing pleasant about any of that.

But then, they are not pleasant people.

Patraeus gives compelling reasons why we should move with extreme caution in Iraq.

And what is Senator Clinton’s response?

“It’s time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops,” she said.

Wow.

Don’t drink the punch.

And what of Obama? The following is from his website:

“To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007.”

Thanks, Barack.

You know, it’s not enough to avoid the punch…better avoid the party.

In his statement to the floor, he says:

“Moreover, I share the frustration with an Administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of “we know best” and “stay the course.” It’s not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the Administration - the worst of all possible outcomes.”

Worst of all possible, huh? Well, from what Petraeus was telling us yesterday, it sounds like the outcome has been fairly positive.

Just like a demonrat to pee on a parade.

Let’s take a journey down a path where one of the demonrat contenders wins the Presidency. What do you suppose their policy will actually be?

Well, from his same floor statement, Obama says:

“We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.”

Funny, this sounds like exactly what we are doing under President Bush.

So, on the one hand they call Bush’s policies “wandering aimlessly“, and yet the hints we get of what they would do look just like what we are doing now.

I tell you, I’m real concerned about what form this so-called change is going to take. I know that Obama runs in some questionable circles (1, 2, 3); does this mean that we are in for some radical weather? Given his anti-war stance and the hate-speech of his minister, I can’t see any other possibility. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

One last thing before I sign off today…would you Union boys (and girls), please get a clue.

All the while you look at these guys as if they are somehow saving your jobs, and all the while they are playing Brutus, twisting a knife in your back.

They are not against NAFTA, boys…there is too much money at stake.

Oh well.

Here’s hoping that the barbs and downers the dems have been taking will soon wear off. It is time for a little happiness, don’t you think?

100 days, 100 memories, 100 years

Ain’t war a bitch?

I know.  My Mother taught me it is wrong to use that word.  But my daddy, well he was a hunter, once.  He said it is a real word and describes something real, a female dog.  I’ve heard them use it on that dad-gum kennel show on the T.V.

So I figure it is proper to use it when describing war.  Truly, I can think of nothing more apropos.

So, Hillary says it is a bad thing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

It’s funny how all of a sudden we are having to delineate (subtly delineate) between the choices we have.

For example, the bailout of Bear-Stearns is different that bailing out all us homeowners who are swamped by monthly mortgage payments. The one could wreck the whole economy, and the other, well, only our personal economies.  Bye-bye six pack.

Well, I first learned about economies of scale way back in college (thanks Professor Spifey)…

Econ, 101.

Reminds me of the butterfly effect, only Bear-Stearns is one massive butterfly.

Kinda like Iraq.

The mid-East has been a thorn in the side of the West since before I was born.  It is an horrendous mess.

Whether we like it or not, we are up to our eyeballs in it.  Now, there are those who say “By God, drop the frickin’ A-Bomb on them.  Make the sands into glass.  Turn it into a parking lot”.

Well, I am old enough to remember the Christmas bombings in Nam.  They didn’t achieve jack-squat.

Mega-tonnage dropped, and still the yellow man scampered out of his mole-holes.

Senator McCain, I whole-heartedly agree with you on this one.  We very well might be there for one-HUNDRED years…it’s conceivable.  Hell, we keep it up, we very well might be in KO-rea for 100 years.

Fact is, we are a responsible nation (sort of)…we do our best to honor our obligations that we have made to our neighbors, and more importantly, to our fellows in treaty.

When we make war on a Nation, we absolutely must make good on the Peace.  The alternative is eternal war (which, I know, is exactly what the wahabbists would love).

It is unrealistic to think that Senator Clinton’s plan would possibly work.  What is her plan anyway?  She says we can’t stay there, so we pull the troops home.  Then what?

Has she moved the next chess piece?  Has Obama?

Give me a break.  These people only respond to polls put out by rooks.

Knaves!

In order to win the game and achieve a “stasis of peace”, one has to think five moves down the board.

They are only seeing what is right in front of their faces (and that, victory in this horserace).

McCain is actually thinking ahead.

He’s the only one right now who looks Presidential.

Keep up the smooth moves, and you won’t go wrong, Mr. Senator!

What’s Next From the Left?

Mr. President, I want to begin today’s entry by sincerely thanking you for that speech you gave this morning. It said volumes about what I’ve been feeling inside for several years.

I feel that somehow you need a ‘form’ of vindication. I say “form” as I know we are both Christians, and true retribution belongs to God alone. But I do think that in challenging times, when one has been so set upon by wolves, it is nice to see that a “dogged” individual can come around to his own day in the sun.

What has happened to you reminds me so of what the left did to Nixon…fair or unfair, I find it somehow a source of pride that it is beneath we Republicans to “hit below the belt” the way our counterparts on the left seem to enjoy (look at how they treat one another - and they haven’t even started on McCain yet).

At any rate, as a side note to my column, I just wanted you to know that I’ve always been proud of your works, and I am still, solidly, on your side!

Now, on to Demonrat bashing!

Guess what is lurking under the headlines of possible marriages made in hell and other campaign trail gobbledy-gook?

Apparently those “green” light bulbs that Congress has effectively “forced” down our throats (can anyone find an incandescent bulb anymore?)…well, low and behold, the bulbs contain Mercury - which means they will have to go through pains in disposing of them, which means an even larger Federal government agency to police them, which means…the Demonrats in Congress just created a bunch of jobs for which the taxpayers will have to foot the bill.

Well, well, well.

I know they don’t teach basic math skills anymore in the public schools, but it does not take a real rocket scientist to figure out that once people are all on the government payroll (like some socialists want - remember, Truman was one President who nationalized an entire industry - I think it was rail, or steel (or perhaps, both)) - at any rate, you get the picture.

They are like flies over a sugar bowl, these Demonrats, and they want your very soul in their camp and on their payroll (then they call ALL the shots).

If you think for a minute that they are not this devious, you’d better think again.

Remember, these are the Clintons we are talking about. While Hillary shows her softer side, we have Obama demonstrating unabashedly to the entire world that he follows the dictates of a man who preaches the utter downfall and destruction of America.

For God sakes. When that Duke fellow was in Congress, people were raising absolute hell that someone who preached white supremacy could possibly rise to that level of our government…and yet no one even sneezes at Obama and his camp? He IS a “YOU”-knighted States Senator, you know (we the people…).

We know for certain that nothing was beneath the Clintons when they were in power, and now this is what the Demonrats have to offer us?

Holy Cow.

I just had a light bulb “go off” in my head…and I think it is full of Demonratic Mercury!

God help us all.

What you see below I got while searching for an “appropriate” photo of our President (they are hard to find) - the one below caught my eye and I found it humorous as it presents him in his polar opposite…I have to wonder what it is, really, the French were thinking in this one, but I did not take time to translate their web pages…still, on the surface, I find it funny for some perverse reason…hope you enjoy it too!

Bush as a hippie - just found this funny, coming from a bunch of long-haired socialists over-seas.

Rumors, rumors, rumors…

Can the rumors be true?

We have a demonratic politician in New York who gets busted as a John in a prostitution ring.

Strike one.

Next, his successor admits to having numerous extra-marital affairs…and, oh, by the way, one of them “might” have been on the taxpayer dime…don’t worry, if it proves to be so, he’ll make it right (probably the same thing he told the dope pushers from whom he bought his wacky-weed and cocaine).

O.K. - strikes two (and possibly three with the added confession of drug use).

Now, let’s set strikes one and two aside and go back to our luckless pair above.

He has a minister who wants to see America condemned to hell.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m as picky about my minister as I am about my physician (one looks into the body, the other into the soul). They are both pretty important to me, and I don’t take choosing them lightly.

One of the reasons neither are Neo_Nazi’s.

OK, OK…so he made a mistake in choosing his minister.

What about his bedfellow?

Pundits on both the left and on the right are arguing over whether the two could “couple” up as running mates.

Now, personally, I don’t see it happening, but then there are plenty who make compelling arguments why it will (on both sides).

Imagine this “dream” ticket, if you would.

On the one hand we have a man who has “questionable” ties (in both senses - good sense, and just how strong the ties really are - perhaps it will come out in the lawsuit?) to a slum lord, to a former member of the Weathermen and without doubt to a minister who wants America condemned to hell.

Man, this seems like three strikes, in and of its own.

Now that we know he has poor judgment in picking his friends and ministers…now we are expected to trust his choice of a running mate?

Well, let’s just “peak” under the covers and have a gander (oh dear).

In Ms. Hillary we have a candidate who it would seem is already “in bed” with the Syrians.

She currently sleeps with an impeached former President (you’ll have to ask them more about their bedroom habits; it was all I could do to post the above photo and text - excuse me, I have to run to the bathroom again to purge; with the above scenario, who needs Epicac).

What strike are we on now?

Are we bowling or playing baseball?

I’m not too enthused about either candidate as singular entities…I can’t imagine being more enthralled by their climbing into bed with one another.

But, I do feel certain we have many “fireworks” ahead, should this marriage take place between these hapless heroes.

Katie bar the door, Mr. McCain. Katie bar the door!