Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

Ear-based ‘virginity test’

Posted on by

There are times when I think people, in general, intuitively know how to determine truth from falsity. Then reality comes crashing in on me:

An acupuncturist in Vietnam who claims she can detect a man’s virginity based on a small red dot on the ear is credited with helping to free three convicted rapists from prison, the Associated Press reports from Hanoi.

…

“They all had small red spots on the back of their ears,” said Hong, 54. “The
spots should have disappeared if they had had sex. My many years of experience
told me that these men did not have sex before.”

Investigators who revisited the case found other flaws, leading to the
release of the prisoners.

Hong says she was first taught how to determine if a man has ever had sex by
feeling his pulse. She later developed the ear-spot method on her own, the AP
says.

She says the red spot only disappears after heterosexual intercourse and is
not affected by gay sex or masturbation.

Update: Now if she had said the red spots were an indication of not being a virgin in their ears I could see the possibility of some truth in her conclusions.

Quote of the day–Carneades

Posted on by

There is absolutely no criterion for truth. For reason, senses, ideas, or whatever else may exist are all deceptive.

Even if such criterion were at hand, it could not stand apart from the feelings which sense impressions produce. It is the faculty of feeling that distinguishes the living creature from inanimate things. By means of that feeling, the living creature becomes perceptive of both itself and the external world. There is no sensation or perception of anything unless the sense is irritated, agitated, or perturbed. When an object is indicated, then the senses become irritated and somewhat disturbed. It is impossible that there be an unperturbed presentation of external things.

The subject is more or less persuaded by the image it perceives. The strength of that persuasion depends on the disposition of the subject and on the degree of irritation produced by the image. It is not the distinctness of the image that constitutes its credibility.

The only way we can ever obtain certitude is by the difficult process of examination. We cannot be satisfied with evidence that is incomplete and only probable. Our certitude is always a precarious one. Science relies on probability, not on certitude.

Carneades
Greek philosopher 214-129 B.C.
The Fallacy of the Criterion of Truth
[As near as I can tell a very high percentage of the population subscribe to the first sentence and then their subscription ran out or they turned on the T.V. to have their brains sucked dry. My discussions with many anti-gun people provides a large base of evidence to support this conclusion.

A vastly smaller percentage thought through things enough to arrive at the conclusion articulated in the first paragraph.

It is but a very small percentage of the population that make the difficult journey to the finish the last paragraph. And even those that do sometimes still conclude that because science is not certain it must be wrong and hence their certainty of something at odds with the evidence is just as valid as the science on the same topic which says else is very probable.

As son James learned, people will literally say and believe, “Because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it.”

This insistence on certainty of belief in the absence of, or in spite of, evidence drives politics and enables politicians to herd the masses like cattle. I wish there were a cure for this terrible disease. But I fear that at best there will, someday, be an adjustment in the percentages when Darwin laughs as billions struggle and fail to learn the lesson before they inevitably fail the pop-quiz of some global catastrophe.–Joe]

So I’ll Quote Myself…

Posted on by

…It’s not against the law yet, is it?



Imagine a gun club shooting range that’s set up so the shooters are pointed in opposite directions– one shooter sitting or standing right next to a target, while a second shooter is also standing right next to the first shooter’s target. They shoot in opposite directions, at targets right next to the other shooter.


That’s the analogy for a common, two-lane highway.  Vehicles of up to 80,000 pounds or more, travel at up to 70 MPH (often faster as a lot of people exceed the limit) in opposite directions, mere feet apart with nothing in between but a painted line, day or night, in nearly all conditions.


Could someone do a nice graphic on that?  Joe’s been on a gun cartoon kick.  Maybe we can get this one published herein.

Your Safety and the Rights of People You Hate

Posted on by

This started as a comment to this post of Joe’s, but Joe has told me not to bury so much in comments.


Getting to basics; rights (or equal rights) have a long history of being extremely unpopular.  The American Founders knew this. They knew our rights would be constantly under attack, and tried as they could to protect them.


I spent some time, during the Cold War, listening to Radio Moscow, Radio Havana, and several other English broadcasts from not-so-friendly countries.  These programs were aimed at Americans, and attempted to malign, impugn, and smear the capitalist, libertarian ideals upon which the U.S. is founded.  The people they had as speakers were extremely good at sounding like your favorite, American-born uncle.  Very nice, well spoken, friendly, and (drum roll) they sounded exactly like today’s more reasonable sounding pundits of the American Left.


The posted quote instantly reminded me of listening to Radio Moscow back in the day, except that it is much more vitriolic than the Soviet broadcasts.


Yes; the protection of rights makes many more things possible, however, a potentiality is not actuality.  One of those things made possible by rights protection is a prosperous, dynamic society in which people can live their lives and pursue their dreams without looking over their shoulders all the time wondering when and why they might get arrested, fined, audited, stopped at a checkpoint, harassed with no recourse, et al.  Without rights protection, that vibrant society is impossible, mainly because doing less makes you safer from the above harassment, doing more makes you a target, and doing far more, and being good at it makes you the target…at some point Atlas shrugs.


As for the safety that the left pretends it wants to force on all of us;
Just as a matter of general practicality, are you safer with your rights protected, or without?  “Safe from what” would be the next question, or “from whom”?  As we’re discussing “safety” in the public arena, keep in mind the question of whether your and your neighbor’s rights are safe.


Human rights protection means that, no matter who you are, a lot of people are going to be doing a things that you absolutely hate, but are perfectly legal anyway.  A lot of other people are going to hate what you’re doing too, but they won’t be able to stop you without committing a crime of some sort.  That’s what it means, People.  It means all the good things that go along with liberty, but it also means you have to actually be tolerant, along with being tolerated, and not just talk about tolerance to make yourself look good in public forums.


Try this mind experiment, next time you see or think of someone or some activity that you hate, or that someone else hates.  Ask yourself; “who’s rights are they violating, or trying to violate?”  That’s a very clarifying and even liberating question.  If the answer is “no one’s” then move along.  Nothing to see there.  It’s time to dig in and start minding your own business, and hopefully you’ll have the freedom to mind your own business without someone trying to mind it for you.


ETA; I was once in a very long debate with my communist brother-in-law.  He was reciting the litany [as he saw it] of horrible, evil things that Wal Mart [a big target because they do so much so well] had done over the years.  When I asked that magic question; “Who’s rights are they violating?” he shut right the hell up.  In his mind I was just “tricking” him with clever rhetoric, but in fact he had never considered rights in his extensive evaluations of Wal Mart [or, presumably, in most other areas of consideration].  Again, I blame education [or what used to be referred to as Soviet propaganda] for the mass ignorance with regard to America’s Promise.

Do people really believe this?

Posted on by

From the Rachel Maddow show transcript (H/T to Warthog’s Rachel Maddow compares NRA mission to Prohibition):

[T]he NRA is focused like a laser-guided scope on gun rights. They want people
on the terrorist watch list to have un-impinged gun rights.

They want
felons to have gun rights. They want crazy people to have gun rights. If you
want an assault rifle with a magazine that holds enough ammo to take out a whole
American school yard or a 50-caliber gun that shoots a bullet as big as a carrot
and can take down a pretty good-sized aircraft, if you want the right to carry
weapons like that and you don’t want a background check and you want to wear
those weapons to your neighborhood bar, the NRA has got your cold, dead back.

What is the basis for saying the NRA wants felons and crazy people to have gun rights? Has she even read the NRA web site? Or does she get all her NRA policy information via the rants of lunatics? Or is she one of those lunatics? I have to conclude the later because she implies the NRA is ineffective in it’s goals, should change it’s strategy, and furthermore goes on to compare the NRA to the prohibition movement.

What?

The VPC would be the analog to the prohibition movement. The NRA is closer to the NAACP (in the early days) or the ACLU.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

The anti-gun people frequently claim this but that is grossly inaccurate and is actually nothing but projection.

Look at the responses to Just One Question, “What color is orange? True or false?” What kind of a response is that? It is totally nonsensical and people claim it is some sort of brilliant insight.

Or MikeB302000 who recently proposed the VPC report on the low “gun
deaths” in Hawaii, while ignoring violent crime and murder in general,
was an adequate response to my question. I responded in his comments by
pointing out the question is concerned with safety, not the total
number of deaths (including justifiable and praiseworthy homicide)
inflicted with the use of a firearm. This sort of thing has been
pointed out to him so many times and his ass handed to him so many times
that this morning when he came back with another post claiming my
response made him wonder if my response was “an elaborate con job” it
reminded me of a joke:

A man goes hunting with his buddies, although he’d never been hunting and barely knew how to hold a rifle.

On the first day out of camp he’s walking through the woods and he comes upon a big ass bear. “Great!” he thinks to himself. But he’s so excited and nervous that when he raises his gun and fires he misses the bear by 10 feet. The bear looks at him and stands up, and shockingly speaks. “Excuse me, but you just shot at me and missed. I’m afraid I’m going to have to rip your throat out.” says the bear as he takes out his claws and ambles towards our hero.

“You’re a talking bear! Wow! I’m really sorry for shooting at you, please don’t kill me.” The bear looks at him and says, “You know I should kill you, but I’ll tell you what, if you perform oral sex on me I’ll let you live.”

Now our hero was torn between life and death, so he chose the only option he could. That night, as he sat in camp, he heard the bear walking around jawing about how he got a human to give him a mouth hug.

So the next morning he woke up knowing that he had to kill the talking bear. He walked through the woods, and suddenly came upon the bear. This time he was very tense, the adrenalin coursing through his veins. He shot, and once again missed.

The bear looked up, stood up and walked over to him. “This is the second day you’ve tried to kill me. I’m afraid I’m going to have to tear your throat out.” said the bear in a kindly fashion.

“Please Mr. Bear, I didn’t mean to do it, please don’t kill me.” our hero whimpered. “Tell you what, you bend over and let me get Gentle Ben on your buttocks and I’ll let you live.” said the bear.

Having no choice our hero did as instructed. Later on that night as he drank himself silly in camp he heard the bear walking around chanting, “Now this human took it bear style. Once you go black bear you never go back bear.”

Thus the next morning our man woke up and knew only one thing; he had to kill the talking bear. So once again he trod out to the woods. Low and behold he came upon the bear sitting on a log. He was terrified this time, more so than before. He raised his gun and BANG!!! He missed.

The bear stood up and walked slowly over to him. And when he spoke he seemed to have gotten a French accent. “Ah, it is you again.” At this point he took out a cigarette and began smoking. “But alas, do not fear me. For I think we both realize that you are not here for the hunting.”

And so it is with MikeB302000. He is so incompetent with his apparent goal of being an advocate for gun restrictions there are only three possibilities that I can think of to explain his actions:

  1. He really is that stupid.
  2. He is on our side and wants to make anti-gun people look stupid.
  3. He is a troll that enjoys sucking up our time.

But although sticking it to him a few times is entertaining there comes a point when getting your rocks off at his expense just isn’t that much fun and is a waste of time. (Again) I have reached that point in time.

It Bears Repeating

Posted on by

A kind, compassionate, thoughtful, responsible, caring member of Congress, looking out for the rights of “the little guy” interacts with his beloved constituents;





Is it an isolated incident, or part of a culture that has metastasized throughout the halls of American government?  Little do we know that often we are actors in a grand play, the script being many thousands of years old.


All the guy had to do was answer the question; “Well, he is our president, but I can’t imagine I would “totally” support any administration.  That’s a bit of a stretch, son.  Now if you’ll excuse me…”


“Course then, the kid might have asked; “You don’t totally support Obama?  So you hate black people then, right?  You just can’t stand the thought of a black man in the Whitehouse?”  That’s probably what our good Congressweasel feared.


At a little over 400 thousand views on Youtube, last I checked, I figure it’s not near enough.


HT to Say Uncle and Snarkybites

‘Get the Hell Out of Palestine’…

Posted on by

…says Helen Thomas to the Jews in Israel.


Doug Powers posted it.  I’m amplifying it.  Watch the video.  Helen Thomas is one of the most revered journalists in all of Leftopia.  She’s been in the front row at Whitehouse press conferences since the Grant administration, and she’ll be there, just as revered, at the next one.


Let’s see; it’s been nearly 10 years since I began linking the motivations and goals of the jihadists with those of the American and European left.  In examining the various “peace talks” between Israel and Hamas, et al, brokered by American presidents, keep that in mind.

A potentiality is not an actuality

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted a quote from someone opposed to open (and I would imagine any type of) carry. He was responding to someone else in the comments to a newspaper article:

“How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons?
Answer – none”.

You are incorrect. Open carry laws make it easy for psychos to tote
around LOADED weapons, which are responsible for a lot of the crime and gun
deaths each year. The law may be designed for the “law abiding” citizen, but if
you think only “law abiding” citizens utilize the law you are an idiot.

It is my belief that we are so frequently exposed to irrational and nonsensical thinking and behaviors that we frequently cannot see it for what it is. We accept it as normal and attempt to confront them on their own territory using their own “rules”. This is like mud wrestling with a pig. They are going to be an extremely slippery opponent, you are unlikely to win, and even if you do there is no hope of any dignity or great reward.

I didn’t notice that I had ignored this guy’s subterfuge until sometime after I had posted it and rather than update the post I decided to see if anyone else noticed and pointed it out in the comments. About a 1000 people have seen that quote here and no one has said anything about what the guy did. I doubt that he himself realized what he did. It is what these people do naturally. Their thinking process is so messed up that it just comes out.

The two points that need to be made are:

  1. The responder changed the question. The question was, “How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons?” The responder changes this to, the implied, “Does the ability to openly carry enable crime?”
  2. A potential to do harm is not the same as actually doing harm. In nearly every instance of a push for greater gun control (and, if you think about it some, nearly all government programs) those advocating more government control focus almost entirely on the potential harm if action is not taken and the potential good if the action is taken. Actual harm and actual benefits appear to be (and in many cases I’m sure it is deliberately) ignored.

This second point is very important. A potentiality is not an actuality.*

For the most part when we debate against gun control (or socialism for that matter) we use actual facts. We accuse them of using emotionalism but it goes deeper than that. They frequently argue about “what could happen”. When they do this there is almost no limit to what conclusions will be reached.

They end up arguing that .50 caliber “sniper rifles” can bring airplanes down out of the sky. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a case of a semi-auto or bolt action .50 caliber rifle taking down an airplane. Potentiality versus actuality.

They end up arguing criminals will buy guns at gun shows with “no questions asked”. Criminals obtain their firearms at gun shows less than 1% of the time. Potentiality versus actuality.

They end up arguing if you carry a gun it can be taken away from you and used against you. Defending ones-self with a gun results in less injury to the defender than any other course of action. Potentiality versus actuality.

They end up arguing that if there were strict, “common sense” gun laws in place crime would go down. At the very best the facts show heavy restrictions on private citizen access to firearms is not positively correlated with an increase in crime. Potentiality versus actuality.

Keep your eyes and ears open and your brain working. Don’t let them get away with arguing potentialities. Make them argue actualities. A potentiality is not an actuality.

*The title for for this blog post comes from Susan K. (Cherry Tree–Susan will know) who, about 25 years ago, used this phrase to emphasis a point in a debate I had with her. This post was inspired by the book I’m currently listening to, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Susan was a huge fan of hers although I didn’t hear that exact phrase in the book (so far anyway) similar wordings and phrases caused me to remember the debate I had with Susan. It turns out, that if you do a web search for that phrase you will find that Ayn Rand did in fact use it–but in a totally different context.

Quote of the day–Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

We are going to vigorously attack the law in courts, … Congress has no power to retroactively deprive people of their rights.


Dennis Henigan
October 21, 2005
Houses Passes Ban on Gun Industry Lawsuits
[One would assume from the words Henigan uses that he would be opposed to the Launtenberg Amendment. Somehow I don’t think he is capable of being that consistent.–Joe]

Quote of the day–GuessWho

Posted on by

“How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons? Answer – none”.


You are incorrect. Open carry laws make it easy for psychos to tote around LOADED weapons, which are responsible for a lot of the crime and gun deaths each year. The law may be designed for the “law abiding” citizen, but if you think only “law abiding” citizens utilize the law you are an idiot.


Why does someone need to carry around an unloaded weapon anyway? To cure their small man syndrome? To “get chicks”? To make-up for their small endowment?


GuessWho
June 1, 2010
Comment to Ban on ‘open carry’ of guns passes Assembly
[For some reason GuessWho believes “psychos” will not think of concealing LOADED weapons in violation of the law when they go about violating the laws against robbery and murder. Facts, such as nearly all other states allow open and easy to obtain concealed carry licenses, are apparently irrelevant to them so they make dick jokes.


What is this about “Utilize the law”? The same rational would be just as applicable to the First Amendment with the right to worship as you please, associate with you please, and to speak as you please.


GuessWho should be less concerned with the endowment between my legs and more concerned with the endowment between his ears.–Joe]

Quote of the day–sweatypie

Posted on by

Carrying a gun for self defense is stupid. If you are being robbed, just give the robber what he wants. Your life or any life is not worth money. Very seldom does a robber want to kill you. And there are many women who are raped that go on to live normal, productive lives. Resisting during a rape will just get your face bashed in or worse. Self defense in reality does not work. A gun only increases your or a loved ones chances of getting hurt or killed by that stupid gun you got to protect yourself with.


sweatypie
May 28, 2010
Comment to Dueling emotions on gun control flare anew.
[Ahh… yes. Just lie back and enjoy it little lady. Facts are irrelevant.


What this approach does is lower the costs of a criminal “doing business”. It’s like a welfare program. You don’t really want people on welfare but once you have created such a program some people will decide that is a better/easier way of life than working for a living and figure out a way to take advantage of the system. You want to raise the costs of being a criminal. Sure, the police, courts, and penal system impose a cost on the criminal but only if they get caught and convicted. We supply free legal representation so the cost is essentially only imposed if they are convicted. And what are those odds? One in a hundred for every crime committed? And then what happens? They spend some time in prison. That is a gamble the criminal is willing to take–and we have the criminal facts to prove it.


If the criminal has to consider that one out of ten of their victims is capable and willing to splatter their brains all over the sidewalk the odds look considerably different. The criminal facts from places outside of Chicago and Washington D.C. also prove this.


If someone should actually encounter sweatypie I would like to suggest taking Greg Hamilton’s lead on dealing with people like this.


Update: Another approach to dealing with someone such as sweatypie is to suggest they convince their local police force that, “Self defense in reality does not work.” Once the local police have agreed and complied for a year or more you will give it further consideration.–Joe]

Failure of reading comprehension

Posted on by

It’s fairly frequent that some anti-gun bigot will read something I or someone else wrote and completely misunderstand what is being said. From the words of the Second Amendment to advertisements (fingerprint resistance is about rust prevention, not criminal use) they either deliberately or through lack of reading comprehension skills arrive at completely basely conclusions. Anytime they claim some scientific paper supports their conclusions I know I have to get my hands on the actual paper before I’ll have a clue as to what was actually written.


Even give the above I was still surprised at this post by Gun Control Canada. It is nothing but a complete copy of this opinion piece in The Star Phoenix which is totally pro-gun.


Yes. Apparently the anti-gun blog Gun Control Canada misread the (admittedly poorly worded) headline and copied the entire thing without reading and/or comprehending the editorial. Microsoft Office informs me the Flesch Reading Ease is 45.6 and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is 12.0 which I have to conclude is too difficult for the bigots at Gun Control Canada. Just for comparison this post has near equal scores of 47.2 and 11.8.


I am aware that there are those at and near the top of the food chain in the gun control hierarchy who are smart and are deliberate in their falsehoods and half-truths. But I’m convinced the vast majority of their followers have crap for brains. They are useful idiots as the communists used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in the west.

Quote of the day–Wendy Cukier

Posted on by

Myths surrounding the discussion around gun control tend to focus on the problems of urban violence, gangs, and handguns. This however ignores the fact that most firearm deaths in Canada are suicides and the guns most often used are rifles and shotguns. In addition, referring to harmless “duck guns” masks the truth: if this law passes, police will no longer be able to trace non-restricted firearms including the powerful semi-automatic Ruger Mini 14 used in the Montreal Massacre and sniper rifles such as the L115A3 and the Steyr-Mannlicher HS50 which can pierce Kevlar vests and fire bullets over 2 km with great accuracy.


Wendy Cukier
President of Coalition for Gun Control
May 25, 2010
Coalition for Gun Control Takes Aim at Myths About the Firearms Registry
[It may be that Cukier didn’t say those exact words. The news release is unclear about who actually wrote them. But the odds are very good she would not object to them being attributed to her.


Some of the myths she doesn’t address are those that she propagates. In just this one paragraph she does the following:



  1. Hints that suicide rates could be reduced if rifles and shotguns were registered. I don’t know of any data that suggests complete bans on firearms reduces suicide rates. Driving your vehicle into a concrete abutment, washing down an overdose of sleeping pills with alcohol, and using a razor blade to get an inside view of their veins always seem to be readily available substitutes for people lacking an interest in tomorrow.
  2. Hints there is a benefit in police tracing guns. The last time I had data on the topic (the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 2000) Canada had only solved two crimes with gun registration data after decades of handgun registration. If gun registration doesn’t help solve crimes then what is the point?
  3. The Ruger Mini 14 is not “powerful” compared to almost any other rifle. It shoots the intermediate (at best) .223 Remington cartridge.
  4. The L115A3 and Steyr-Mannlicher HS .50 are considered very powerful rifles and capable of long range accuracy but 2 km is a big stretch and can only be done when conditions are extremely favorable.
  5. To the best of my knowledge there have been zero crimes committed with these long range rifles let alone a preponderance of their use being criminal in nature. Without such evidence there is no rational justification for restrictions on them. Cukier is propagating a myth that there is some benefit to such restrictions.
  6. By saying the L115A3 and HS .50 can pierce Kevlar vests implies most other firearms cannot. This is not true. Nearly any center-fire rifle will pierce a Kevlar vest at ranges less than 200 meters and most will pierce a vest at 500 meters. Body armor for day-to-day use is intended for, and does a good job, of stopping pistol rounds. It is not intended for nor is it technologically feasible to make rifle resistant body armor that is appropriate for use in environments in anything other than battlefield environments.

Cukier apparently lives in a fairy tale land of her own making. I wouldn’t be surprised if she still believes in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Great Pumpkin too.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Winski

Posted on by

Hey, everyone has the right to go blast a few rounds anywhere they want, right?? At Wal-Mart, the gas station, at a family picnic area, at all bass-boat launch sites, any bar when you stop in for a quick shot-and-a-beer… it goes on and on….


What could possibly go wrong in texas?? BUT, texans will need an open carry law soon.. When we give them back to mexico for being more trouble than they’re worth!


Winski
May 23, 2010
Comment to Some Texas advocates pushing for an open carry gun law.
[Is there anything in this comment that isn’t bigoted or flat out factually wrong?–Joe]

Quote of the day–Mayor Richard M. Daley

Posted on by

Next will be hand grenades, right? We’ll say that hand grenades are OK. I mean, how far can you go in regards to mass weapons? To me, any gun taken off saves thousands of lives in America. I really believe that, I don’t care what people tell me. You have to thank the police officers for seizing all these weapons. We lead the country in seizing weapons. This is unbelievable.


Mayor Richard M. Daley
May 20, 2010
Mayor Daley Threatens to Shoot the Messenger—Namely, Me
[H/T to Rob who sent me an email.


“Any gun taken off saves thousands of lives”? Really? Yup, he says, “I really believe that.” There are approximately 200,000,000 guns in private hands in the U.S. If all of them were seized would there be 200 billion lives saved?


I think he says all we need know about what goes on in his mind when he says, “I don’t care what people tell me”. I never would have guessed.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ry Jones

Posted on by

Shoot at kids for not taking you seriously; the cops, once they arrive, will take you seriously.


Ry Jones
May 20, 2010
How to be taken seriously
[Uhhh… yes. That will work but it is highly discouraged.–Joe]

Different

Posted on by

A long time ago I concluded The Brady Campaign and others in the anti-gun camp had a different set of base assumptions. Sometimes it has been obvious they had different definitions for some words.


I think it may be both are true in this case. “Enjoy” just doesn’t map into what I am feeling when I look at that picture.

Changing Colors

Posted on by

Ah, Spring!  It’s a time when the land turns green, the trees are budding, the flowers are blooming, and the Republicans begin to change their spots, pretending to be conservative in preparation for the upcoming election season.  It’s the never-ending cycle of life.

Kevin asks why, I have the answer

Posted on by

Kevin points out that the other side lies, extensively, even when actual numbers are easy to come by and their lies are easily exposed.

He asks why do they do that. That is actually an easy question to answer.

As I have demonstrated before they are incapable of determining truth from falsity. They cannot distinguish their fantasy world from reality. This is part of the reason they can be so convincing with their lies. They actually believe them. The other reason they can be very convincing is that many of their audience want to believe them. They want to believe there are solutions as simple as congress flipping a switch and making the Boogie Monster under the bed go away.

They are frequently pathetic creatures for whom the light switch on the wall is, in a very real sense, magical. They have no concept of how things actually work. How else do you explain their belief that some collection of people could write down set of rules on a piece of paper and evil people, who fail to obey existing rules against violence crime, will suddenly obey still another rule to turn in or destroy their tools which enable them to pursue their chosen evil ways?

Of course do not underestimate our opponents. As Sean likes to point out, not all of them are so simple minded.