How to discredit a kook or a kook movement

1. Allow someone like Rosie O'Donnell to speak for your movement.

-End-

Oh, wait. Just kidding. I'll continue.

1. As above.

2. Allow said representative to say something totally insane. “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.” credit: www.popularmechanics.com, 30 March 2007

3. See this story. "'Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange above to buckle. Bolts holding the structure together also melted, leading to the collapse,' California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."

Voila!

Of course, no one in the MSM will actually make this connection and O'Donnell will continue to roam free, making even more ridiculous assertions.

This is all I am going to say about her. She doesn't deserve my blog time any more than she's already gotten.

A Prediction

Okay, I want to predict something. I know I can and probably will be wrong, but if I'm not, I at least want to be able to say that I predicted it.

As far as I can see, the political atmosphere is like this:

The Democrats desperately want to liked by the rest of the world and don't care what the Republicans think about them. They (Democrats) use the whole "the world hates us because of Iraq" thing and the media gives them way too much airtime for it. Nothing America does will never actually be the right thing to do, according to the rest of the world, which is why the Democrats take that tone, too. The rest of the world has disliked us for one reason or another since WWII, whether it's because we're such a young country and are so powerful and rich so early, or because we just have the best looking girls, or just because Donald Trump is from the US, and not, say, Germany.

The Republicans desperately want to be liked by the Democrats and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about them. They (Republicans) don't understand that this sort of inferiority complex is actually a media bias and have yet to understand that about 95% of the media favors Democrats. Nothing any Republican will ever do will ever be right, even if they actually compromise or agree with the Democrats. Therefore, the Republicans will always compromise their values in order to score points with the Democrats, only to find themselves at square one... again... and then trying to figure out what happened. Just remember, the Democrats don't care about being liked by the Republicans. They just want to be liked by everyone else that isn't American.

So, enough funny stuff. Keep my expert analysis in the back of your mind as you read the rest of this, though.

Basically, Iraq is going to come down to a hellacious nightmare. (Not there. Here.) We're going to fight about it for the next two years, until the next president is elected, which will probably be a Democrat.

I predict that at some point, Russia (and maybe a few other countries) will seize on all our infighting and "volunteer" a bunch of troops in order to "help" us with Iraq. This will happen once the Surge has been reasonably effective.

After we get the message that Russia wants to help, the next administration (likely a Democratic one) will take credit for restoring the world's faith and trust in us and will gladly allow Russia to put some troops in Iraq so that we can bring a large portion of our guys home. It's a win-win. Everyone else likes America again, the Democrats shove this down the Republicans' throats, who agree to allow the Russian conglomerate to take a larger role in Iraq just so they can show the Democrats how bipartisan they can be.

Once the transfer is complete, Russia will "suddenly" become friends with Iran. You can guess where that will lead: an Iran/Russia-ruled Iraq.

Remember that Russia has been the sort of go-between for Iran and the rest of the world. Russia has played it cool with them, offering to help the rest of the world sort out the different impasses we've had with Iran.

So, there you have it. I hope I'm wrong.

Getting the Chair...

I had my semi-annual teeth cleaning the other day. I'm lucky. I have good teeth, like my dad. Yeah, I don't take care of them like I should, or so says the dentist, but I've never had a cavity.

So, I was in the grocery store today, pondering the experience in my dentist's office and I remembered that I needed some refills for my fancy-schmancy flosser thing. It's the Reach Flosser, the one you click on the flossers and click them off when you are done. Ah, forget it, here's the link.

Anyway, I'm sorting through the multiple flavors and my choices basically this: mint, another version of mint, some other kind of mint and unflavored. I don't like mint anything. I don't like mint candies, mint toothpicks, mint-flavored gum and whatever else kind of crap can be flavored with mint. I don't know why this is. Maybe it's genetic. Or something.

So, I'm standing there realizing that I'm just going to wind up settling for the unflavored flosser refills when I have this great idea. Why not have other flavors of flossers? Heck, it's only string, right? Why not a fruity flavor, like strawberry or pineapple? Or maybe pizza flavor? Why not steak flavor? (I'd love to have steak flavored anything, really: Ice Cream, Fitness Water/Sports Drinks, Toothpaste, Cereal, you name it. If there was anything else out there that was steak-flavored, besides steak, I would have it. My whole house would essentially be a carnivore's heaven.... until my wife came home and made me take it all back to the store, of course.)

There's always been this old joke about why cat food is always flavored the way it is and why there is never any rat-flavored cat food.

I gotta say that if these tooth-care companies wanted to increase business and sell more, they should definitely make more flavors of their products.

Yeah, I understand why toothpaste is "Minty Fresh" and mouthwash basically tastes and feels like you are gargling with sulfuric acid. I mean, I wouldn't want to have to talk to someone whose breath smelled like pizza or steak, either, so that makes sense. But, come on... can we get a decent flavor of those flosser things?

Here's a question for the candidates:

I'm pretty sure that we will be withdrawing from Iraq within the next couple years, whether the job is finished or not. I am thinking more and more that the Democratic Congress will essentially force the President to sign a war funding bill with an exit date attached. If that doesn't happen, it is a distinct possibility that we will get a Democrat for President. I think they have all promised, on some level, to withdraw us from Iraq. If that happens, the "insurgents" in Iraq will likely find a new place to attack. My guess is Afghanistan, where will wind up "losing" there, too, in a matter of years.

So here's my question:

After we withdraw, what do you intend to do about Al-Qaeda and terrorism?

They/It will come here. Our borders are like a sieve, and anyone who thinks that Al-Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of that is a fool. (If even 1% of the illegal immigrants that have crossed our souther border are Al-Qaeda...) Many places I have read think it really is just a matter of time before we see another serious act of terrorism in America. Since Al-Qaeda isn't a country that we can attack, how will we retaliate? Half-jokingly, if we withdraw from Iraq, it will be come the next country Al-Qaeda occupies, much like pre-9/11 Afghanistan so does that mean we will invade Iraq again?

Two new additions to this Blog

Okay, I want to add two new features to my blog, to which I would like to contribute on a regular basis.

They are:

If I were the President...

and

Here's a question for the Presidential Candidates:

I can't say how often I'll be posting in those two lines of thought, but I will try to go for about once a week at minimum.

Hand over foot over hand over foot...

So, in my mind, I would like to think that I'm an avid rock climber. Yes, I did some indoor rock climbing a little less than two years ago and I loved it. I never went back, but the experience has always been one of my favorites of my time here in Texas.

After I came back from Kuwait, I picked up some weight, maybe about 15-20 pounds (partially from getting my wisdom teeth out and not being able to exercise for almost a month- complications....) and I needed to lose it. So, I started running more. And more. And not much happened.

I decided that I needed a new hobby since I no longer play video games. (Oh, wait... I'm going to have to blog about that, too.) I already have a lot of experience in Karate, so I didn't want to do that all over again, so I figured I'd take up something that is healthy and fun. Rock Climbing it is!

So, I made that decision and on the day that I was going to go down to the local rock climbing gym, I had a doctor's appointment because my right thigh had been hurting for a while, and a few days of rest didn't get rid of the pain.

Turns out, because of all the running I've been doing lately, that I likely have a stress fracture in my right femur. Don't know for absolutely sure, but I have a Bone Scan on 1 May, possibly earlier if I can get squeezed in because of a cancellation.

So, I can't run, I can't bike, I can't climb. I'm just supposed to take it easy for 30 days or more.

But, I can swim and that's cool. I've never done any kind of athletic swimming before. So, every day, I go down to the indoor pool and I swim for 30 minutes. It is much more enjoyable than running, and it's better for me, too.

So, hopefully, I can get through this low point in my physical health rather quickly so I can get on with my life. I've got some stuff I need to get done but I can't do until I get better.

Yes, I did run that Triathlon

Way back when, I said I was going to run a triathlon before I was 32. Well, that did happen. Sort of.

Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) actually did sponsor a triathlon, and I did compete in it. However, it's not exactly like you would think.

It gets so ridiculously hot in Kuwait that they didn't want to risk anyone becoming a heat casualty, so they ran the Triathlon in three parts, with teams of three- one person doing each event.

Of course, I jumped on the opportunity to do this. So, I found two other Chaplain Assistants and we did it. It's been quite a while and I don't even remember their names now, but I had a girl and a guy on my team. She swam and he ran. I biked.

There were something like 48 teams that registered and we came in like 16th or something, if I remember correctly. So, we didn't do too badly. It was fun.

And I got another T-Shirt.

Pacifism isn't what you think it is...

One of my favorite conservative pundits that I have ever known is Michael Graham. (His blog is on my links section.) Back when I lived in SC, he was a radio host on the local station. He was funny, irreverent, but really, he was very, very smart and he knows the business of politics. He's never run for office, that I know of, but I know he has participated in a few campaigns.

So, moving to the point. Somewhere, he got involved in the VA Tech massacre discussion and said something incredibly profound and now there's a bit of a backlash. To make a long blog short, he simply asked the question why no one in VA Tech actually did anything to stop the killer. During that brief time, where he killed 32 students and then himself, he came into contact with dozens, possibly hundreds, of students. And not one of them did anything to stop him.

Apparently, no one tried to talk to him. No one tried to physically apprehend him. No one tried to rush him. No one tried to band together, a la Flight 93, to end his murderous rampage. That is an important question, I think, because it says a lot about what our parents are teaching our children.

In this discussion, he's been placed in the line of fire by a Lefty group, Media Matters. They posted a story, linked in Michael's blog, to what he said and what others have said.

One comment summed up what I think is the crux of how many people feel about violence. "I've never met a parent who did not teach their kids that it's OK to protect themselves and others. My wife was a pacifist and she and I raised our children to never fight, unless there is no other option." Sure, it sounds nice and makes you feel good. But it's dumb.

I've been trying to think of a word for stuff like this, for incomplete thoughts, or positions held about a certain idea that are just so out in left/right field that they are actually dangerous. The best I can come up with is "Not Thought," as in, not thought out, or not educated enough about a topic to be able to think something through. Tune in to future blogs for other Not Thoughts.

First, let me define Pacifism. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

So, right off the bat, this is not pacifism. It's non-confrontationalism. Or passiveness. Or just plain wimpiness.

The problem is, pacifism equals no violence. Period. Gandhi was a pacifist. MLK Jr. was a pacifist. They faced personal danger and death many times and at no time did they physically defend themselves. At any time, their opponents could have killed them with no resistance from Gandhi or MLK Jr.

What the person in the comment above is talking about is nonsense. See, in an effort to shield their children (and everyone else) from violence, they have not taught them how to use violence to actually defend themselves. No Karate. No Concealed Weapons permits. Heck, they probably don't even watch the Three Stooges. So, when the time comes to actually defend themselves, they are impotent, incompetent and inept. That is, of course, if they can actually discern when the time is right to defend themselves.

In a effort to pacify others, these so-called pacifists have taken away or paved over a person's primal instinct to defend themselves. (More on that later....) For years, this person has been taught that in no situation is violence appropriate. What do you think is going to happen when the "acceptable" time to use violence occurs? If a person has been trained to not defend themselves at any time, that is exactly what they will do. Furthermore, as we humans are terrible at determining risk to our own safety AND we see others as we see ourselves, it is unlikely that a pacified person will actually know when a situation is dangerous enough to actually defend themselves. And if the situation warrants a defensive action, well, the person has no tools to do so.

But let's go deeper than just conditioning. Let's move into the brain for a moment. There is a part of our brain that separates us from our dogs/cats/fish. It is the fore-brain. It is in the fore-brain that we rationalize, that we set goals, that we experience guilt and have the ability to socialize with others. Our dog can't do that on the level we can.

All animals have what is called the mid-brain. This is the instinct part of our brain, where we have fight-or-flight, or where we process certain instances of danger and how we determine that we are hungry or need to reproduce. Humans are the only animal in the world that can override their mid-brain... because we have a fore-brain.

It is the mid-brain that causes a snake to bite you when you step on it, or a dog to attack with no warning when you enter its territory. It is absolutely instinctual for an animal to react violently when its life is threatened. There is no overriding this because they don't have the capacity to do so.

(Also, as a side-note, nearly every other animal, maybe except for primates, has some method of self-defense: Fangs, teeth, claws, horns, antlers, hooves, etc. Humans have no such defenses. Don't tell me about punching and kicking, either, since most folks have no idea how to do that right without hurting themselves. Our primary method of self-defense is... yup, you guessed it, our fore-brain, since unlike animals, we can generally discern what is truly life-threatening and what is not, unless of course we have been conditioned otherwise.)

Another thing that separates us from animals is that we are virtually the only animal on the planet that kills its own kind. Snakes don't kill other snakes of the same species, even though they could. Dogs rarely kill other dogs. Virtually no other animal will kill another animal of the same species because the most important facet of an animal's being is the perpetuation of the species. There's some really fascinating reading on this subject if you care to go into it. I won't for the sake of time.

That said, in our mid-brain, we understand this. Call it what you want- spirituality, lawfulness, common sense- but we just know that it is wrong for us to kill another human being. It's deeper than that, but if you strip away all of the rationalizations, you basically will come to, "It's just wrong!" with most people. But remember what I said about our fore-brain?

As humans, we can override our mid-brain with our fore-brain, just as our mid-brain can sometimes override our fore-brain. This is why we are virtually the only species on the planet that will kill another of the same species: because we can rationalize it away.

So, where am I going with all of this, and how does our fore-brain overriding our mid-brain have anything to do with pacifism? Simple: we can become pacifists because of our fore-brain.

In other words, it is counter-instinctual to be a pacifist. I'll leave you to figure out the ramifications of the points I have just made. As you may be able to tell, you can go many directions with this.

But specifically pertaining to this point about what was said way up there about raising kids to be pacifists, by continuously overriding instinct, almost irreparable psychological damage has been done to a person. Judgment is altered. Reactions are altered. Discernment of risk is altered.

And that is one reason why no one stopped the VA Tech massacre... even when he stopped to reload.

Book Review

Crazies to the Left and Wimps to the Right. Sounded like a fair assessment to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that everyone on the left is a nutjob. Nor do I think that everyone on the right is... right. We need both sides for balance. Our country would not be the great nation it is today if it weren't for contributions from both sides. The problem is, when one side thinks that everyone on the other side is wrong or stupid, then we have a problem.

Anyway, I bought this book because the title really spoke to how I've been feeling lately about our politicians. It's an easy read; only took me about two or three hours to read it.

But, honestly, it's not that great. Most of the stuff in there I already knew and it's not really a 50/50 split against the Left and Right. It's probably about a 75/25 split against the Left. Near the end, there's like three or four chapters where nothing is said about the position of the Right on the specific subject.

Basically, it wasn't an idea book, which is really what I'm after. And I should have known that from the title. In fact, I had another book in my hand and I was trying to decide between the two and now I am sorry I didn't pick it up. I don't need someone to tell me that the media is biased or that the Right just wants to be liked by the Left. As much reading as I do on a day to day basis, I could have written the book myself.

However, if you don't consider yourself to be informed... er... well... Let me put it another way, since most people really do consider themselves to be informed...

If you don't spend much time surfing the web for politics information (at least a few times per week) or if you don't listen to talk radio very much, I would recommend this book, but only if you really just want to bolster your anti-left thinking.

My Reading List

Here are the books on my reading list.

Freakonomics
Resurrection
Rock Climbing: A Trailside Guide (I'll have to explain why I've taken up Rock Climbing in another blog... which reminds me, I have so much to talk about!)
What If? (Bargain Bin. Looked interesting and I have a secret love of history.)
Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right (I read this yesterday, and I'll review it later today.)

So there you have it.

Do I really need that?

Advertising... what has it become and how stupid can it get?

Advertising has always been a curiosity to me. I mean, I understand why companies advertise, but the methods have made me wonder what what going through the heads of the folks in the advertising department.

As far as I can tell, advertising has one specific, overlying goal: brand recognition/awareness which makes the consumer comfortable with the product. The reason for brand recognition/awareness is obvious: you won't go out and buy something you don't know exists. So, companies get their product out there with clever placement, specifically going after that target consumer. Commercials and ads are refined to make a convincing argument to that target customer to purchase that specific product. The whole process is very complex, so I'm not going to go into it. Plus, I'm just a layman, so I'd probably screw it up.

The other benefit of brand recognition is making the customer comfortable with their product. In our primal brains, we tend not to venture into unknown territory. When exploring an unknown area, we experience anxiety and certain parts of our brain don't function as well as when we are uncomfortable with our environment. (I've just stated a lot of oversimplified psychology, so do a bit of research on something called schema if you want more information.) If you don't believe me, think about the last time you bought soda.

Most people buy the same soda over and over again. Why? Because it tastes good, right? Well, maybe. But, I'm willing to bet it's because that's the soft drink they have bought for a long time. Next time you are at the store, instead of grabbing that Pepsi/Coke, go for the store brand or the alternate brand, like R/C cola or something. When you are reaching for that alternate cola, notice how you feel about it. You second guess yourself. You wonder if you are making the right decision. You hope you will like it. And you'll think about that bottle of cola in your cart the whole time you are shopping- and it only costs a buck! If you don't like it, what have you lost? A dollar? The time it took you to buy the soda and take it home? Negligible consequences, but for a lot of people, the brain doesn't see it that way.

So, companies spend lots of money making sure your brain knows the name of the product they are trying to sell, so that when you go to buy a product in that category, you will pick their product over another product because you are familiar with that company's product. Plus, if they can present a great argument for you to overcome your dissonance (another psych word) about choosing a new brand, you will buy from them and cease buying from their competitors. Coupons work this way. A company overcomes some of a customer's anxiety about buying a new product by compromising a bit. Once you have the product and are using it, unless it just absolutely sucks, you'll continue to buy it because you are familiar with the product- until you get a coupon from a competitor.

So, I said all that to come to the actual point: what the heck is going on with advertising these days? I see so many ads and commercials that are just absolutely pointless and do not convince me to buy a product. (Maybe I'm not the target consumer, so it doesn't work on me....) In fact, many advertisements just make me say, "What? Is that supposed to make me want that?" I'll use an example from when I worked in a grocery store so very long ago.

A bread company, Merita, I think, delivered their bread every other day to my store. On the side of their truck was their slogan: Baked while YOU sleep. I've never quite understood why that was supposed to make me desire their bread. Was I supposed to be impressed that their bread-baking employees were working while I was sleeping? Or was I supposed to get the idea that their bread was somehow fresher than everyone else's bread because the magical bread fairies that only came out at night made their bread fresher? I never figured out how that worked. (One could argue that by having such a dumb slogan that I remembered the brand of bread over other brands and hence, the advertising worked.... except I've never bought that brand of bread.)

Okay, another thing that gets me: children and babies in advertising. Again, maybe I'm not the target audience, so maybe I'm just not getting it. But, I hear lots of commercials on the radio ("Come shop at my daddy's store for the best prices!") and I see quite a few commercials on TV that, quite frankly, just annoy me. And in some cases, they just plain freak me out.

Quizno's had an ad campaign a while back where they had this talking baby promote their food. I like Quizno's, but I refused to eat there while that talking baby was their spokesperson. Maybe it's just hard for me to suspend disbelief, but I know that a baby can't talk, and I know a baby can't eat Quizno's. Despite all of that, I simply don't see how a talking baby can convince me to eat at Quizno's. I don't know... maybe I just take stuff too seriously.

I'll likely write a part two to this at some point in the future, but for now, I hope you can get what I'm saying. I know that pretty much every concept for a commercial has been done already, so many companies are getting desperate for the consumers to recognize their name. I just don't understand how some of the ideas made out of the board room.

Madam Speaker, come back!

Well, I'm a little late, but I think there's a couple things I could say that haven't been said yet.

If you haven't heard or read any of the story about the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) going to Syria and Israel, do some research. The whole story is funny, really.

What you haven't heard in the media is that the whole visit is completely illegal! Read this for more clarification.

The other thing that's not been mentioned anywhere that I've seen is the grave protocol error that she committed. See, in Muslim countries, women don't talk to men that aren't their husband. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. While America shuns the treatment of women in the Middle East (and rightfully so), they aren't exactly up to our standards just yet. Yes, in some parts of the Middle East, women can vote, and if I remember correctly, there are a couple women that have successfully run for office in Kuwait, but that is rare.

One more thing: the Democrats seem to think that getting everyone to like us is of prime importance. That really goes to show their lack of leadership. Ask any successful leader in any capacity, and he/she will tell you that if you strived to be liked by everyone, you will get nothing done. Basically, the very opposite will occur. Everyone will see through the sham and you will be liked by no one. Decisiveness and consistency are two of the most important leadership qualities and it seems that our politicians (on both sides) are lacking in both areas.

This is really a dead issue now, since this happened so long ago, so I'll just end it here and hope that she comes to her senses and doesn't decide to visit Iran...

My Political Slant

I think it's only fair that I post my political leanings on my blog (as if anyone reads anyway...) so that the reader can have a fair idea of where I am coming from when I post something political, like my next post will be.

I am a moderate conservative. But, I imagine most people would equate the word "moderate" with "reasonable," so that they themselves are moderate and everyone else to the right and left of them are Kool-Aid drinkers. So, by moderate, I mean that I share some standing with the conservative side, but I also share some standing with non-conservatives. ("Liberal" is apparently an offensive word to liberals, and I refuse to call them Progressives.)

I do listen to talk radio. If you didn't know any better, one would say that makes me unequivocably a right-winger. I listen to Air America when I can... stand... it. But I can barely stand to listen to the top two conservative hosts, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

See, there's a saying: "Great people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine." I've heard a couple variations of that saying, like replacing "things" with "people" and completely removing the clause about wine. If you've ever listened to those two guys, they mostly talk about people. Rush isn't so bad because he at least has some entertaining discussion on his show. But, Hannity... I can barely stand to listen to him when he has someone on his show with whom he disagrees. He baits them, he personally insults them and the dialogue basically degenerates from there.

Anyway, the two radio hosts I like the most are Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, in that order. There are lots of reasons I like them, but mostly because of their discussions, and Beck is soooo funny. He's got his own show on CNN, and that's very good, too.

For my own personal views, I try very hard to come up with views of my own. I read a lot, and I try to make sure that my views aren't just stuff I heard on the radio or read somewhere. I really try to evalute my opinions against other viewpoints. I do use what I hear and read to shore up my views, but I really try to evaluate my own views against other views, agreeing and opposing.

But, that's all I'll post for now. I'm sure you'll get a good idea of where I stand if you read more of my stuff.

When's that Global WARMING going to happen?

It's snowing. In Texas. On Easter Eve.

It's been snowing all day long, though it started as sleet this morning when I took my wife to work.

My wife took some pictures and video of the whole thing. Here is the video of my Easter greeting. We were supposed to go out tonight, but I think that is not going to happen. We'll just stay in and watch a Pay-per-View movie or something.

Happy Easter!

Upcoming Blogs

These are the next topics I'd like to blog about:

1. Advertising... what has it become and how stupid can it get?
2. Madam Speaker, please come home. We miss you. Well, not really, but you're making a fool of yourself.
3. Lance Armstrong beat me in the Tour de France. How is that possible? I'm so surprised that this happened!
4. Positive and Negative Consequences. How raising kids and house-breaking a dog are almost exactly the same thing.

I've got a couple more, but I can't remember them now. I'll edit as I remember. Hope to see you soon!

The New Me

I'm just going to say that our cruise to Mexico was nice, except for the sea sickness. That's not really something that can be controlled, so don't let it scare you away.

Starting this week, I'm going to start blogging a couple times a week. Every once in a while I have some thoughts that go through my head that I would like to flesh out, and it just feels good to put it all on paper.

I'll probably have a routine to stick with for regular blogging times. I'll work that out soon.

Inbetween, I'll probably post stuff like what movie I saw recently or something like that.

I'm looking forward to starting this again!