Smarter Than Thou!

BUT SHE HAD A REALLY NICE "PERSONALITY"

     BILL O’Reilly, the fool and radio commentator, was commenting, on his radio show, on the “problem” of nation wide health care.  A caller suggested that, maybe, a socialized approach, as in England and Canada, might be the solution.  Bill disagreed.  His argument was that the “reduced” populations of these countries make an essential difference.  The USA has 300 million, while England has about 40 million, and Canada has about 20 (not million, but people). 

  Bill did not explain why larger numbers automatically make such a system inoperative.  He did “offer”(?) the following.  Corruption is so widespread in America that it thus would not work.  Of course, most government things in America are corrupt and work quite well, most of the time… for a lot of us.   

   However, Bill failed to notice one key difference, which really does (or could) make a difference.  Canada and England are not under siege by aliens.  Large groups of culturally different people are not entering England and trying to change its language, culture, values, etc.  Canada does not have a culture (other than ice fishing, and ice farming), but even if it did then people would not try to sneak across her borders to change it. 

            The true comparative difference is the same as that between the cute and shapely girl and the fat ugly one.  I guarantee that, should they both go to the same bar, they would come away with different impressions regarding the guys at the bar.  And one could walk, pretty safely, past construction workers, while the other could not.  And they would look at fashions differently, as what works for one will not work for the other.  To put this simply, attributes, such as desirability and wealth, really, really do change the substance with regard to what can be done, and how things can be handled.  Bill should have known that.  And now you do.  

A&E, if a girl, would be the perfect blind date, having charm and beauty.  Take her out, every month, for only $30 per year.  

CUI BONO?

THE (slightly?) pretentious Latin phrase with which I begin this effort means “to whose benefit?” It expresses an element, or a technique, of rational analysis. To try to find out why things are, or are not, the way they are: seek who benefits from a change or from the status quo (which is another pretentious Latin phrase meaning “follow the woman”).

I was watching a call-in C-SPAN and the subject of energy came up. And a caller mentioned that he “knew” of a technology which would give up to 100 MPG for American cars. I must add that no one actually “knows” what this ,is. However, every “real” American male does know the guy, who knows the guy, who knows… and/or who developed, the technology. My own version is Mike (full name available upon request), who knew Hans, the German engineer, who worked in the Mid Hudson Valley of NY, and who developed the magic carburetor, and who was, of course, bought out by General Motors, and who then retired to a castle on the Rhine in Germany. I mean, this REALLY happened! Mike even got a postcard from him!

The caller on the show, being a pro-Communist Liberal, did, by accident, make a good point. The reason why these technologies continue to rot in garages, and are not working within engines, is that the oil companies have no incentive to sell LESS of their product. So why would Exxon help to develop and to market Hans’ magic carburetor?

I agree, but everyone seems to be overlooking one point. Cars with much better mileage would be a wonderful selling point for the auto manufactures. All three of the US auto makers are in serious trouble. They may yet go out of business. They want to sell MORE cars, and not fewer. If any or all of them could produce a super high mileage car then it would be astoundingly beneficial for them to do so. And, in case you did not notice, the oil companies are NOT the auto makers. In fact, although interrelated, they have conflicting interests. If oil prices increase then more efficient cars would be more valuable, and would sell better. So why do GM and Ford keep buying up these magic technologies and refuse to use them?

I suppose that Hans might explain this. I wonder what his address in Saxony is.

We won't be able to send you monthly issues of the A&E (with other world shaking secret stuff within in), unless we know your address. Send it to us, along with $30.

OH... NOW THAT'S DIFFERENT!... OR NOT

I was watching some kind of “student congress” thing on C-Span. Some nice Black girl brought up a “forbidden” subject, namely affirmative action. She pointed out that, contrary to reality, affirmative action does NOT allow one person to have an advantage by being favored over another. Thank Heaven. All this time I thought that it was racial prejudice in action. It is, she assured us, actually simply a means to certify EQUALITY of access and opportunity. So, according to her, allowing a Black (who is not qualified to enter) admission to a Medical School is simply making the field level. This is the ultimate in equality. Everyone gets in, if Black, and, no matter how inadequate, stupid, evil or unprepared the Black is, this makes everything equal.

Wait, there is even more.

She pointed out that giving Blacks places fairly earned by more qualified Whites is not, in any way, discrimination. It is precisely, she insisted, the same as giving a scholarship to a football player. He gets in, even though some other guy might be better qualified. This is because he contributes “something” to the university. So he really is not being favored. He simply has an additional qualification, which means more than simply having better grades and not being a criminal.

Actually, I accept such reasoning. I have never felt that admission to anything should be based solely upon some objective standard. However, what does a Black candidate offer, that a smarter White does not? What is it that a darker skin offers which outweighs being able to read and write English? The girl answered this question. The Black contributes… being Black.

The absolutely inevitable conclusion from this assertion is that the skin color REALLY does change a person. The Black skin does make a person different. So Whites and Blacks, according to this nice Black girl, really are NOT equal. The White Supremacists, and the Black Muslims, are right, according to her. And as the Blacks are not really equal to Whites then….

Holy Cow! I nearly entered into a forbidden subject myself.

You can be equal to analyzing the world and its ways, if you subscribe to A&E, which costs $30 per year ($27 for Black students or athletes on scholarship).

A TORTURED CONCLUSION

ALLOW me a brief comment on state sponsored, or allowed, torture. This is now a relatively minor issue in the campaign. The issue essentially comes down to this. If the US forces capture terrorists, or possible terrorists, should they torture them to gain information? Those who oppose the practice are those who celebrate 9/11 as a happy holiday. However, their official reasons for opposition are different. They would admit the truth only under torture... which is another, related subject.

Recently Hillary Clinton was interviewed on the subject. She argued (sic) against it because, as she put it, “it does not work.” She, and others, point out that when you torture a person the only information obtained is “what you want to hear.”

This is a most interesting comment, no? Re-read that objection again, please. To analyze this, replace torture with other similar words. The only reason why a police officer asks questions of witnesses is that he wants to gain what he wants to know. The only reason why the mother asks questions of her children is to learn what she wants to know. The only reason why a boss asks questions of an employee is to learn what he wants to hear. In fact the only reason why we ask people for information is to learn what we want to know, i.e. what we want to hear.

And, of course, this does NOT mean to learn information we would like to hear. To torture Ahmed to find out where a bomb is does not mean that we like the fact that he placed a bomb somewhere to kill innocent people. This is a difference between want and like to know.

Hillary and others are probably trying to say, in their retarded way, that the victim may lie to his tormentors. That is, if asked a question, he may, at the least, mislead. Sure. And then, after confirming that he lied you (or we) torture him again… (and as the cheerleaders say) harder, harder. The entire premise is that a man when subjected to pain will do what he can to end the pain. And if telling the “wanted” truth ends the pain, he will. The tormentors do not say, “I want X to be true; please reassure me.” They say, “Tell me where the bomb is, now, or I shall cut off your skin.”

One would think that (1) Hillary could fabricate a better argument and (2) interviewers would be smart enough to refute her answers. But then if they were all that smart then they would be writing this, instead of me.

To understand that the torture of innocent people is done by moral states, you need to subscribe to A&E, which is a monthly publication, which costs only $30 per year.

THE STUPID WE SHALL ALWAYS HAVE WITH US

I belong to a “health club.” One of the employees, Michael, is, well, “slow.” In the old days we would call him retarded. He does simple jobs and is pleasant. Many of us talk with him, especially about sports; he is a Mets fan. We do not really patronize him, but we slow down things, and keep the subjects simple. This is precisely what we should do.

We, all decent people, agree that the handicapped should be given certain “breaks,” such as favored parking spots. And this applies to Michael too. We understand that being mentally handicapped puts him into the same generally favored category with those with only one leg, or the blind. Consider this, before we move on, because IF you agree with this THEN very profound conclusions follow.

The people of New Orleans suffered a massive disaster. Water overflowed the canal walls, and flooded the city. A number of “conservatives” argued that the residents deserved it. “After all,” most of us were tempted to say, “YOU are responsible for your own homes. You locals should have spent your money to build better flood control devices.” Apparently the money was available, but “misplaced” by the normal thieving Democrat leaders.

This is similar to the idiots in California who keep building houses on temporarily stationary mud slides. The houses soon go into the ocean, and I say “That serves you right!” The people who continually re-build in Mississippi flood plains also continually have their homes move into the Gulf of Mexico. Why should this concern us, the “hard working taxpayers?” IF you choose to do something stupid (e.g. vote for Democrats) THEN you should accept you own consequences. Detroit is a social and political vacuum because the local idiots voted for incompetent Black crooked leaders. Should this concern the rest of us?

At first impression, clearly, is: No. However, only really stupid people would continue to vote for such incompetent leaders. The people in New Orleans, and Detroit, and… etc, also must be out of their minds to keep electing precisely those who refuse to make things better. Right? But being an idiot, or out of one’s mind, is precisely one of those categories which we consider worthy of “special” extra help. Recall Michael, who looks retarded. We all are “nice” to him. We should be. Michael is so stupid that he would probably vote for Black Democrats or build on a mud slide.

Simply because the local retards form majorities in New Orleans, Detroit, etc, does not mean that we change our principles, does it? If you and I, and everyone, feels inclined to allow Michael extra tolerance, and help, and consideration, and guidance, and patience, then why do we suddenly change into cruel selfish savages when a whole city of Michaels are flooded out?

If you are an idiot, and have a doctor's note to prove it, then you can get A&E at a reduced rate. For the rest of you, the fee is $30 per year. That is 11 full monthly issues.