A Word of Advice for All Advertisers

I know. I have no degree in advertising. I have no degree in higher learning at all. However, I do have eyes in my head and I have likely a little better mind for reasoning than most. That is to say, I can observe and draw reasonably sound conclusions.

Now, let’s say I’m watching a TV show and one of those irritating, highly over repeated ads come on. You know the ones. The ones by the lawyers seeking their 40% for legal fees; the ones advertising for Medicare part C; etc, etc and so forth.

Instead of leaving the room to make a sandwich, I change the channel to avoid the obnoxious blather. Then, no matter the reason, I don’t change the channel back. Maybe I forget. Perhaps I decide I like what’s on the other channel. I don’t know. Maybe the remote breaks or gets lost.

Your ad, which is immediately after the repetitive gibberish is not watched…the one for which you paid good money. The money, goes down the tubes, never to even be seen again. I imagine the ad agency as well as those writing the check don’t like like my little story.

Based on the above, it would seem to me that advertisers would not want to pay prime prices for time following “such fantastic works of art.”

Odd. While watching TV just now, one of those irritants came on. I’m not sure I’ll change it back. I sort of like this program better.

I mean, there are irritating commercials. Then, there are just irritating blabbing, if you get my point. I mean, I do believe we are all now well educated on bad water at Lejeune and the benefits of part c Medicare.

The Epitome of Stupidity

I just heard a report on CBS that was so unbelievable that I just had to verify it before writing on it. Sure enough, it’s accurate according to NPR (Becky Sullivan)

Henceforth, VISA, Mastercard and American Express will (or have) created a code for gun sales. This is in hopes of decreasing gun violence.

Sorry, that will have little or no affect. The reason can be determined by a smart 6th grader (One who does not attend public school). Those who plan to use guns illegally are not likely to use a credit card to buy a gun. Hidden near the end of the article is a stat that pretty much confirms this. About 7% of those using guns during crimes buy them legally. There is no record of the purchase of over 90% of guns used in crime.

If I decide to buy a gun without my M.C., all I need do is go to the ATM and withdraw 6 or 7 hundred dollars and go find someone interested in selling their 9 mm.

I have no such plans nor do I currently have any guns, although if the FOCs continue to run things as they do, I just might go out and buy a few automatic pitching machines with which to defend my home. I’m not sure, but I’d think it would be a good legal way of defense. Any smart burglars burglaring my home would be wise to bring their baseball glove.

As I have said before, the way to stop gun violence, or any kind of of violence is three-fold. Teach respect of human life in the home, in the schools and from the government. Pray and encourage prayer before the violence. It doesn’t help much after. Make sure everyone knows basic gun safety.

One more thing thing that would help is to lock up those who commit crimes, especially the violent kind. Many violent crimes are committed by known criminals, most which don’t use guns.

Time Flies

Time flies, if you can, but it takes a keen eye.

Some may have difficulty making sense of the above sentence. If so, the hint is that “[You]” is the understood subject.

Maybe you can have some fun with your friends and the above sentence, which though it appears nonsense, is a proper, though useless sentence.

And by way, the sentence makes far more sense than some of the going green ideas out there.

Making Money the Legal Way

Every day lawyers make money the legal way. In the process, they cost well meaning honest people a ton and a half of money. Considering the weight of paper money, that’s a lot of cash.

They don’t have to win their cases in court. They sue for a million, settle for 200 thousand and the lawyers walk away with 80 thousand of it. This, of course all occurs within months, maybe weeks.

The sad thing is that many of the defendants have done nothing wrong. I wonder suspect no one is keeping any statistics. I suspect that those statistics would prove that most of the time the loser is our justice system.

Then, there are those situations where the defedants are guilty. In the recent case concerning Camp Lejeune, the lawyers seem to really be cleaning up.

I can’t help but wonder how much of our tax money is going into the hands of lawyers rather than victims. The attorneys advertise day and night. There must be a lot at stake. Otherwise, why advertise so much.

It is legal, completely. However, as veteran myself, it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth that the lawyers would buy their executive jets off veterans like me. It is likely why lawyers are known as a necessary evil.

As an aside, think about it. The Congressmen are largely lawyers making laws to benefit lawyers. Unlike the Constitution, laws aren’t written in plain English. In order to understand laws, we need lawyers. By the way, sometimes the lawyers don’t understand them.

It’s no wonder lawyers live so well, unless they are honest and ethical.

Good News

For those interested. I just found out that one of the thorns in Trump’s side has just been shot down. Come January, Liz from Wyoming will be looking for a new job. Invariable, she will find one in among the news establishment. She will be well rewarded for becoming a never Trumper. She might want to remember, though, all liars do get their just wages in the end.

Tis a shame we cannot arrange an immediate result. Unfortunately, we do need to wait for November to make it final. Then we have to wait till January to make it legal.

Either way, she got the message, though she is not likely to take the hint from her constituents.

Surprise, Not All Stove Are Hot

It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.

Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.

Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.

I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.

The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.

What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.

While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.

On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.

You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.

Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.

I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.

Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.

The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.

If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)

I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.

However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.

Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.

Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.

On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.

In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.

For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.

How Many Libs to Screw in a Light Bulb?

One cannot claim I don’t believe in recycling. This is one of the most recycled jokes ever and a bad one at that. The answer is casual to the most obvious observer. Actually, that’s kind-of an old twist of words too, but I kinda like it. On the other hand, my wife is more than tired of it and reminds frequently.

At any rate, the obvious answer is zero. No self repecting lib would replace a light bulb. They love stumbling around in the dark. Those few who do like light, prefer paying someone else. It is below their dignity.

Speaking of light, the vast majority of libs deny the greatest Light of all. In John 8:12 Jesus proclaims to all, “I am the light of the world.” Instead of accepting the Light, they defiantly prefer stumbling around in the darkness.

Worse, they pretend to be of great vision and every chance they get, lead us into destruction.

Did Someone Say Something About Home made Guns?

Actually, I did, years ago.

Now, I’m hearing reports that the former premier of Japan was killed by one. I hate that. Mostly, as a pro-life person, I always hate such horrble things. In this case, it is especially horrid. I would not have been so upset if it had happened to the likes of Putin or that no-account who treats all those in China so badly. Then again, if either of them were to begin experiencing the after life, he most certainly would be replaced with someone worse.

Regardless, that aside, the man proved my point. In a country where gun control is the norm, the culprit either made his weapon or he bought it from someone who knows his gunsmithing. I neither wanted nor welcome the proof, but all must accept it when it becomes obvious.

Now that we are in a society that wants to take guns from lawful citizenry, we must face the fact that the criminals will be carrying homemade guns, perhaps fully automatic. This is especially noteworthy considering that the next mistake the FOCs will make is to remove the guns from the police.

By the way, when no one but criminals have guns, every gun becomes an effective assault weapon. It’s precisely what the libs want: a nation ruled by criminals. It is a world they can fix into a nation like China.

The Inevitable Result of the Pipeline

It is one of those old laws so to speak of the pipeline. If what you put in is bad, most likely what you get out the other end will be bad. So let’s take a quick look at the pipeline and what we are putting in and just what is coming out.

We put in children from broken Godless homes. We send them through schools where no one can say anyting about God, or even speak the truth about good and evil without someone losing his job. We teach that mankind has no greater importance than a whale, porpoise or ape, and the kids come out believing all things they are taught.

If a person is no more than an animal, but more intelligent and with apposing thumbs: if all man is doing is destroying plants, animals and the climate, then why not believe he has improved the world by destroying some of the horrible human inhabitants?

Don’t all animals go around killing others, even of their own type? Why shouldn’t men kill other men? We are only soulless animals as all the others.

Indeed, as a society, we kill even the youngest and most innocent. Joe speaks as if it is our duty kill babies before they have a chance to breathe the air we breath, to be sure, before they are protected by law.

If there are any statistics, I suspect they would prove at least 8 out of 10 killers come from broken homes where the Bible was never read.

And so it would seem that I’m blaming broken homes for all the shootings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. God tells us we each are responsible for our own actions.

After all, Eve blamed the snake. Adam blamed Eve and even implied God was guilty because He made Eve for him.

Mankind always looks for excuses, a way out. Yet, when we do we always make things worse. So, Joe tries to blame the weapon instead of the shooter. That makes about as much sense as Cain blaming the rock for his killing Able. You notice even Cain was not that dumb.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it till the day I die. The time to pray is before the disasters. Afterwards is too late. But then, the government won’t let us pray beforehand, only after.

So, the pipeline made up of broken homes and atheist schools keeps turning out kids who know not the difference between good and evil. To that degree, society is guilty. How can they know right from wrong when no one is permitted to teach them.

The Jan 6th Bombshell Fizzled

There was a big build up to yesterday’s Jan 6 meeting. Looks to me like a big Broadway show where the audience left before the end of the 2nd act.

Because they didn’t do their due diligence, it all blew up in their faces. Their presentation had an aura of being absolute truth but within hours, folks with 1st hand knowledge started poking holes in the 2nd and 3rd hand testimony.

By logic, if the testimony is false in one point, it should be considered false in its totality.

The problem is that the committee has knowingly done their damage. Many do and will continue to believe the intentional lies, even should dozens counter the big fib.

By the way, it is one reason hearsay is not accepted in court. It is also a reason the committee should not accept hearsay.

Even worse, the committee never made any attempt to verify the statement of the witness. That is sort-of police work 101. All they needed to do was to make a call to the the Secret Service. Then again, that would have ruined their production.

On the other hand, they just destroyed what little credibility the panel had. Now, all they have is shame.