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.

Almost Paradise

As I considered the title to this post, I realized I came up with something of a good book title. At least, it seemed that way to me. Now, I need is a good book to go with it. Come to think of it, maybe someone did already. It would be a shame if someone else beat me to it.

The point is that the place I moved to in 1977 was really nice and had been for decades. It was almost paradise, though there were a few problems.

Some of the roads were spread with pot holes. My poor little car had a real problem with the little trailer bouncing around behind us. There were but a small smattering of places to eat and we could find but 1 doctor office, 1 dentist and one pharmacy. The closest hospital was 15 or 16 miles away.

However, the schools were nice and there weren’t many police. Wasn’t much need for them. It truly was almost paradise.

In this world there are problems with paradises. Southern California, before 1950 was an almost paradise. Now, look at it. I won’t go through the list of problems there now. Everyone knows. The desire to live in paradise has destroyed it. Now the U-hauls are leaving and the people are going to other paradises; as Texas, Florida, etc.

in all likelihood, those paradises will be spoiled too. It almost always happens. Unfortunately, paradises draw the unsavory element as well as the exemplary.

It’s happened and is happening where I live. If I possible, I’d leave as soon as i could. If there were an army of police, it would not be enough. The undesirable element is drifting south from Memphis. It does say something about Memphis. No one wants to leave a good place for a worse one.

We now have doctors hospitals dentists, the whole works. Even the streets are smooth. However, it seems that every fourth car I see nowadays has Shelby County plates.

Don’t actually have too much of an objection if they want to spend Tennessee dollars in Mississippi, but they bring their driving habits too. Not only that but they bring their crime, mostly drugs, and robbery too. A couple of years ago, I posted a story about a break in in my house. Dumb thief! One look at my little 900 square foot house and he’d have known I don’t have anything.

The area right across the state line had two big thriving malls and the area around it had a multitude of stores, restaurants and businesses. The malls are now all but closed and the parking lots are all baren.

Needless to say, the value of my little house has skyrocketed. Every time Memphis comes up with a bad idea my property value goes up.

The problem is that as they leave what used to be a near paradise, they bring their stupid ideas with them, and ruin our neighborhoods.

It is not just a local problem. It won’t be long that the illegal aliens will bring their ways to our nation and destroy our national paradise.

This reminds me of a passage in the Bible in which it says that murderers, thieves, liars, adulterers, etc, etc, and so forth will never go to heaven (paradise).

At the time I first read it, I did not see the full significance as I do now. You see, any place where such people are allowed would not be paradise. It would not be long before even the steets of heaven would be ruined. When the corrupt are denied access, about anywhere would be great. Then, with Jesus there too, it will be perfect.

If you would like to go there, you need a reservation. The only way to get the reservation is to accept Jesus as your savior. Then, he will cleanse you. Those not born again are not cleansed. They will not enter paradise. They will only see eternal punishment.

if you think about it, it makes sense. Who wants a paradise full of corruption and the corrupt. Certainly, God doesn’t.

Now if I could just get all these liberals to go back to Memphis where they belong!!

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.

Hearsay of Hearsay

During court trials, hearsay is not normally permitted. It is a witness account of what someone else said.

It is rarely acceptable as evidence unless it can be somehow substantiated.

Normally I don’t watch the kangaroo court called the Jan 6th hearings but it was on the TV at the doctor’s office while I waited.

I couldn’t help but notice all the hearsay being entered as evidence. Indeed almost everything the witness said was hearsay. Moreover, some of it was hearsay of hearsay. It was not substantiated, none of it.

And they want us to believe it?

Even more important, how do we know she has not been threatened or, possibly, rewarded? We don’t and without cross examination, we never will. No one asked her.

It is why none of the so-called hearing should be believed.

As an aside, why do all those representatives have to have such irritating voices and mannerisms. It was all I could manage to keep from going up and turning off the TV.

1 more thing. Why can’t these representatives investigate important things, like why are drugs killing our youth faster than we can count them. Why don’t they investigate why we are short on baby formula? Why can’t they investigate why our border is open? Maybe they could find out why there were some districts that had more votes than voters. Maybe it’s because they are afraid of what they’d find. They just might end up seeing the obvious.

Dana Parino Has Quote of the Day

I was watching The Five this evening as they opened with a discussion on The Supreme Court decision on carry permits. They quoted the mayor who said something like everyone will be afraid to go to sleep at night. To which Dana Perino asked “Why are they afraid of law binding people? “

Gutfeld his perspective with the contrast of fearing the armed law bidding people while they turn the criminals out, armed or not.

Then the statement were quoted about New York turning into the wild west. To this I have 2 questions. Isn’t that pretty much the case now. More importantly, what will the gun control crowd say when the shootings decrease.

My guess is that they will do what they can to keep that stat well concealed.

Contesting Elections

Considering some of the things said, considering some of the accusations made during the Jan 6th so-called hearing, does that mean that the dems will no longer contest elections. I mean Gore contested his loss all the way to the Supreme Court, all the time hoping that his army of recounters destroyed all the chads they could.

Then, of course, there is ms Clinton who still thinks she beat Trump. Then there is that Georgia race for governor.

Really? Are we supposed to believe the dems never contest a contest. Are we supposed to act as if it never happened before.

By the, Clinto also tried to have her contest overturned in Congress. If it was OK for Clinton, why not for Trump.

In electronics we have a name for a component that only works one way, a diode. Mechanics have a tool that works one way, a rarcher. Those that design cities also provide us with one way streets.

Do we really need-way politicians, judges and prosecutors too? Even worse,, what about the one-way news media. I mean, now with Biden in the Oval Office, where are all those tough probing questions. If the current crowd of reporters can’t think of so much as one, i can think of a few. I’m sure some of you can too.


Whilst the FOCS spend hours investigating the false disaster of Jan 6, they ignore the fact that Joe and his cohorts have destroyed over 15 trillion dollars in stock market wealth.

I ask. Really! Just what, just which is more important?

Well,I guess that is a stupid question. To the FOCS, the distinction of Trump exceeds the importance of everything and all. Besides, wny should they care about a bunch of 401Ks. I mean it’s just the savings of thousands of little people. (And the dems claim they represent the little guys)

As an aside, it is one more reason to cut expenses by dropping cable. Out of the hundreds of possible channels, out of all the so-called news channels, at least 8 or 9 are covering that so-called Jan 6th hearing. By the way, one of those channels is FOX NEWS. I may cancel cable even should I become a millionaire.