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.

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.

On the Peripheral of Baseball

I took my wife out to eat tonight at one of her favorites, Huey’s. Right after we ordered, she asked if I knew who Vin Scully is. Eventually she called to my attention the banner on the big TV screen behind me, “Remembering Vin Scully.

Of course I remember him. Being raised in Orange County, California, I listened to a great many of his broadcast of Dodgers games. Of course I never met him, yet he seemed to be a friend.

Naturally, one can say he was old. It was expected. Yet he is one that I would have preferred to hang around for a few more decades.

Of course, the banner was not an outright proclamation but it is the way the news speaks of those who are no longer with us. So I pulled out my cell phone and did something I never used it for before. I pulled up Google and then after entering just the letter v, his name popped up. It sort-of told me 2 things. Vin Scully was high the news for the day and he had a huge following.

Then, almost instantly after I tapped the top most listing, I saw the news story. I knew it would be there, yet I hoped it wasn’t.

As I said, I didn’t really know him but for the few hours each day during the season. However, as near as I can tell, he was a man I would have liked to know well.

He was an announcer, not one of the players. He was only on the periphery of the game. Yet, he truly contributed so much to baseball and all of us who enjoyed the game and couldn’t afford to go.

He will be missed. He is already missed.

The Biggest Problem With the Marines

After 9 years in the Marines, it saddens me as I watch what happens to it. I’m sure that I’m not alone though I have yet to check around.

To be sure, it has gotten soft. If I went a day without getting hit during boot camp, it was a real oddity. OK. I admit it. It caused a little pain. In the end, I knew my drill instructor had my interest in mind. The pain only increased my chances of my survival, which also increased the chances for the marines around me. Being in the air wing, I never saw any real combat, but i was plenty close enough for me. I also met many who did see the combar. I drew the conclusion that, no matter the pain, better to learn in training.

Certainly, the advent of politically correct experiments haven’t helped. Well, they helped the politicians. When staying alive is the object, politics matter less than nothing. And one of the best ways to stay alive is by killing the enemy, as horrible as that may sound. When you keep him on the run, his abilities to kill you are greatly reduced.

Then, I ask, do we really need women in foxholes? Does it really improve our abilities to rain terror on the enemy? I know for sure 2 things about that. I would never willingly share a foxhole with a woman and no woman would ever want to share a foxhole with me.

I could certainly carry on just about forever on the subject, but the question is the biggest problem with the Marines. That’s simple. That’s obvious. The biggest problem with the entire Department of Defense is the commander in chief. No one person has done more damage to our military than Joe has.

My only question, is it stupidity on intentional. Likely, it is both. The problems with the likes of Joe giving the orders is that learning war tactics by experience is horribly expensive and there are no backspace keys. Mistakes are very permanent.

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.

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.

So Much for 18 Months’ Gains

Joe loved to brag about all the gains in the Stock Market because of his fantastic economic management skills. Not so much now. In fact I don’t think he’s mentioned the Market for maybe 3 or 4 months.

As I’ve said a time or two before, old Joe does like to blame others…many others. Well it is the old cause and affect. He intentionally drove the price of oil up. That in itself started the inflation. When you drive up the cost of the one most important commodities, everything else must go up…that is called inflation.

Then, to make matters worse, he started printing money. When I was in high school, I learned better than that. It’s simple. The less you there is of something, the more it’s worth. When Joe started printing dollars like Monopoly money, it started approaching the value Monopoly money.

It’s not so much that groceries have a greater value but the dollar is worth less. There are far more of them.

Finally, there is a long known pattern. As the inflation went up, it started driving stocks up. But it is a false economic growth and the stock growth is followed by massive decreases in the value of stocks. It is the big part of what caused the market crash of 1929. If you recall, there was a massive growth right before the crash.

Now the DOW Jones Industrial Average has a value lower than when Joe started ignoring his oath of office. It is a tad over 30 thousand. Worse, those are 2022 dollars, which have a real value at least 8 percent less than 2020 dollars. That means we lost even more than the apparent loss.

Of course Joe doesn’t mind. He won’t admit it but that is part of the plan. He wants to ruin this country. He is a socialist and socialism does not mix with our capitalism or our Constitution. In order to establish the socialist government he must do away with the rights and freedoms we treasured for over 2 centuries.

It is why President Trump angered them so. He just almost put a stop to their plans. I will guarantee, you will draw their anger too if you stand in their way.

A Problem With the January 6 Logic

The number 1 logical reason that we hear from the FOCs for the January 6 Capitol building event is that it was provoked by President Trump. The problem with that logic is that he was the only one who tried to stop it by authorizing national guard troops two days in advance. Nancy, on the other hand, in all her experience and wisdom turned them down, knowing of the possibility. By the way, putting a few dozen troops around the Capitol would have done the job with little or no consequences. Do you suppose she got what she wanted? Do you think, maybe she liked the idea to use it all as a club to use on the Republicans as she has. It sort of worked out convenient for Nancy, didn’t it…sort of as if she planned it all.

By the way, what happened to the Constitutional promise of a prompt trial for those arrested 1 1/2 years ago. (I would say charged over a year ago but some are not yet charged. )

One more question. Why isn’t Fauci, a real criminal, not looking out between prison bars? He is responsible for the deaths of over a million people, worldwide. It surprises me that we haven’t heard cries far and wide for his head…a year ago.


Just sat down to watch Sean Hannity. (6/1/22) As usual, I watched it from a recording. Actually, I skipped over the first 20 minutes of it. It was about nothing. (The Johnny Depp thing. As I said, nothing. )

What a waste of broadcast time. What a waste of time.

It does make me wonder if he was given marching orders from Fox News. Is this something he would do on his own?