US Pilots Defy Obama And Bomb White House!

In response to a Republican post which claimed that pilots defied Obama and attacked ISIS when Obama wants ISIS protected, I responded:

Once again, I'm reposting this so that those who don't follow Republicans can understand just how insane their beliefs are. If commanders went over Obama's head to make an unauthorized strike, they have committed mutiny, an offense punishable by death after a general court-martial.

When your Republican friends act in a manner that makes no sense at all, remember it's because they believe these bizarre and utterly unfounded statements. If these insane statements were true, the actions of Republicans would make sense.

What they don't understand is that this post is intended to deny Obama the credit for what Obama has done.

I Don't Got A Problem..,

Charles posted an article stating that Obama is too intelligent for Republicans to understand.  I responded:

It's not the first time I've said it but:   It's an excellent point though I must add a caveat. It is that the Republicans are not able to act intelligently, but not because of low intelligence quotients. It's because of that most memorable quote for the science-fiction classic "Dune".  "Fear is the mind killer."

The quote is accurate, but  incomplete.  A brain  awash with the biochemicals produced by fear and rage is a brain incapable of higher cognitive functions.

All propagandists know this. This is why propaganda focuses heavily upon emotions. This is why the emotions propaganda focuses upon are generally fear and rage.  In my posts, I often ask Republicans who are addicted the right wing media when are they going to get tired of being wrong and when are they going to get tired of being constantly terrified and enraged.  It's the same pair of questions I asked when I spoke to loved ones who were addicted to self-destructive, self delusional behavior patterns.

In other words, Republicans have this problem not because of a low intelligence level, but because they, like any addict, are incapable of facing reality. They are in a state of clinical denial.

And the answer to my questions is that someday they will either hit rock bottom and begin a long hard climb back up to self-respect, or they will die still wrapped up in their self delusions.  It is up to each individual.

I fought this battle with those I loved who were alcoholic and/or addicted to drugs. I know how clear reality is and how bitterly they will ignore the most obvious facts.  Trying to have an intelligent conversation with a Republican is exactly the same; and for exactly the same reasons.

I don't make my posts in response to their inanities in an attempt to convert them. I know better. I make my posts to let them know that their delusions are not shared by the whole world, to make sure that my non-addicted friends and associates are aware of what is happening to the addicts, and to help people understand the bizarre beliefs that are driving Republicans to commit otherwise inexplicable self-destructive acts.

Also, sometimes I get so angry that my higher brain functions shut down and I simply must make a response which is not a slap in the face to reality.  Still, I never get so confused as to think that it will actually reach any of them, or do any of them any good. Which is sad. No one likes to feel helpless when seeing others suffering, even if they are inflicting that suffering upon themselves.

Sense And Nonsense

In response to a news article indicating that The president would visit the peace center at Hiroshima, I posted:

Good for the president!

Also, two points: 1. There is no doubt that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many American lives. It is also beyond doubt that it saved many more Japanese lives. This point seems to be forgotten by almost everyone who discusses the issue. Far more Japanese civilians would have died in an American invasion than died in Hiroshima  and Nagasaki.


2. The article quotes a peace advocate.   --The president, Martin said, "will look insincere if his words espouse ridding the world of nuclear weapons while at the same time his administration continues its plan to spend a trillion dollars over thirty years to upgrade nuclear weapons.” --  This is nonsense. No doubt, foolish people will be so deluded. The fact remains, however, that the American nuclear arsenal cannot simply be unilaterally disbanded. Disbanding it requires cooperation with other nations, which has currently not been forthcoming. Therefore, the United States has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons which are in a dangerously aged and unreliable condition. Upgrading them is simply a safety precaution. This is not the act of a hypocrite. It is the act of a prudent man.

Law And Order -- War Crimes Unit

In response to a news report that a judge is allowing some of the CIA's torture victims to sue the psychologists who planned the program, but only those "not in the chain of command" I posted:

-- “This has never happened before,” --   But it appears the case can only be brought against civilians not in the chain of command. Which means if this precedent is followed that the American military and the CIA are still above the law when it comes to committing war crimes.

Note: The US military was bitterly opposed to the torture program and may well be generally innocent, although serious issues referring to relating to Abu Graib and other such occurrences still remain unresolved.

 I'm astonished that even some civilians are being held accountable for these horrific war crimes, the first  officially sanctioned war crimes in US history. It isn't that the US did not use new torture on occasion, we have. However, the person performing the act knew he was committing a crime and could face prosecution and imprisonment. He might even face execution as did some Japanese war criminals for water boarding American captives.

Please be aware that I am not ignoring the atrocities committed against Native Americans. Those were cases of mass murder and genocide, and could certainly be classified as war crimes, though I place them in a different category, since they were aimed at the tribes as a whole rather than against specific individuals.  In other words, I consider those genocidal actions much worse than what the Bush administration authorized. And just for the record, Andrew Jackson was responsible for many of these atrocities. This is an interesting point in the light of the current dispute over removing his face from the front of the $20 bill and placing it on the rear.

 It seems to me that this surprise decision is evidence that America is truly changing. Think of what has happened just in the last few years.  The South is being forced to remove it's glorifications of the  monsters who fought for an expanded slave empire. Even Republicans are admitting that income disparity is a major problem. Gay marriage and gay rights in general have become the norm.  The ones arrogant religious right is now whining and crying about how little power they have.   A dedicated democratic socialist is running a highly successful grassroots campaign for president.    The right wing's death grip on the highly politicized Supreme Court has been broken and it does not look likely that it will be restored. The federal government now takes responsibility, limited responsibility, but still responsibility, for America's healthcare.  It seems that a Black president will soon be replaced by a female president. And many more changes away from our old self-destructive and hateful habits
are in clear evidence.

Conservatives are terrified of these changes. I find them hopeful and refreshing.

Speaking of torture and American policy, remember this old post?

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2013/10/idle-thoughts-washington-vs-bush.html

Hulk Angry! Hulk Dance!

Cloud Cuckoo Land

In response to a very popular right wing post in which Breitbart declares that we need a real president to defeat Isis, not one who dances the tango, I posted the following. Then I couldn't stop going on and on because it's just so damn funny. So I have added a bunch of addenda down at the bottom for any of you read only my original Facebook post.

He is defeating ISIS, in the real world, not Breitbart's version of Star Wars. How exactly do you think refusing to dance until Isis is defeated will help defeat Isis?

I mean, honestly, I expect stupidity and mindless hatred from the right wing news media but not doing a dance will magically attack Isis?

I can hear it now. Isis commander: by the Beard of the Prophet! We must now evacuate the areas we have conquered because the President of the United States refused to do a dance! When did he get so smart?

Of course, I must admit that George Washington was tried and convicted of treason for doing dances during the American Revolution. I mean, come on! We could have beaten the British in three months if only he hadn't done all that dancing!

Look in the mirror, conservatives. Your hatred is becoming so mindless that it has degenerated into the truly bizarre. You have replaced concepts of strategy, logic, and even rationality with, "Hulk angry! Hulk smash!"

Addenda:

Just a few more thoughts because this is so utterly Cloud Cuckoo Land that I just can't resist adding on. PS, that's because it's fun.

Breaking news from Breitbart:

In response to our brilliant article, the War College and the American military academies are now requiring all students to learn how to win a war by not dancing. "This will be the greatest new weapon in the history of new weapons," said an unnamed general. "If only we had thought of this before!"

Historical fact: When he received the shocking news that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt immediately responded in his beautiful upper-class accent, "Gentlemen, until we have won this war I shall never set foot up on the dance floor. I shall not dance until victory is ours!"

And he didn't. Which is why we won. And you shut up! Polio, wheelchairs, and leg braces had nothing to do with it. It was a moral decision he made 'cause he was a great president, unlike like that awful man, Obama who dances -- sometimes -- to be polite.

Also, this has nothing to do with being jealous because I have never been able to master the tango. I will have you know that I don't want to master the tango. I've never even tried to master the tango. So there.

Another historical fact: It was a common, is rather crude, jest of the Civil War era that, "Bluebellies can't dance." In fact this was the actual, real rebel yell. "Bluebellies can't dance! Charge!" They yelled it a lot. Historians don't know if the accusation against Billy Yank was true or false because, of course, no Union officers, including the commander-in-chief, ever danced during the Civil War. Jefferson Davis and all of his officers went to grand balls and dances at every opportunity. That's why they lost the war. I mean, it's not like they were fighting for a really bad cause or that it was stupid to start a war with somebody who had a vastly bigger population, huge manufacturing capacity, almost every armaments factory in the entire nation, or any of that sort of totally unimportant strategic and tactical stuff. It's because they danced during the war.

Final note: I have a suggestion for Breitbart. I think they, like Scientology made a mistake when they changed their original name. It's true no one was interested in joining a religion called Stupidology, but at least it was honest. So I'm suggesting to Breitbart that they go back to their original name, at least for the sake of honesty, from now on they should call themselves Dumbass.

I must get control of myself. I must stop going on and on about this. It's just that the straight line is pure gold. It absolutely begs for smart ass responses. I mean, how can I resist? It's becoming an addiction. Help me! Someone help me! If you love me, make me stop!

Republicans Are Rubber, Dems Are Glue...

The article:
http://winningdemocrats.com/historians-have-declared-george-w-bush-to-be-the-worst-president-here-is-why-infographic/

-- 61 PERCENT OF HISTORIANS RATED GEORGE W BUSH’S PRESIDENCY AS THE WORST IN HISTORY. ADDITIONALLY, 109 PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS JUDGED THE BUSH PRESIDENCY A TOTAL FAILURE, WHILE ONLY 1.8 PERCENT CALLED IT SUCCESSFUL --

My response:

So why do Republicans try to declare highly effective Obama as the worst president ever? Listen to a pair of kindergarteners fight on the playground. "I'm not a poopyhead! You're the poppyhead!"

That's why.

How Much Money??

Republicans are fond of hysterically screaming that the United States is in desperate trouble due to a seemingly eternal list of threats. One of the dangers which most terrifies them is the idea of the rich paying higher taxes than they currently do. But what impact would it actually have if we went back to the distribution of wealth which was normal in America's past? How much would it help the middle class? How much would it really hurt the ultrarich? Here are some answers:

Larry Summers was being interviewed by Charlie Rose. He is former secretary of the treasury and a key economic advisor to Pres. Obama, and former president of Harvard University.

"Think about this: if the income distribution of rhe United States were the same as it was in 1979,there would be $1 trillion more in the hands of the lower 80%…1 trillion, or $11,000 per family inthe hands of the bottom 80% of the population and there would  be $1 trillion less in the hands of the top 1%.  …that would be $750,000 less on average, per family for them.

So there has been a big  redistribution that has worked to the detriment of the middle class."

He then went on to point out that as this assault on the middle class is occurring, the government is providing less and less support for the middle class in many areas ranging from infrastructure to education costs.  "So there have been a variety of changes that  have exacerbated the inequality."

Rather than believing this is inevitable, he states, "… There are countries, Canada and Australia are two good examples, that, by focusing on these basic investments, by empowering workers, by strengthening education…through healthy regulatory mechanisms...have succeeded in having rising standards of living  for  the middle class."

Sent from my iPhone

It's About Time!

Finally! Someone agrees with me or at least sees the possibility that I might be correct in that President  Obama may be the Left's Ronald Reagan.  John Ward from Yahoo! News wrote an article entitled, How Barack Obama wants to be the Ronald Reagan of the left – Obama hoping to use economic recovery to reshape the political debate for decades. In other words Obama aims to be a watershed president who drew the line and put an end to the dominance of Ronald Reagan's espoused concepts of economics.

Of course, this  article says this is what Obama wants to accomplish where as I have stated that this is what will be remembered as his primary accomplishment.

Scream, Shriek, Curse, Spit...Oh, You're Innocent

I posted : After two years of lies, smears, and hysterical shrieks of "coverup" instead of doing anything useful for America, the Republicans finally are forced to admit that they were the liars. --GOP panel on Benghazi finds no Obama administration wrongdoing--

Dan responded: This thing got so ridiculous that it finally felt to me like a matter of racial hatred or fear. Not just from Congress but from a vast number of Americans. One of the reasons Democrats lost so badly in the midterms, I'm honestly afraid.

I responded: I sincerely wish that I could disagree with you, Dan. Unfortunately, I cannot. From the first arrival of Europeans, even when they were clearly a tiny minority, this was regarded as a White Man's Nation. The historical evidence leaves no doubt. I see three subdivisions of this basic issue:

1. Blatant racism. When Obama was running for president my grandson, who is in law-enforcement, and I had a lengthy and interesting series of discussions on what effect this would have on racist hate groups. We were in agreement that we would see a rise in the number and influence of such groups. Sadly, we were correct.

2. The simple fear of change. In spite of the realities, as I noted above, this nation was regarded as a White Man's Nation since Europeans first set foot on the continent. Now this is clearly changing. The demographics cannot be denied. We will be a nation of nothing but minorities in the near future. That means Whites will be a minority, albeit, the largest one, just like all the other groups in America. A new America is being born, and it is very different from the America of the past. To a generation that grew up in the oh so White 1950s, this is terrifying.

3. And finally we get to another issue. Minorities have traditionally been treated very badly in America. When has this not been true? Whites are going to be one minority among others. I have no doubt that many in this particular group are afraid they will be treated the same way. Now that's really terrifying!

I wonder, considering the two years of smears, lies and false accusations, if we can expect an apology from Fox Lies or the GOP?

Predictions

Once again I will go out on a limb to make a prediction, actually, two predictions. To the best of my knowledge, both of these are completely original to me.

Future books on American history will report that the Roberts Court was the last racist court. It's practices of dehumanizing humans and humanizing corporations will be reported in future law and history books in the same paragraph as the Taney court (infamous for the Dred Scott decision).

Obama's signature accomplishment throughout all eight years of his presidency will undoubtedly be that he instituted the beginning of the end for the Reagan revolution and put our country back on course.

The WHAT Papers?

Obama waives ban on giving arms to terrorists to help Syrian rebels! Is this outrageous? From a post from the radical right wing organization which is called, the Federalist Papers.


What follows is my response to a friend who made the original post:

It would be outrageous, if it was true. Since it is false, it is not outrageous.

It is clear that the US will send help to the non terrorist, secular factions of the opposition. There is no one "the opposition". There are many small groups all of which are attempting to overthrow the government. There is some danger that giving arms to these secular, non terrorist groups allows the possibility that those arms might stolen by terrorists, but that is not the same thing is giving weapons to terrorists.

Since no weapons will be given to terrorists, there is no violation of the UN resolution forbidding that act. Therefore there is no violation of international law.

It is also true that some Syrian experts believe that doing so will strengthen those secular groups, allowing them to suppress the terrorists--might, maybe. As usual, the matter is very complex and difficult. The Federalist papers oversimplify and flat-out state falsehoods. Terrorists are not being supplied weapons by the US, so the US has not violated the UN resolution not allowing us to supply weapons to terrorists.

As far as Benghazi goes, it is Republicans were responsible for that event. It is they who savagely cut the budget which allowed the defense department to, among other things, provide security for embassies. Strange, they never mention that fact. Hillary Clinton and the administration did the what they could with what little they had left after the Republicans raped the budget. There is little doubt that they might have done better, but they certainly would have done better if they had had the money to do so. The only conspiracy here is the Republicans' conspiracy to anger and frighten Americans into foolish behavior by arousing their emotions to such extremes that they shut down their higher brain functions.

The chance of American boots on the ground in Syria is zero. The will of the American people was clearly expressed on the issue of remote-control bombing, and had Russia and Syria not caved, giving us a greater victory than we had anticipated even by using weapons, even that matter would be a closed case at this time. The American people will never allow boots on the ground in Syria.

For me, Obama is a mixed case. He has done some fine things. He has done some terrible things. George Bush was almost 100% awful.

Washington as Star Trek

John McCain as Lieut. Cmdr. Worf. Seeking revenge on everyone who beat him in a fair and honest contest.

Pres. Obama as Capt. Sisco the Emissary, who brings the word of the prophets to us all, thus bringing an age of peace and prosperity to last for a thousand years.

Hillary Clinton as Capt. Janeway. Lost after a terrible disaster, she seeks to find her way home and succeeds admirably after visiting alien cultures while wandering the universe making friends and fighting new enemies.

Rand Paul as Kahn, attempting to destroy his enemies with his ruthless determination to rule the universe.

Bill Clinton as Spock. He feels our pain but he is coldly calculating and utterly logical .

Or Bill Clinton as Capt. Kirk. He just can't keep those velour pants zipped up! (Velcroed shut?)

And guest starring as Data, Mitt Romney. He desperately seeks to find a way to attain human emotions.

Any other casting suggestions? Come on, it's fun

Donkeys and the GOP

Breaking news from the right wing. The blogosphere, reaching all the way to at least one English newspaper, has declared an attempted desecration by Obama. What is he going to desecrate?

The facts: The University of Chicago is planning on demolishing an old apartment building in which Ronald Reagan, as a child, lived for less than one year. They're doing this to increase their student parking space. That's it. Those are the facts.

So what has the right wing screaming atrocity? Well, it turns out that the University of Chicago might be considered as one of the places where Obama could possibly build his library sometime in the unknown future.

If this is the site chosen, and if someone comes to visit that library, and if that person parks in this particular parking space which is normally reserved for students, then the University could conceivably be interpreted as having demolished Ronald Reagan's childhood home to create a parking lot for Obama's library. Could be so interpreted. If you're a real dumbass.

(Panic not, that's ass as in donkey.)

Let's be clear, even if the University of Chicago site is chosen for Obama's future library, the library will have its own parking lots. This will not be a parking lot for the library. It would just be a parking lot in which someone was visiting the library might choose to park. And then again, it is more likely they would park in the parking lot for the library which would be close to the library. Still, maybe someone wants a lot of exercise and prefers to park farther away and then walk to the library.

Please forgive the simplicity of the paragraphs above with their many word repetitions, but it is apparently necessary to make things clear to those experiencing a panic attack about this non-event.

It occurs to me that if Republicans could just learn to laugh at themselves then they wouldn't make such fools of themselves all the time. I suppose that's just asking too much.

I see why Bobby Jindal refers to his own party as, "the stupid party".

Guns, Jack Boots, President Obama, and Me

Okay. I've always regarded myself as a man who is able to face the truth. If the facts disagree with my cherished opinions, I believe I am not only capable of changing them, but am morally compelled to alter those beliefs to match reality. So, as hard as it is for me to admit, the gun nuts are right . President Obama is coming to take away our guns.

I am a gun owner . But I am a gun owner who believes in reasonable regulation. I'm also a car owner, and we sure a lot of regulations regarding the ownership and operation of vehicles. It always seemed reasonable to me that we should have similar regulations applying to guns.

However, this morning I learned just how wrong I was. Last week I had an incredibly bad case of the flu. I thought I was almost over it but I had a bad relapse last night. As I lay in bed this morning feeling like I couldn't get up for anything at all someone began pounding on the front door.

I just laid there hoping they would go away. Whoever it was refused to give up. I finally dragged myself out of bed and almost crawled of front door. What a surprise I had when I opened it!

It was President Obama.

"Good morning." He said. "I hope you're having a good day."

"No," I said, "I'm very sick." My nose was so stuffed that it came out sounding a little bit different. More like, "Doh. Ahm bery zig."

"Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. So, let's get this over with quickly. I am here to take your guns. If you'll just hand them over, I'll be moving on. And you can get back in bed. Thank you, very much."

I wasn't thinking too clearly, but I did manage to reply, "Go 'way!"

He thought about this for a moment. Then he replied, "Well, since you're so sick, I suppose we can do this another time. But it really would be better to just give them to me now. I have another 648 homes in Apple Valley to visit and collect their guns and then I have to get down to San Bernardino. It's hard to cover so much territory in one day. I just don't know how Santa manages he whole world in a single night."

At this point I began to cough on him so he looked at me one more time and said, "I'll be back." And he didn't even sound German . Or Austrian.

So, there it is. President Obama is really coming to take our guns, personally coming. I felt bad that I didn't have any cookies or milk to offer him, and I suppose he arrived in a helicopter instead of a reindeer powered sleigh, but at least he was wearing jack boots. Well, boots. What are jack boots anyway?

Inauguration Day

Today

Warm January
Gentle day
The sun rains down
Through window glass
Slowly flowing its way
Across the floor
Gliding, sliding
Like a skater on the ice


Inauguration Day

Mr. Obama
Back again


Writing day

The poem
The words
The flow
Like the sun come down
To gently flood her way
Across the earth

She's just there
She just flows
The day is warm
And it is good

Educational Deform

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/obama-romney-education-debate-_n_1968901.html?utm_campaign=101612&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-education&utm_content=Photo

-- When it comes to the nuts and bolts of education policy, a topic that ranks high among the concerns of female and Latino voters, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are remarkably similar: both think standardized tests are important, that teachers need to be evaluated rigorously, and that charter schools are an important component of America's educational landscape. --

Which makes both of them contributors to the continued degradation of the American educational system. I repeat, any educator who supports the use of standardized tests for evaluation should be stripped of their credentials for gross malpractice. And we must stop Washington and state governments from "reforming" the system. The more these incompetent amateurs meddle, the worse our educational system becomes. Only they should be surprised at this result.

Tapio Kosunen, State Secretary, Ministry of Education and Culture, Republic of Finland (whew, long title!) was recently interviewed on This Is America. His nation has been at the top of the international ratings for quality of education and student performance for the past 40 years. Finland is universally regarded as having the best and the most successful educational system in the world. Now you probably think they must have banned teachers' unions, rely heavily on standardized tests, punish poorly performing teachers and schools, established a fiercely competitive system of for profit charter schools, and retain any student who underachieves.

In fact, they have done exactly none of these things.

They have completely banned standardized tests (which I have insisted upon for decades), with the single exception of one, that is 1, standardized test, which is taken at the end of high school.

Tests, rankings, and competition are not a part of the system. I say again, are NOT a part of the system.

Instead of isolating special needs and low performing students, they are mainstreamed. That is, they are simply part of regular classrooms.

Lessons run for 45 minutes, followed by a 15 minute break before the next lesson begins.

Students enter school at age 7.

Music, the arts, and other topics which are being weakened or dropped as distractions in America are an essential part of the curriculum in Finland.

Teachers in America are often attacked as lazy or incompetent. In Finland, they are one of the top five most admired professionals, along with doctors and lawyers.

Every teacher must have a master's degree before entering the classroom.

Teachers' unions in Finland are heavily involved in major policy decisions.

Finland has virtually no charter schools in the entire country.

Retaining a Finnish student is so rare, it is considered to be a shocking action taken only in the most extreme circumstances.

So why are we doing the opposite? More importantly, why do we think doing the opposite of the most successful school system in the world will make our system better? The complete answer is complex, but the basic answer is very accurate...ideology.

If our national driving instructors were being reformed by the same people who are reforming our schools, they would be required to teach students to put their cars in reverse, hold down the brakes, and never change gears. When the cars failed to move, our leaders would tell us that is was all the fault of the instructors.

Thus we advance the self destructive practices begun under the leadership of St. Ronald of Reagan and continued by every President and Congress since. This is the same determined effort to do the wrong thing at every opportunity which both Obama and Romney promise to continue.

From Science news March 13,2010:

Lisa Grossman reports that when participants are asked to either make the American Sign Language gesture for a word [say "drink"] or to pantomime taking that action [in this case, a drinking from a cup], different parts of the brain are active for the gesture and for the word. In other words, there is a difference between word and pantomime, even though the actions are identical. Specifically, brain scans of deaf participants who are fluent in American Sign Language show the different areas of the brain are active depending upon whether they were told to “say” the word or to make the pantomime.

This makes me think of the case of the supposed thinking ape, Koko. Koko, a gorilla, is often presented as having mastered American Sign Language and as speaking at an almost human level. Steven Pinker, however, points out that when humans who spoke ASL watched videos of Koko “speaking” they saw far fewer words and a lot more random gestures than the usual observers, who had been trained to recognize ASL gestures, but were not actually considered to be fluent.

It seems to me that the usual observers of the gorilla were poorly trained and not competent to judge when actual words were being used and were subject to the Clever Hans syndrome in which observers eager to see animal intelligence interpret every action by the animal in the best possible interpretation--best possible for their prejudice.

We humans have a strong tendency to see what we want to see, negative or positive. It is hard to be objective about any area in which we have a strong emotional interest. Consider Blondot [sp.?], in the early 20th century this famous and competent scientist became convinced that he had discovered a new ray [similar to the recently discovered x-rays]. His evidence was thin, mostly observational, mostly observed by him. As I recall, at one point he declared that the change in the color of a flame caused by the presence of the rays was so faint that only those who believed in the rays would be able to see it. Not totally out of line, after all, that statement is just a variation of my point that we see what we want to see and don't see what we dislike. But if not totally out of line, it was unscientific and came down to special pleading.

Another case made famous by Stephen Jay Gould is that of Thayer. A brilliant career in biology, which included insight into biological and military uses of camouflage ended with tortured arguments about how every single color scheme in nature was camouflage, and only camouflage. No sex displays, no species recognition, just camouflage.

Thus, we have those who see everything Obama does as socialism, even though nothing he has done matches the definition of socialism, and the contrasting views of the Tea Party Patriots/Tea Bagger Dolts. Life with humans is a mess. I can't help but think that every Utopia would work perfectly, if only we could keep all people out. Sort of a riff on Groucho Marx--I wouldn't join any Utopia that would allow me as a member.