Epic Beard Time

The Only Intelligent Idea in Christianity

Christians believe that people and the world are imperfect by nature. A lucky side effect of this is that Christians do not see any point in trying to make heaven on earth.

In contrast, utopians of all kinds want to do exactly that. The result has always been a mountain of corpses.

My lonely battle against Corporatese

I take pride in writing well. Good writing is short and clear. Any idiot can just throw words together. It takes skill to craft a good sentence. Sadly, there are many bad writers. It is often my painful duty to decipher their gibberish.

The worst writing of all is what I call Corporatese. I suppose its users think they sound smarter by using it. They don't, because Corporatese breaks every rule of good writing:

1. Few words are better than many words.
2. Short words are better than long words.
3. Plain English is better than jargon.
4. Active voice is better than passive.
5. Literal is better than figurative.

The key to writing Corporatese is to do the exact opposite of these rules. Here are a few examples of how to turn plain English into Corporatese:

Plain English: We need the Vice President to sign our budget.

Corporatese: We put together a strawman to get the VP to sign off on our budget. Then, we'll determine how much time we need.

The plain English version  gives all the important information in just 9 words:

1) There's a budget
2) It needs to be signed by the VP
3) It hasn't been signed yet.

I could have saved even more space by using VP instead.

The Corporatese version uses almost 3 times as many words spread out over 2 sentences. Strangely, the author (I am sure this was written and not spoken)  decided that Vice President was too long. 2 prepositions are tacked on to the verb "sign" for no reason. I've heard often that time is money. If that's the case, why waste time with useless words?

I know I'm not crazy. Corporatese is the butt countless jokes. If you heard a person talk like that, you would struggle not to laugh. I know I do.

Bullshit thrives if good people do nothing. I've had enough.

Is the Secret Service worthless?

The Secret Service has been officially in charge of protecting the president since 1902. How well they've done that job boils down to 2 questions:

1) How well have they defended attacks?

2) How well have they predicted and prevented attacks?

Since 1902, there has been only 1 assassination (JFK) and 1 wounding (Reagan). There were 2 near misses on Ford, 1 on FDR, and 1 on Truman. That makes 6 total.

There were other attempts, but I'm only counting the ones where someone with a gun was within shooting distance of the president and tried to shoot. I'm not counting Teddy Roosevelt because he was an ex-president when he was shot and ex-presidents were not given protection until later.

So, let's take each of those 6 cases and see how well the Secret Service did.

The Secret Service really screwed up for JFK. They were hungover from partying the night before. Preventing a sniper attack is tricky, but preventing such things is their job. I give them 0 out of 5.

As for Reagan, they failed to prevent him and 3 others from getting shot, although they did succeed in disarming the assassin. One even acted as a human shield. I give them 2 out of 5.

For Ford, they stopped one attempt before a shot could be fired. However, since the assassin failed to chamber her pistol properly, she would have most likely failed anyway. The other one fired and was stopped by a bystander. I give them 1 out of 10 stars total.

For FDR, it was a bystander that saved the day. 0 out of 5.

For Truman, one Secret Service guy shot and disabled an attacker. The other was killed by a policeman. I give them 3 out of 5.

So, the total score is 6 out of 30. In school, that means F, or "crocodile" if you are in California.

What about predicting attacks?

The Secret Service interviewed one of Ford's assailants and judged her to be no threat.

F

I don't know how many people they interview each year, but given the volume of threats, it's probably in the dozens if not hundreds.

The more important question is, of the people mentioned who actually tried to kill a president, how many were interviewed?

Just 1.

So why do they bother with interviews? I suspect it's the usual sham work that is the norm in government. I also would not be surprised if the least intelligent Secret Service agents are the ones assigned to do interviews.

Here's idea. Let's stop pretending these guys are James Bond clones and adopt better technology, like the Popemobile. 

Raw Story? More like Raw-ng Story

Raw Story is insufferable hive of lefty agitprop. After seeing them get busted while trying to bust a Reason.com story, I decided to dig around to see what other outrageous lies they've peddled recently. 

5 minutes later, I found this: Paul Ryan cites ‘white nationalist’ to blame poverty on lazy men in ‘inner cities’

And who is this so-called white nationalist? It turns out to be Charles Murray. I looked him up on wikipedia and found that Charles Murray was in the Peace Corps and married a Thai woman.

Folks, does that sound like a white nationalist to you?

It did not take me very long to find any of this, so that should give you an idea about how thoroughly Raw-ng Story writers research. 

Here is the email I sent to David Edwards, the writer of the article:

Subject: Dear incompetent liar

I get the strong impression that your recent article is not the first time you've lied in print. Pray tell, what was the name of the sex shop employee you spoke with? It sure is interesting how you left that out of the article. 

As a read through your archive, I see you lied again in the Paul Ryan article. Charles Murray is not and has never been a white nationalist. He served in the Peace Corps in Thailand and married a Thai woman. Does that sound like a white nationalist to you, shithead? It took me about 10 seconds to find this information, which gives me a good idea about how thoroughly you research your articles. 

Please continue writing. You are doing a great service for the libertarian cause.

Libertix- for Treatment of Top-man-itis

Do you suffer from Top-man-itis? If so, Libertix may be for you. Libertix treats bootlicking, equivocation, and other major symptoms of Top-man-itis. Ask your doctor about Libertix.

Side effects of Libertix include irritability, alcoholism, lack of empathy, and extreme rationalism. Other side effects can include inability to vote for the chosen candidate on your team, and loss of war boner. 

The Church of Proglotology

Most of the big religions have a low bar for membership. Islam and evangelical Christianity require nothing more then the spoken word to convert. But even those religions have at least a few rules and rituals you have to half-ass to stay a member.

Enter the Church of Proglotology. Being a prog doesn't require anything at all. All you have to do is call yourself one and, presto! You automatically become a good and wise person in the eyes of other progs.

After that, all you have to do is mouth the right slogans from time to time. And it doesn't matter at all what you do. You don't have to vote. You don't have to give. You don't have to work. Hell, you can even be a complete scumbag and still be in good standing.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to see why it's such a popular group.

Persistent Dishonesty about Isolationism

I have often seen the word "isolationist" used incorrectly and dishonestly against non-interventionists.

Isolationism is the idea that a nation should not have ANY relations with other countries- no trade, no alliances, no immigration, no diplomacy. The only current example I can think of that are the tribesmen of North Sentinel Island. They have never been contacted because they attack anyone who approaches them.
The North Koreans are very secretive, but even they trade, conduct diplomacy, and accept tourists. The Swiss are famously neutral, but they have relations and trade with almost every nation.

The reason this word is used so often is because history clearly shows that making alliances and getting involved in foreign adventures is a bad idea. Germany was forced to fight the US when its ally Japan attacked. Many nations in Europe were forced into war when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. China and the USSR were dragged into the Korean War when their ally North Korea attacked South Korea. Cuba's alliance with the USSR nearly started a war with the US.

And on it goes.

Non-intervention is prudent and moral. The US should stay out of alliances and foreign wars. It should guard its borders and keep a good defense instead of an offense. It should trade and talk with all nations.

Some guy name George Washington thought this way. Here's a sample:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

Here's the TL;DR version

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all."

Adam Lanza: A victim of mainstreaming?

The New Yorker interviewed the Sandy Hook shooter's dad. The article had  many interesting insights.

What stood out to me was Adam's frustration with school. He was a decent student in elementary school, but declined in junior high and high school. Despite his failures, his mother persisted in keeping him in regular classes. This is a process known as "mainstreaming".

There are several reasons for mainstreaming, but the reason most often given is socialization. Many parents believe that relating to peers is the most important part of school, no matter how far off those children are from their so-called peers.

From the article, it is clear that Adam hated school and gained no benefit from it. And yet he was forced to attend to gain some illusory social benefit. What social benefit can be had if you are so different from those around you?

As a product (note the term) of public education, I can say with confidence that social skills you learn in school are very similar to the social skills you learn in prison. School is the worst place to learn about social skills. When I was in school, my main feelings were boredom, anger, and depression. I'm sure that many others felt the same.

The saddest part is that all of this could have been averted if Adam had not been forced into school. He clearly had some intelligence and would have found his own way. The biggest lie that is told to children is that good grades and getting along are crucial to their success and happiness.

The only lesson I can see is that if a child gets nothing from school, they should just leave.  

Denis Leary explains libertarianism

Do not use apostrophes for plurals

Apostrophes are not used for plurals. They are not meaningless decorations to make a word look fancy.

Never-ending demands from progressives

It's hard, at first, to understand why progressives are unhappy with the way things are. Progressive politicians control most major cities and many states. They dominate the media, pop culture, and the schools. In those places, they have implemented just about every part of their agenda. And still that is not enough.

The reason these people are totalitarians. They are not interested in tolerance or coexisting and they will not stop ever until they have stamped out every last trace of resistance.

Totalitarian countries like North Korea can maintain their system by sealing off the country from outside influence. But to get it started in the first place, they had to stamp out or expel all resisters.

And that is where we are now.

You think they wouldn't use mass executions or mass imprisonment? Ha!

"In a more just world, weasels like Safire would be spreading manure on a collective farm somewhere in North Dakota.”

-Michael Moore pining for a gulag system