Thursday, July 6, 2017

Trump- Pootin' America First! - (He that Smelt It)


Ok, is it just me?
Or does anyone else find the irony of Trump and Putin being world leaders and also being synonyms for farts too funny not to point out?
What will happen when they meet?
I don't know but I wouldn't light a match in that room!
Best open a window!
Pootin' says "Conflatulations on your election
Welcome to Trump Towers

​Farty on dudes.

It's the New Whirled Odor.



 So we have President Poop Fart...no wonder Europeans can't trust him!
 


You might say these two have an inflatulation...Many people suffer from eggs o' stenchial angst because of these two world leaders.



Yes, I know this post stinks.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Huge Savings On Great Music

Making room at CD Baby for the new release "Step Into Liquid", the previous releases are offered for the next week at ludicrous prices. Save big! Order today!
Physical CDs are only 5 dollars!!!!
Downloads of albums are cheap too!
It's Christmas in July! Give yourself a gift!

Monday, December 26, 2016

Shitty Holiday Music List -The Worst Of The Worst

Ok Christmas is over, let's make our yearly lists ...I'll start with the worst holiday music I heard over the last month. Here it is gang. It was not easy but here are the 10 worst Christmas songs heard over the last month by this reporter.

(1) Home For Christmas – N’SYNC

The lyric “You can light the fire
I’m sending out this wire (sendin’ a wiii-yahhh)”
… was the point for me where this horrid excuse for a song spun into the wall of tires at Joe's Tire Shop, sending warm fragments of Goodyears all over the place. Oh, and if any tinpot has been 'boyband'  actually tried to light an open fire they would not find it easy. You can not just casually farm this out to someone through the medium of a crap ballad, that’s for certain. And it’s not like they offered to lob in a few dried twigs or lighter fluid, either…
Throw this one on the fire.
(2) This Christmas – Christina Aguilera
Before being royally stitched up by Maroon 5, any song involving Christina Aguilera used to always share exactly the same overriding theme – i.e. how great Christina Aguilera is, from the perspective of Christina Aguilera. Nowadays, however, musical wallpaper Adam Levine has the distinction of being the first ever musical collaborator to quash Aguilera’s trademark vocal into such indistinguishable middle-of-the-road mulch that you just have to take their word for it that she is on the recording at all. Maybe she helped them shift their stuff round the studio or something, or provided essential “vibes” throughout the recording. Anyway, This Christmas, surprisingly, is going to be a special Christmas for – wait for it – Christina Aguilera. From the point-of-view of Christina Aguilera, at any rate…
(3) Christmas in the Caribbean – Jimmy Buffett
Ah, here’s a promising concept. Hopefully the songwriter has immersed himself into island culture and really tried to imagine the festive season through the eyes of the people who live their lives in the Caribbean day-to-day, as opposed to, say, chucking together a bunch of pernicious clichés about their perceived easy-going approach to life, nice weather, and how everyone’s always happy all the time…
[3 minutes and 8 seconds later]
No. Didn’t think so.
(4) Eight Days of Christmas – Destiny’s Child
A pair of Chloe shades, a diamond belly ring, a nice back rub, some massaged feet (own), a crap jacket, some dirty denim jeans, a poem, a candlelit dinner, a gift certificate, the keys to a CLK Mercedes, and some quality t-i-m-e (basically, all the t-i-m-e outside the realms of this particular three-and-a-half minutes)…
Meanwhile, Kelly Rowland had to make do with some used Lego and a penny whistle, whilst Michelle Someone-or-other just got a hastily-written card bought from a gas station…
(5) Santa Baby – Madonna
When I first heard this one, I assumed it was just a bit of drunken piano-leaning from a long-forgotten eighties shlockmonger such as Bette Midler or Cyndi Lauper. I mean, this doesn’t even sound like … this … just sounds weird…
Madonna may have had some kind of bet on as to what she could release that Gwen Stefani wouldn’t immediately pilfer? You know, sort of a musical equivalent of the time Bill Hicks famously gave up smoking just to see if Denis Leary would follow suit?
Anyway throw this in the rubbish heap and never darken my ears with this again.
(6) My Grown Up Christmas List – Barbara Streisand
Ah, Barbara Streisand. She’s got a nose for a good tune. I’m sorry.
(7) Santa Claus is Coming to Town – Michael Bolton
Basically, any attempt to make a recording of Michael Bolton is a complete waste of recording equipment, studio time, electricity and oxygen. Oh, and in this case, saxophones and pianos that go “ker-plink-a-plinkity-plinkity-plinkity-plonk-plonk-plonk-plonk”…kill me now.
(8) All I Want For Christmas is a Real Good Tan – Kenny Chesney
That’s coincidental, actually, because all I want for Christmas is a condescending, cliché-ridden country track whose trite lyricism makes 3 Blind Mice seem like a Bob Dylan masterpiece.
And Chesney doesn’t disappoint on that front, either – check out THIS howler:
“Well if you’re thinkin’ ‘bout gettin’ me a present this year
Let me put a bug in your cute little ear…”
Yes, it does, doesn’t it? Worse than sundried vomit  combined with fresh dogshit, in fact. And if you think THAT’S bad, take a look at Exhibit B:
“Don’t worry, baby, we’ll celebrate plenty
I’ll buy you some shades and a brand new bikini…”
Alright, he got all the way up to the word “plenty” and thought “Oh fuck, there’s no word that rhymes with ‘plenty’ and, not wishing to ruin any of his previous hard work, simply fudged the next line hoping no-one would notice. But he’s right. There is no word which rhymes with “plenty”. The nearest I can think up off-hand is “anal-entry”, so maybe Kenny can work his lyrical magic on that one next time…
And THIS…
“Rockin’ to and fro with the rhythm of the ocean
Singin’ Silent Night with the palm trees blowin’…”
… will probably just get you committed if you hear it more than once.
(9) I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus – Jimmy Boyd
Interestingly, this is the 2nd track on this 10-song list by a person called Jimmy, meaning that, statistically, if you’re born in the US and called Jimmy/James, you are 20% likely to feature in a shit Christmas song!  And that’s undeniable scientific FACT, ladies and gentlemen … *needlessly slams fist on desk*.
And you can’t argue with cold, hard logic at the end of the day…
(10) The Christmas Shoes – Newsong
I don’t want to sound heartless or anything, but did the kid really have to leave it until Christmas Eve to buy those shoes? And the man out of Newsong, he’s not much better, either. I mean, a kid with an ill mum is one thing, but what excuse has a fully-grown adult man got for doing his Christmas shopping on Chrimbo Eve? And he was in the line BEHIND the boy, meaning, if anything, he’d left it that much later than that poor, blameless little scamp with the ill mum. Actually, kid, you’re off the hook as far as I’m concerned – go and be with your mother – she’s lucky to have a son like you. Not like THIS knobhead who stood behind you – come on, Newsong man, let’s at least see what you’re buying…
*peers inside bag*
What’s this? Some sunglasses and … a bikini … do you KNOW what time of year it … hey, hang on a minute…


Friday, December 16, 2016

Things To Do at Christmas Time...

Give a woman with no arms a "Clapper".

Arrange holiday plush toys in obscene poses.
 
 Hijack a mall Christmas Train
Make a gingerbread crackhouse.
 Burn some cookies.
Decorate Santa's Skeleton.


Put an elf on the shelf in a rude pose.

Steal a road cone and decorate it like a Christmas Tree.

Donate the worst Christmas tree you can find to a local church,
they'll be obligated to display it.


Dress like a shithead and walk around the mall.


Push a tree down on some TV sports announcer.


Bake rude cookies.










Sunday, October 23, 2016

Quasi-Epistemology Of Spherical Chickens In The Standard Model Semi-Constant ...or Entropy: It Ain't What It Used To Be


Psychologists tell us the logical mind has a strong bias towards thinking in terms of cause and effect.  Neuroscientists suggest reality itself is merely a construct of one's own brain. Physicists can't seem to focus on a solution because they have too many ions in the fire. So where do we turn for a definitive semi-constant?
The National Buffoon of course.
Humans seem to have a need to search for a cause for the first effect, the formation of the Universe.
We tend to frame this in terms of a spherical chicken-or-egg conundrum, a flawed a priori hypothesis.  Since no success has been achieved using reason, the time has come for illogical acausal explanations.

    Logical thinkers have a bias to associate “logical” with “true”, and “illogical” with “false”.
Yet clearly Gödel’s incompleteness theorem tells us that there are true propositions which can not be proven within any given logically consistent system.  These propositions are logically discontinuous, or not to put too fine a point on it, 
illogical but true.
Consider the universe forming into a flat, featureless, dimensionless, and timeless void.  This is the so-called Big Bang which pops Mass, Energy, Space and Time (MEST) into existence.  In the absence of MEST there is a corresponding absence of physical law.   In the absence of physical law there is nothing to preclude something from happening for no reason. Once a MEST is made, it's difficult to clean up...and it imposes the physical laws which govern what can happen next.
          According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the product of the conjugate attributes of a particle’s momentum and position, and, more interestingly, a virtual particle’s energy and the time duration of its existence, can be no greater than Planck’s constant, h bar (the bar is short for the big bang..BARROOM! or Bar Room as we will refer to it in this article).  The accountancy of energy conservation allows for inaccurate balances.  Nature (as well as Wall Street Banking concerns) take these liberties right up to the theoretical limit.
  So it seems that if a particle with the mass-energy content of the Universe pops into being and hangs around for as long as it has suggests that the value of h would have to be many, many, many times larger than its current value to be proportional to the initial void it had to expand into.  This particle with infinite energy popping into existence and expanding at an infinite rate for an infinitesimal amount of time yields a value of h which is in sore need of renormalization. 
Infinities are pesky. These particular annoying infinities need to be managed mathematically.


 
          As the threads of space spread out into the void of nothingness, nature’s freedom to create was confined to the interstices.  Creative freedom is only indirectly a function of the fabric of space.  It is more directly related to the space between the threads, the bubbles in the froth of the residue of the Big Bar-Room.  Thus as the voids shrank to the current Planck scale, so did the value of h.  This mechanism prevents one universe from mounting the next.  It is something akin to what the Urban Dictionary might call a cosmic Johnson Jamming Signal,  Beefstick Barricade, Occlusion Occluder or Heavy Hindrance of  Hiding Holographic Salami.
There are numerous terms for the universe's creative freedom : 
  • Quintessence
  • Vacuum potential
  • Hoover Maneuvers
  • Primordial Pressure Parameters
  • Void Family Values,
  • Einsteinian Isomorphic Archaeo-Inanity Expectation
  • Dork Energy
All terms for the Cosmological Quasiconstant, .
It is an imaginary, transcendental function of volume:
= :-) (4/3)πtc     
Where t = time, c = speed of light, and :-) ,
the probability of stuff filling in the space between the space which is considerably less than unity.

So you have this single virtual wave-particle.
It is unimaginably energetic, incredibly hot. So hot, it would make the particle want to turn around and go back where it came from. This is called virtual spin or "The Ding Dang Big Bang Birth Pang".
(If all of this sounds preposterously illogical to you, then you have just earned your diploma from  Ben's School  O' Quantum Mechanics On Line. Congratulations.

        



    Meanwhile Back in our local universe,
space itself was in the process of being defined,
all possible spaces existed simultaneously in superposition. 
Dimensions, curvatures, orbifolds and spherical chickens all being tried on for size.
Initially, energy dominates.  This all-bosonic wave function is coherent and represents pure information.  Intercommunication across its entire horizon is instantaneous following Bell’s nonlocality theorem for quantum entangled states. Virtual spin was responsible for the first symmetry-breaking phase transition.  The single original field split into photons and gravitons.  Photons decided to be spin one. Gravitons are thinking about being spin two, but since no valid scientific observation has actually been made, the decision is still in superposition.
Don’t look at me; I didn’t make this part up !  

The second phase transition occurred when the fermions split off and decided to be spin one-half.  The Pauli exclusion pressure between these fermions caused an instantaneous quantum leap as they separated.  In economic language we could say, too few gravitons chasing too many fermions causes inflation. At this point, space acquired a fractal nature.  Compactified dimensions count as less than one each.  The three main dimensions and all of the other compactified dimensions add up to, oh, say 3.1416… or thereabouts. Now, the fermions form a second sphere, expanding outward at less than the speed of light, obeying the speed limit set by Einstein with special relativity.  All of the photons and gravitons in the first sphere but outside the second sphere continue on outward, never to be reabsorbed.  This breaks time symmetry.
The Beauty is Truth in Physical Law Act of 1939 states that CPT — charge, parity, and time taken all together — should be a perfect symmetry.  If time symmetry is broken, then CP symmetry is also broken.  The second phase transition brought with it the second law of thermodynamics, and our old nemesis, entropy.  Entropy is the bane of information.  Entropy eats information for lunch.  When information goes to the other side of the ledger book, wave functions start collapsing all over the place.  Galactic eggs are formed. Spherical Chickens are hatched.
          The speed of new bosons still emitted on a regular basis far outstrips the speed of the fermions which emit them, and a portion of them escapes from the second sphere to the first, never to be reabsorbed.  The escaping gravitons constitute leakage and there is no cosmic Pampers.
Just as Newton’s laws of motion had to be modified by special relativity, so his third law must be modified:  For every action there is an almost equal and opposite reaction. 
This is a slight asymmetry of dualities.  The expansive force of quintessence causes the retractive force of gravity, but not with perfect symmetry. 
Quintessence is conserved but gravity leaks out, so it is not conserved. 
This explains the increase in the rate of expansion of the universe of late.
It is still unclear whether this leakage occurs because the bosons are not conserved, or that they are not conserved because they are leaking. Sort of what came first? The Spherical Chicken or the Egg...or maybe a Polygonal Lobster for that matter...hey anything is possible...but not everything is probable.
The other quasiconstants, G, h, and c, change with the changes of the threads of the corduroy of the cosmos.  They change rapidly at phase changes and much more slowly otherwise.  Look for a yearly rate of change on the order of one part in 13.7 billion.  The fabric of spacetime is woven from  wave-entangled timelines of the point-like or, time-sheets of string-like particles. 

As noted earlier, nature takes its freedom not from the fabric of spacetime but from the voids in between.  It is within these voids where the laws of cause and effect are not enforced.  As new particles add new threads to the warp and weave, the voids diminish in size, and G, h, and c diminish proportionally.  This does have an effect, but not so much that you would notice. 
Don’t mess about with the fine structure constant.  It works fine just the way it is.
As our universe expands out and dies its heat death, the size of the gaps in the fabric increases.  The value of h again becomes very large.  In fact, the remnants of one Universe might mediate and fine-tune the initial values of each succeeding Universe.  One might have to wait a million billion trillion years for it to happen, but the cauldron of creation boils eventually when there is no one there to watch it.

         To sum it up, we now have the standard model of cosmology.
If the sciences were funded adequately, we might have had the deluxe model.
And Plasma of course...is...another matter.  :P

Friday, October 21, 2016

Confirmation that lexical order induces thermodynamic order...or... Is That bigotry in your pocket or is language being destroyed?

Turning harmless words into weapons of mass distraction.
The entire reason for Orwell’s destruction of language was to literally narrow the person’s ability to think certain thoughts. It’s beyond thought crime, and it’s happening right here, right now.
Doesn’t matter what year your calendar says, it’s 1984.
Orwellian Thought Crime
"You must be a bigot if you point out bigotry"
Orwell’s destruction of language was to literally narrow the person’s ability to think certain thoughts.
R
ecently in comments regarding an article suggesting that the Dunning-Kruger effect likely plays a big role in the Trump campaign and among it's supporters someone suggested it was bigotry to make this  suggestion. Now I would like to believe that I am a reasonable guy, that any views I hold or entertain are always under personal criticism and scrutiny...that when presented with new information I would have the ability to alter even a long held view if new info disproved it.
I'd like to believe that any constructive criticism someone may offer is fairly evaluated and considered.
Is it bigotry to generalize about a group in a scientific study?
Is it bigotry to make observations of one group and compare them to another?
Is the very act of suggesting there IS a group bigotry?
Vocabulary.com defines bigotry as : the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot.
 It further discusses the word -
"If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry. Bigotry is ugly.
There are different types of bigotry — like religious bigotry or racist bigotry. Although bigotry can mean any form of intolerance or prejudice, when the word is used alone, it is most often understood to mean racial bigotry. The bigotry behind Jim Crow laws that separated races in the 1950s seems unbelievable to most modern teenagers."
So on a personal level I ask myself if I exhibit an intolerance for others beliefs?
I imagine to a degree yes...I have a low tolerance for intolerance..I am quite guilty of often lumping right wing opinions into the propaganda rubbish pile.
( In my defense, this seems to come from experience. After all, ever since it's inception, conservatism has been an argument for one group to dominate others in society something that has no place in the modern world in my view. And I have clearly observed that conservatives have historically never been right. They have always been on the wrong side of every issue. Women's Sufferage, Human Bondage, Civil Rights, Social Security, consumer protection, labor laws, human rights, etc...all opposed by the conservatives of the day).

  Yet if we imagine ourselves a tolerant people,  intolerant ideas certainly must be permitted to be freely expressed. Free speech, after all;  is easy until you have to let speech that offends YOU be expressed.
Yet tolerating ideas we find offensive is one thing,  while restrictions on criticizing them may be something else entirely.
That's something of a rabbit hole to go down.
Does it mean in order not to be bigoted, one must accept bigotry?
Or not point it out if it appears to be related to a group of people?
Does it mean we can never make any observations about any group for fear of generalization?
Does it negate the mere possibility of generalizations?
If so, what does that mean about the mathematics of Statistics?
Social Science?  Psychology?
Or further, does it mean even suggesting there are such things as groups, is in itself bigoted.
How far down this paradoxical rabbit hole thought experiment do we wish to go?
Some generalizations it seems are useful.
Some are not.
Some are harmful.

In our capacity as human beings we do make generalizations about our experiences.
We should of course keep an open mind and critique our judgements in this regard.
Are such generalizations bigotry?
Are they always bigotry?
I confess I personally have no definitive conclusion.

I  posit that there is more to this than meets the eye though.
Frankly there has been something of an assault on language for ideological purposes.
Evidence of this can be clearly seen when in the course of public discourse when attempts are made to break down reason and replace it with some desired mental association.
For example, there is an infamous memo from Newt Gingrich called
"Language: A Key Mechanism of Control".

It advised Republican candidates to associate themselves with words like "building", "dream", "freedom", "learn", "light", "preserve", "success", and "truth" while associating opponents with words like "bizarre", "decay", "ideological", "lie", "machine", "pathetic", and "traitors". The issue here is not whether these words are used at all; of course there do exist individuals that could be described using any of these words. The issue, rather, is cognitive surgery: systematically creating and destroying mental associations with a purposeful disregard for truth.
Notice that in fact, "truth" is indeed one of the words that Gingrich advised appropriating in this fashion.
Someone who thinks this way cannot ever begin to conceptualize truth.

So the desire of anti-democracy ideologues is to remove the ability of those who would criticize their anti-democratic activities and to curtail the flow of democratic ideas. There is abundant evidence that  one of the ways they do this is by intentionally destroying language.
Language is the medium through which ideas flow.

Language is systematically mapped and words historically used to describe potentates and the traditional authorities in their service , these potentates have purposefully twisted those words into terms used against those who oppose such plutocracy. This tactic both attacks the opponents of democracy and more importantly deprives  them of the words that can be used to attack aristocracy.

A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database, uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's.
Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists.
Afterward, it referred in  a twisted way to people who oppose racism.
What happened?
It's simple: conservative rhetoricians were tired of the political advantage that their opponents had from their use of that word, and took it away from them.

A more complicated example is the word "racist".
Language revisionist rhetoricians have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up with new ways to stick the word onto liberals and their policies.
For example they referred to affirmative action as "racist".
Obviously this is false; it is an example of this attempt to destroy language.
Racism is the notion that one race is intrinsically better than another.
 Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist.
Pro-aristocracy spokesmen have even stuck the word "racist" on people for opposing racism.
The notion seems to be that these people addressed themselves to the topic of race, and the word "racist" is sort of an adjective relating somehow to race.
In any event this is an attack on language.
Which is the medium of ideas.
And ideas form the basis of civilization.
Ultimately the attack on language is an attack on civilization itself.

In summary, is it bigotry to point out bigotry in a group?
To speak of it as generally a characteristic of that group?
Or is suggesting this yet another example of destruction of language?
Which is a blow against democracy and civilization itself.
If so, how can such an attack on civilization be thwarted?

Teach logic.
Teach critical thinking.

(This is the article that started the hoopla.)