karl (4)

4063794153?profile=original17-year-old Arapahoe High School Gun Victim Dies – Some Blame 2nd Amendment

The 17-year-old Colorado student who loved horses, life and what was expected to be a promising future after graduation died Saturday from her gun injuries.  Claire Davis who had been the only victim of the gunfire unleashed by shooter and fellow Arapahoe High School student Karl Pierson was shot point blank in the head on December 13, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The unfortunate tragedy underscores the need for both law enforcement as well as mental health authorities to play closer attention to some of the possible triggers which set deadly shooters like 18-year-old Pierson onto their campaign pathway of evil.

There are some at the school who appeared to believe that Pierson was all consumed with the notion of creating as many victims of his mayhem as possible.  He came to the school armed with, “a legally purchased 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, a machete, and three Molotov cocktails, 125 rounds of steel-shot, buckshot and slug ammunition,according to Denver Westword.

Although Davis seemed to have had an acquaintance with the armed teenage shooter, according to the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office,  Pierson did not appear to have singled her out as one of his intended victims.

( Click to Read More )

Read more…

We Are Not Stupid.


We are not stupid! That's one of Herman Cain's favorite catch phrases. He uses it to point out the falsehoods he perceives from the Obama campaign and administration. Mr. Cain is currently still working on his most recent endeavor, the internet TV station at http://www.caintv.com/. He is slotted to break back into radio next January when he'll take over Neal Boortz' show. He's no Glenn Beck, I'll say that much. As for his CainTV, I think there's something to be said about those that will settle for mediocrity over content...

All of that is besides the point, as the man whose stupidity is in question is Mr. Rick Santorum. I'm sure he would chime along with Mr. Cain about his own lack of stupidity. Rick Santorum's post-primary project is Patriot Voices, which among other things, is a "grassroots and online community of Americans from across the country who stand together to affect change." One of their most recent projects is a film collaboration with Citizens United called "Our Sacred Honor." A trailer to the film has been added to the end of this post. 

The opposite chorus in the ballad of smarts and stupid is an editor over at The New York Times. Now. in his defense, the article does not say that Mr. Santorum or any conservative is stupid. Rather, it says that "Social conservatives have given up on smart people," which as it points out, is kind of what Santorum had been saying. He talked about how conservatives would “never have the elite smart people on our side.” 

The author of the article went from this point on to talk about Romney's reaction to Obama's handling of the crisis around the storming of the US embassies in Egypt and Libya. Specifically he questioned the allegations that what Obama said amounted to an apology. The author also questioned why an apology might be so bad. He insinuated that conservatives in general were out of touch with reality, and that they seemed happy to go that way, as with Rick Santorum. The article said that conservatives and "the Romney campaign has given up on what Karl Rove once called the 'reality-based community.'"

Herman Cain says that we are not stupid, Rick Santorum says that the smart people aren't ever gonna be on our side, and The New York Times questions Romney's campaign's grip on reality. How does that make you feel? Real Smart? 

Well, here's the preview to Santorum's new project:


Read more…

Obama Seeks Texas Scapegoat

for Hurricanes Igor,Julia and Karl

A very strange thing happened to Payne Hertz, the 96-year-old who sometimes substitutes for Ol’ Rajjpuut on those ultra-rare occasions when Rajjpuut has a chance “to get lucky,” ‘er, finds himself with a schedule conflict. You might recall the fine interview that Hertz did with the polar bear** hunter Al Gore . . . .


naturally, we’ll let the elderly gent speak for himself . . . .

It happened this way, I had just left one of my gal’ friends’ apartment about 4:00 in the morning when a couple of juvenile d’s accosted me next to my Pierce-Arrow automobile. They wanted to shake me down, but I was in too good a mood all full of p’ ‘n vinegar to surrender my dignity right then. Of course I immediately pulled out my trusty pack of cards and, using the ancient Monte Carlo martial art form of Stri-chi-baccarat (self-defense with ordinary playing cards), disabled the taller of the two with a quick Jack of Diamonds to the right temple and a trey of Spades to his right knee which dropped him like yesterday’s bowel movement and was firing the niner of hearts full speed at his friend's lower midsection (technically in Stri-chi it’s called a "collateral damage appendectomy") when the tire iron he’d swung connected a glancing blow with my balding pate . . . as I fell, I could see through fuzzy vision he was worse off than me, but than I lost consciousness . . .

Suddenly it was bright daylight, I found myself occupying the body of a much younger, fatter, and far stupider man. I was on a golf course, that much was obvious. And then I saw that my golfing pard with his putter in his hand was none other than the president of the United States Barack Obama. Talk about a shocker! I could see the hammer and sickle stitched into his club covers and the tattoo of Karl Marx peeked through his white golf shirt. Yep, it was Obama all right!

I looked into the mirror of the cart and another surprise, the man that looked back at me was Chris Mathews, the cub reporter who is currently hosting a program called Softballs for Liberals on MSNBC . . . an incredible revulsion grabbed me and I found my new body projectile-vomiting . . . luckily a couple of secret service guards stepped between me and the president and protected him from my disgust. I dropped back weakly into my seat.

They paused the game for about three minutes while I swigged down some bottled water after rinsing my mouth and felt better. We had only three holes to play and let me tell you that being in the body of a younger man, even that out of shape stupid younger man, was great . . . I outdrove Obama on all three holes and outplayed him (what a frigging duffer!) badly and then discovered apparently we’d had a hundred dollar bet. Apparently we’d played several times before and he thought he owned me I guess, because he called my a “racist basta-d”, then smiled like it was a joke as he handed me ol’ Ben Franklin, but I could see he was plenty sore.

Anyhow, the real surprise was passing a newspaper vending machine about ten yards before the clubhouse. The headline was about something called the Hindenburg Omen which didn’t sound good. I could see the date was October 3rd, somehow I’d leaped exactly three weeks into the future besides being in the body of a liberal-slanting cub reporter. Anyway, we retired to the 19th hole and despite the secret service men reminding him that Muslims don’t drink and that he had four state functions scheduled for the rest of the day, he downed about five Miss Piggy Cocktails (I thought Muslims didn’t do pork either?) before he’d even deign to talk to me. No matter, I was preoccupied and too busy for him anyway. Was wondering about how to arrange getting to use my new body with the cocktail waitress I was flirting up . . . nobody was around, just the seven of us, the four secret service agents saw to that . . . just me and Ol’ Poor Sport was allowed in there with this gorgeous auburn-haired . . . .

Suddenly, he sneered, “Your chance to make me look good, Chris-boy!” Which apparently meant he’d allow me to ask him a few questions. I thought I’d kill two birds with one stone, get myself oriented to the happenings of the last twenty-one days and get him in the mood with some easy ones first . . . .

Q: “Mr. President, how would you describe your administration’s accomplishments for the past three weeks? And how do you feel about them?

He glared at me, for a couple seconds.

A: “I’ve told everybody and you should know better, Chris, I’m not answering questions about the problems we’ve had with disaster relief and I’m not answering questions about that Hindenburg stockmarket crap either . . . . Perhaps you might ask me a question about what it’s like travelling in Air Force One?”

Suddenly, the newspaper headlines I’d seen made sense. Apparently the names Igor, Julia and Karl were the names of three tropical storms, maybe even hurricanes . . . and there’d apparently been something real wrong happening on Wall Street. Now I really did want to get on his good side for at least a couple of questions . . . besides with a little luck I could make a killing in the stock market when I got back to my own time . . . IF I ever got back to my own time . . . .

Q: “You know me, Mr. President, I need to get the true picture . . . so that when I slant the story in your behalf, it’s ah . . . it’s got the necessary congruency . . .”

A: Sorry, Chris, must be the drinks, for a moment there I thought I was with Bill O’reilly or Glenn Beck, of course I know you’re in my camp . . . OK . . . OK . . . well, as you know our administration line is that we’re very disappointed in this Hindenburg scandal thing and of course the slow responses on all three hurricanes.”

Q: “Hindenburg scandal . . . thing?”

A: “Yes, yes, we didn’t think that the Business and Financial papers would make such a big deal about a little change like Robby Gibbs was using in his press conferences . . .”

Q: “Little change, Mr. President”

A: “You know calling the 2200 point drop on Wall Street last week ‘the G. W. Bush Crash,’ that’s really not all that much of a thing to overlook in the papers, you’d think . . . And just cause we haven’t helped anybody yet from those three storms . . . .”

Q: “Wow! I mean I can see how that would upset you, Mr. President . . .”

A: “I mean the whole country seemed very understanding -- even though our response was a lot slower than it was for Katrina and Rita -- when I explained that if George W. Bush hadn’t delayed all the vital global warming counter-activity so terribly long we’d have a cooler globe and everyone of the hurricanes wouldn’t be so violent, I mean category-4 twice and then a -three, that’s pretty rough.”

Q: “You blamed George W. Bush for slow response on all three hurricanes and a faltering stock market! ‘er, I mean to say, Mr. President. When you blamed him didn’t your media support stick with you as you expected?”

A: Well, of course, all us neo-marxists understand each oth^^ . . . .

Then, as suddenly as I’d been wisked into Chris Mathews’ fat body I found myself lying on the concrete back in New York twenty-one days earlier with a doozy of a headache and the still bodies of two bloody juvenile delinquents near me . . . . I know it sounds like I’m stretching the truth, but I’ll swear to it. I only regret that I never got to know that little waitress better . . . .

Well, thank you PH, good job under unusual circumstances . . . now do you readers understand why Rajjpuut never takes a vacation?

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


** recently the younger Alaskan Al Gore that Hertz interviewed in the earlier blog had some bad news for his cousin the older and uglier and fatter Al Gore from Tennessee we all know and love. 1) It seems that some naturalists recently revealed that the infamous “Inconvenient Truth” scene of a polar bear floating on an ice floe was not the picture of a polar bear in distress, but to the contrary -- pretty standard operating procedure for polar bears who regularly float out 10-12 miles from shore to find the best hunting grounds for seals and 2) Alaska and Canada are both now lifting their embargoes on hunting polar bears because of the large numbers of the beasts now found all up and down the Artic Circle. The Alaskan said, “Sadly, that may turn out to be a couple of inconvenient truths for my cuz” he grunted, “ Of course, now that the hunting ban is lifted, I can operate legally piling up those bountied bear feet for my Tennessee cuz.”

^^ By the way, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now says that their latest forecasts of government deficits and national debt says that by 2020 half of your taxes will go for interest on the national debt and that the national debt the American public will face by 2020 will amount to more than 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The CBO says that national debt per household will rise to $150,000. Damn, that G.W. Bush anyway.

Read more…

Darwin was (Plenty) Wrong, while Lamarck’s now Resurrected,
"Faith Healing" and What that Means to You

It is a well-known LIE common among the simple-minded that so-called "soft sciences" like sociology, psychology, human-goal attainment, etc. are subject to far greater change than that taking place in the hard sciences. The soft-sciences have long been considered ever-shifting ground compared to “hard science” explanations of how the world works. Of course, that's totally bogus, a lot more change takes place in the hard sciences a lot faster.

Till relatively recently, biology and especially genetics, had been considered a semi-soft science. There were the experiments of Gregor Mendel pubished in 1866; and before that there was Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species published in 1859, the year before Lincoln’s election and little else had changed. Darwin’s ideas were considered more troubling because they dealt with life capable of movement (animals and apes and men); but Mendel’s was actually relatively hard science that could be replicated by observers. Darwin’s “Natural Selection” (largely sexual selection) misnamed by the press as “Survival of the Fittest” was, after all, only a theory.

In fact, however, biologic theory has also galloped apace. There came in the late 19th and early 20th century discovery of chromosomes and genes and much later DNA. Today biology is considered a much harder science and genetics (with the publishing of the human genome) is by most of the great unwashed all wrapped up into a neat little package called “bio-tech” which definitely sounds like a hard, hard science to the point of virtually being an industrial art so that the term “designer genes” has become much more than a play on words. Rajjpuut, to that says, slow down, Pilgrim, slow down.

It turns out today, however, that in many respects biology, as a hard science, is going back to the drawing board. For one thing, Charles Darwin in his later writings said that he regretted having given nature (meaning “genetics” -- the word genetics didn’t exist in his time) too much credit and to have sorely underestimated the effects of nurture and the environment in shaping life. Wow, the misnomer term “survival of the fittest” in popular thinking certainly sounds like a “struggle,” a battle just to live and then above that a struggle to ensure survival by living long enough and fighting hard enough to overcome others in unrelenting battle and viola! to mate . . . and yet the great Darwin is saying, "I didn’t give the environment enough credit." Think on that, if you want to disappear down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole . . . the fittest by genetics isn't necessarily the fittest overall and nurturing "group dynamics" and nature itself play a greater role . . . Rajjpuut has often insisted the greater truth might be "Survival of the Luckiest," surely Darwin didn't mean that?

As it turns out from the more recent ideas placed into mathematical form by a scientist named John Nash (Nobel Prize Winner and the subject of the movie “A Beautiful Mind”) now-a-days extrapolated into biology and even evolutionary theory, cooperation (including nurturing) seems to be every bit as important to survival and reproduction of the individual and the group as fierce competition does. Survival of the most blessed? Most beloved?

And then there is the amazing fact that the scientists (virtually all of them men until the last fifty years) did what women are often accusing men of doing: they thought (figuratively) with their gonads and not with their brains. Or, more precisely, they put the center of control (and dare Rajjpuut say, “intelligence”) in a living cell (the smallest indivisible unit of life itself) in the cell nucleus. As it turns out, that idea from our high school biology classes is totally wrong: the center of cell intelligence is their external membranes where they interact with the world and the cell’s nucleic areas are actually predictably enough “the gonads” of the cell.

More importantly, for the thinking populace, knowing about all these recent changes in the field of biology, we can now examine a little idea published in 1867 which was nothing more or less than highly emphasized “survival of the fittest” extrapolated onto the societies of man himself in a poorly conceived book published in 1867 “Das Kapital” subtitled “a critique of political economics” by Karl Marx with large chunks of editing by Friedrich Engels. Marx said specifically, he intended to make a science of understanding human economy as related to politics and to reveal to the world an understanding of the evolution of political-economic life forms. He began at what he called the “cell” level and worked his way continually broader from there until he was talking about the “struggle for existence” between capital and labor (the business owner and the worker). Marx postulated a survival of the fittest occuring between economic-political systems across the broad sweep of history all around the world, never ceasing. He raked capitalism over the coals and talked about the benefits of socialism which would definitely outlast and defeat capitalism and eventually the final triumphant result of all these political-economic systems battling away over time: tah, dah! creation of the communist utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” had replaced the barbaric animal exploitation and battling which Marx claimed was the fundamental fact propping up all capitalism.

Marx, of course, never paused to see all the co-operation necessary for capitalist entities to grow and prosper, the subject of this brief and poignant essay . . . .


And the enablers of Marx throughout modern history, the Keynesian economists who advocate inflation as a most useful tool for governments (actually, it turns out, only for totalitatian governments) also have overlooked tranquility and cooperation in their understanding of the world of real micro- and real macro-economics . . . put even more briefly . . . .



And summed up into a whole consistent theory here:


Returning from Marxism based upon the ill-conceived "survival of the fittest" notions, it now appears that strange Frenchman our high school teachers used as a strawman in postulating the FACT of EVOLUTION based upon Darwin’s work, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was possibly much more right than Darwin was and he was right almost sixty years before Darwin’s book. His speech of May 11, 1800, at the Paris Natural History Museum set forth Lamarck’s theory of evolution which was every bit as systematic as Darwin’s was but earlier and included soft-evolution as part of the process. When we were kids, the biology profs made fun of Lamarck saying that according to him if you cut off the tails of two mice and bred them . . . of course their offspring would NOT be tailless so Lamarck was an utter fool . . . and continuing on with a lot of such nonsense that, naturally, a close reading of Lamarck shows he never said or meant. Lamarck, like Darwin, made mistakes but he was first, and today's up to the minute science may actually be proving, he was actually better.


Lamarck, coming much earlier than Darwin and living in mostly religiously-orthodox France rather than more worldly Britain as Darwin did, was the object of much hate and derision. Despite all this he stuck by his guns and remained true to evolution. Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological theories. First, it was the environment which gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. Secondly, life is structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals. Thirdly, the whole process is the result most usually of great, great amounts of time. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. He outlined these theories regarding evolution first in his Floreal lecture of 1800, and then in three later published works:

  • Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants, 1802.
  • Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
  • Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, (in seven volumes, 1815-1822)

It now appears that Lamarck was largely correct, that the environment (as Darwin said in the last years of his life -- and which obviously includes nurturing) is a much more prominent cause of evolution than recent thinking led us to believe; and that Darwin was wrong about the role of savage competition as the single largest driving force in shaping evolution, to wit cooperation within a group and even cooperation within the environs themselves play a much greater role than Darwin might ever have conceived. And for those of you who read our first link above (the little "I, Pencil" essay) it definitely appears that Marx totally missed the boat, basing his ideas upon Darwin’s faulty model of evolution and the faulty term “survival of the fittest,” he created a winner-take all model in which only the ends mattered, the end totally justified the dialectical-materialism to come. That is the world that Barack Obama was raised in, courtesy of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, and his birth-father Barak without a 'c' Hussein Obama, Sr. and that world view (where the glorious state can seriously consider 100% taxes**) is finally and inalterably proven wrong here and now.

For more on the biological background in a format accessible to the layman: try (Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.’s book “The Biology of Belief” which received “The Best Science Book of 2006” award, one of several stimulating works tying cooperative evolution, quantum-physics and psychology together. In a certain sense, we have returned to square one: “it is done unto us, in accordance with our faith.” Of course, now it’s possible to say that faith has a scientific explanation . . . and that evolution is no longer a theory, but a provable fact and they're both part of God’s Design. And, yes, there is clear scientific evidence of the power of faith healing, placebos, and medical miracles of the sort that certainly until now were not considered "hard science." It's all akin to the History Channel showing from translators that the term "Red Sea" was a mis-translation and that it just meant a big river of the time and then going to the river in question and finding tons of ancient military artifacts such as chariots and shields and swords and finding out about an earthquake that took place at the time. Where does faith leave off and science begin? Why not enjoy both? What an amazing world we live in!

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

** as shown here at the link below, in the words of Barak Obama, Sr. but not mentioned in his son's first autobiography "Dreams from My Father" what the real dreams of his father were . . . .

Read more…