Richard Day's picture






     Now these two guys were leading the Texas (who really cares) PGA tournament for 4/15/12.

    Knost and Pettersson have bigger tits than my last wife as well as bellies that mirror the belly of my first wife at 6 months fertile (as they say).

    I dunno.

    Ah last week Bubba (great name aint it?) who is beautiful, won the Masters.

    I think about images all the time.

    I mean with my current image and my current history I aint worth shite!

    But I know that no matter how many PGA tournaments Pettersson wins, he aint goin to be the headliner for Adidas or Titleist or anything but Domino's Pizza!

    There is a hunger out there in the American Netherlands for heroes who represent the values of those Netherlands.

    Pettersson, of course is a Swede and in no way Dutch. (Oh and he wins of course!)

    And just because he has bigger tits than my last wife and a bigger pot than my first wife pregnant is not dispositive.

    The PGA does have this Boo Weekley guy. And Boo must have patterned his physique after Petterson on his Northern Floridian farm. But Petterson would have some trouble bringing in the sheaves so to speak as far as endorsements.

    Bubba Watson, a favorite partner of Woods in practice sessions of course, is the all American Georgian but not so stupid as to speak of Colored folks or the silliness of women's rights. (Bubba won the Masters for Christ's sake so I diss him not.)

    By the way, outside of my subject today (though really not) I Googled or Yahooed the question:

    How many African Americans appear on the PGA Tour?

    And I received this answer.

    Two. That is there are two Black members of the PGA Tour:

    Tiger Woods and V. J. Singh.

    Of course V. J. Singh is not African-American or African anything else.

    Just so you know, there are 130 members of the PGA Tour.

    So I went to the NIT Golf Tour.

    The answer appears to be nobody:

    ATLANTA — Many expected Tiger Woods' historic victory in the 1997 Masters -- and the 13 majors since then -- to inspire other African-Americans to follow him into a game that was reserved for whites for more than a century.Yet in the dozen years since Woods slipped on a green jacket at Augusta National and paid tribute to the black pioneers who broke down American golf's racial barriers, no other African-American has earned U.S. PGA Tour membership.

    Not a single black woman plays on the U.S. LPGA Tour.

    Neither of America's top two developmental tours have black golfers in the pipeline, either.

    "Tiger was the greatest gift ever for the PGA Tour," said Orin Starn, who heads the cultural anthropology program at Duke University. "With him as its face, the PGA Tour didn't have to deal with issues of diversity, or worrying about the tour looking like the rest of America. They could say, 'See, the problem is fixed. We have an African-American who is No. 1 in the world.'

    "But the problem still exists. If anything, it's gotten worse."

    There were eight black players on tour in 1975, the year Lee Elder was the first black golfer in the Masters and the year Woods was born.

    Now there is only Tiger.

    "I think it's become harder to play out here," Woods said when asked to explain the decline of African-American golfers on tour. "Playing opportunities and development and being able to learn the game and mature in the game has become more difficult."

    He mentioned the preponderance of golf carts, which has eliminated the kind of caddie programs that produced players from Lee Trevino to Charlie Sifford.

    "And then the cost of getting involved in the game, and then the maintenance of a person trying to play day in and day out," Woods said. "It's not easy."

    I wish to be fair here.


    To be fair, Woods is ½ Asian and ¼ Afro-American and ¼ Native American.

    And there are many, many good Asian golfers. Always have been.

    I never wish to be fair because 'the other side never wishes to be fair'. I mean ask Karl Rove or Newt!

    But I have decided to get into the opposition's brain.


    My sweetheart and I are going to go for Gingrich," he said. "He's the conservative choice. I mean, Ron Paul -- I love the guy, and if there was a chance in hell he could win, I'd go for him."

    There was no chance in hell he'd vote for Barack Obama. "Unemployment is around 17 percent in Virginia City," he said. "Been that was since the gentleman currently in the White House got there." He was among the strugglers. A lot of Nevadans had given Obama a chance in 2008. Not Kent.

    "This is going to sound rough," he said. "But if you're a Democrat, you are my enemy. Democrats piss me off. They've gotten extremely socialistic." What did that mean? "Every time they get in, they raise taxes. They screw things up. I've got a jeep I've had for ten years; I pay $100 a year on the license plate. We just got a new Dodge; $600 to license it. You pay your money, they pass it on to the Mexicans, the colored people. Fr education, handouts, all of that." Kent was 67, and dated his disdain for socialism back to Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. "We've got maybe two Democrats in Virginia City. One of them owns the second-biggest bar. I won't set a foot in the door.

    This is what I am facing.

    And what I am facing is truth.

    And truth is hard!

    This Kent guy is fat and ugly just like me.

    And this Kent guy aint goin to be talked into nuthin!

    There really is no point in rapprochement. At least with folks like this.

    And yet, Kent might have lived a nice life. He now gets his SS every month (most probably between 2 and 3 grand a month.)

    Kent is sure that he earned this amount through blood sweat and tears and effort and anti-colored philosophy and anti-immigration enthusiasm.

    Just as Kent is sure that others should not receive these funds, he pockets the money and continues to sell whatever he was selling before.

    But Kent knows one damn thing for use.

    If it weren't for Coloreds and Govment and illegal immigrants and socialist unborn presidents and muslim intervenists and democrat liberal bastards and commies he never would have had to pay $600.00 to properly license his vehicle.

    Kent might be dead in two or three years because of his inability to do anything about his weight, his smoking or his whiskey sipping.


    And everyone knows that Kent, is the real superman or ubermench of this society.



    The Associated Press reports that scientists say that increased life expectancy and better medical care in developing countries will result in a spike in the rates of the brain illness, which affected about 35.6 million people in 2010. By 2050, the health agency predicts there will be 115 million people suffering from dementia, largely in low or middle-income nations.

    I dunno, I just threw this in for no reason at all.

    Allen West

    1. I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.” — July 18, 2011, in a post on the website Red County. Here here.huffpo.


    A group called the National Socialist Movement announced last weekend that it would begin patrolling the streets of Sanford, the town where Trayvon Martin was killed.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the NSM "one of the largest neo-Nazi organizations in the country."

    On Monday, WOFL, a Fox affiliate in Orlando, filed a report on the controversy.

    "There's another civil rights group in town -- the National Socialist Movement," the reporter said, before a clip of the group's leader, Jeff Schoep, was played.

    "We're a white civil rights organization," Schoep said. "...The blacks have Al Sharpton, the whites have the National Socialist movement.

    Okay, so this FOX 'affiliate' dubbed a National Socialist Movement as a Civil Rights Group.



    You might guess where I am going with this.

    I mean the Brownshirts in Germany (before Hitler killed them all) were certainly a Civil Rights Group I suppose.


    Yeah, sounds good to me.


    In one part of his rant, Limbaugh said that Rosen's comment encapsulated his complaints about liberals — chief among them that liberals "are not nice."

    "They are angry and they are hostile and they are not compassionate, they are not nice, they have no manners," he said. "In the basics of human existence, they are reprobates. They don’t understand politeness. They are rude, they are crude, they are thoughtless, they are selfish, they are MEAN.

    Well Rush just defined himself. Obviously. I mean he is exactly what he accuses everybody else of being; he is not nice, he has no manners, and he is a reprobate and he is uneducated. And of course, he is rude and crude and thoughtless and selfish and he is mean!

    Give me 12 tried and true jurors and I shall be victorious in any trial regarding THIS assessment of rush!

    So what is the point of this fine essay? As if I ever have a point or readers for that matter?

    Logic does not work.

    Reasoning does not work.

    Statistics do not work.

    Historically documented graphs do not work.

    Tax expenditure essays or graphs as presented by (repub or dem) administrations do not work.

    Greenwald or Taibbi investigations regarding Wall Street do not work.

    Time-lapsed photography of the Arctic and Antarctic regions of this planet do not work.

    Photos of victims who have succomed to environmental destruction do not work.

    Demonstrations that Pat Robertson has received 90 million bucks begging for alms on the tv for the poor from viewers with truly Christian intentions do not work.

    Scientific testings demonstrating that Kent's groundwater is now more lethal than generic bleach do not work.

    Oh well.

    I could go on and on as I usually do.

    My point is that a photo of Carl Pettersson, from Sweden does more for Kent than any graph ever invented or presented by man.


    There’s just one problem: Mounting scientific evidence suggests that this is a pretty limited way of understanding what divides us. And at a time of unprecedented polarization in America, we need a more convincing explanation for the staggering irrationality of our politics. Especially since we’re now split not just over what we ought to do politically but also over what we consider to be true.

    Liberals and conservatives have access to the same information, yet they hold wildly incompatible views on issues ranging from global warming to whether the president was born in the United States to whether his stimulus package created any jobs. But it’s not just that: Partisanship creates stunning intellectual contortions and inconsistencies. Republicans today can denounce a health-care reform plan that’s pretty similar to one passed in Massachusetts by a Republican — and the only apparent reason is that this one came from a Democrat.

    None of these things make sense — unless you view them through the lens of political psychology. There’s now a large body of evidence showing that those who opt for the political left and those who opt for the political right tend to process information in divergent ways and to differ on any number of psychological traits...

    We see the consequences of liberal openness and conservative conscientiousness everywhere — and especially in the political battle over facts. Liberal irrationalities tend toward the sudden, new and trendy, such as, say, subscribing to the now largely discredited idea that childhood vaccines cause autism. This assertion was tailor-made for plucking liberal heartstrings, activating a deeply felt need to protect children from harm, especially harm allegedly caused by big, rich drug companies.

    But the claims about vaccine risks happened to be factually wrong. And how do we know? Scientists — who themselves lean liberal — debunked them. Over time, so did many other liberals. And in significant measure, it worked: There are still many people who cling to this inaccurate belief, but it is much, much harder these days to defend it, especially in the news …

    Compare this with a different irrationality: refusing to admit that humans are a product of evolution, a chief point of denial for the religious right. In a recent poll, just 43 percent of tea party adherents accepted the established science here. Yet unlike the vaccine issue, this denial is anything but new and trendy; it is well over 100 years old. The state of Tennessee is even hearkening back to the days of the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, more than 85 years ago. It just passed a bill that will weaken the teaching of evolution.

    Such are some of the probable consequences of openness, or the lack thereof.

    Now consider another related trait implicated in our divide over reality: the “need for cognitive closure.” This describes discomfort with uncertainty and a desire to resolve it into a firm belief. Someone with a high need for closure tends to seize on a piece of information that dispels doubt or ambiguity, and then freeze, refusing to consider new information. Those who have this trait can also be expected to spend less time processing information than those who are driven by different motivations, such as achieving accuracy...

    When you combine key psychological traits with divergent streams of information from the left and the right, you get a world where there is no truth that we all agree upon. We wield different facts, and hold them close, because we truly experience things differently.

    The political psychological divide goes beyond science. Factual disputes over many issues feature the same dynamics: Does the health-care reform law contain “death panels”? Did the stimulus package create any jobs? Even American history is up for debate: Did the founders intend this to be a Christian nation?

    However, there only is one reality — and we don’t get to discount it forever. And liberal-conservative differences are part of reality, too; inescapable, and increasingly difficult to denote.




    THE END.


    Mr. Day, I find I have no discernable opinion on the subject of man-boobs. Or golfers.

    However, I agree with this paragraph in the last quote of your essay.

    When you combine key psychological traits with divergent streams of information from the left and the right, you get a world where there is no truth that we all agree upon. We wield different facts, and hold them close, because we truly experience things differently.

    So we just all can't get along after all, can we?!!!




    It's a variation on Ockham's razor: The simplest political explanation is the one that gets embraced by the majority.  That's why all politicians now homeopathically attempt to dilute complex problems down to their most simplistic solution or slogan, and like homeopathy, there is absolutely no verifiable scientific proof that it ever works. 

    I fear we have been permanently "wedged" by political operatives.  Just like the wiseguys on Wall Street, were so clever they nearly ruined our country's economy, political wiseguys cleverly created such divisive wedges, it feels as if we can not ever come back together.

    And yet ... we must at some point come back together.  How that happens? It's a mystery. 


    I dunno.

    I have been waiting for an opening to play this for four years. hahahha






    Do I know how to give you a set-up or what? 

    Latest Comments