Jim Power's Blog: Jim Power, page 3
February 27, 2014
Who killed John F. Kennedy?
When he was shot on November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy proved one immutable truth: even the most powerful man on Earth was only one trigger pull away from the nothingness of eternity. And on November 23, 1963, the sun rose, the birds sang, alcoholics still staggered to their favorite watering holes, and countless people continued to commit adultery.
Who killed John F. Kennedy? I don't know for sure, but I am sure I couldn't care less, just as I couldn't care less how the universe was created or if some Scripture says I shouldn't eat meat on the third Friday after the sixth full moon following a leap year with a seven in it.
I do, however, know a brilliant man who has researched this topic much more than I ever could, and I defer to him, a man I simply call J.D.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. Oswald was a little man with a big idea. It's the same idea Mark Chapman had when he murdered John Lennon. Believing the greatness of a tree can be judged only after it is cut down, these men grafted their scraggy little branches onto giant Douglas firs and will always be associated with men whose accomplishments they could never emulate, or even understand.
When someone hunts deer, the thing that keeps them coming back year after year is the moment before the trigger pull. It's this limbo between the decision and the action that intoxicates a hunter.
What really interests me is the moment before Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger. Kennedy, of course, was a womanizer and all too human, but in that one freakish moment, Lee Harvey Oswald became more powerful than the most powerful man in the history of mankind.
With all due respect to America's past-time, this was the shot heard round the world.
Who killed John F. Kennedy? I don't know for sure, but I am sure I couldn't care less, just as I couldn't care less how the universe was created or if some Scripture says I shouldn't eat meat on the third Friday after the sixth full moon following a leap year with a seven in it.
I do, however, know a brilliant man who has researched this topic much more than I ever could, and I defer to him, a man I simply call J.D.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. Oswald was a little man with a big idea. It's the same idea Mark Chapman had when he murdered John Lennon. Believing the greatness of a tree can be judged only after it is cut down, these men grafted their scraggy little branches onto giant Douglas firs and will always be associated with men whose accomplishments they could never emulate, or even understand.
When someone hunts deer, the thing that keeps them coming back year after year is the moment before the trigger pull. It's this limbo between the decision and the action that intoxicates a hunter.
What really interests me is the moment before Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger. Kennedy, of course, was a womanizer and all too human, but in that one freakish moment, Lee Harvey Oswald became more powerful than the most powerful man in the history of mankind.
With all due respect to America's past-time, this was the shot heard round the world.
February 25, 2014
Ted Nugent
When Ted Nugent referred to Barack Obama as a subhuman mongrel, was that really a racist remark, as has been so widely portrayed by the media? No. Actually, merely stating that this remark was racist, is a racist remark itself.
Let me explain.
Ted Nugent is a lot of things. He is one of rock and roll's wild men, a helluva guitarist - contrary to the hateful assessment made by an opponent - and a man who has never been considered a racist in any way. Ted Nugent may be a lot of things, but racist isn't one of them.
If Ted Nugent had called Joe Biden a subhuman mongrel, would anyone consider that a slur against the white race? No. But if he calls a black president that same name, then this is "projected" to be racist.
Let me give you a perfect example. Jennifer Tilly is an awesome actress, a beautiful woman, brilliant, creative, intriguing. She also has very large breasts, and she is a world class poker player. (I wonder if she's available to fix my car this weekend?) Anyway, at the poker table she is famous for wearing low cut dresses which accentuate her ample charms. Imagine now if that crafty fox, Viffer, was sitting next to her and Phil Laak suddenly called out: "Stop peeking, Viffer!"
Some people would assume that Laak is castigating Viffer for peeking at her cards, but those with dirty minds would immediately think that Laak is upbraiding Viffer for peeking at her substantial cleavage.
Same principle here. Those in the know realize that Nugent was angry at Obama the man on a host of issues, the anti-gun agenda not the least among them. But those with dirty minds, such as unnamed CNN hosts, would be wolfish in their declaration that the slight was actually racist.
Projection, you see.
Let me explain.
Ted Nugent is a lot of things. He is one of rock and roll's wild men, a helluva guitarist - contrary to the hateful assessment made by an opponent - and a man who has never been considered a racist in any way. Ted Nugent may be a lot of things, but racist isn't one of them.
If Ted Nugent had called Joe Biden a subhuman mongrel, would anyone consider that a slur against the white race? No. But if he calls a black president that same name, then this is "projected" to be racist.
Let me give you a perfect example. Jennifer Tilly is an awesome actress, a beautiful woman, brilliant, creative, intriguing. She also has very large breasts, and she is a world class poker player. (I wonder if she's available to fix my car this weekend?) Anyway, at the poker table she is famous for wearing low cut dresses which accentuate her ample charms. Imagine now if that crafty fox, Viffer, was sitting next to her and Phil Laak suddenly called out: "Stop peeking, Viffer!"
Some people would assume that Laak is castigating Viffer for peeking at her cards, but those with dirty minds would immediately think that Laak is upbraiding Viffer for peeking at her substantial cleavage.
Same principle here. Those in the know realize that Nugent was angry at Obama the man on a host of issues, the anti-gun agenda not the least among them. But those with dirty minds, such as unnamed CNN hosts, would be wolfish in their declaration that the slight was actually racist.
Projection, you see.
Drone strike in Utah
Yesterday a drone from the Pakistani military dropped a bomb on a wedding in Utah, killing a suspected terrorist on Pakistan's most wanted list. Twelve innocent American men between the ages of 20 and 65 were killed.
The U.S. State Department has sought comment from Pakistan and have been told that a suspected terrorist was the target. The Pakistan government has apologized for the mistake. They are conducting an internal investigation.
The Pakistan government has committed to make every effort not to kill more innocent Americans, though it cannot promise that mistakes will not be made.
"They're doing their best," said a spokesman from the U.S. State Department, "and have only killed between 286 and 890 American civilians, including 168 to 197 American children."
The President of Pakistan is substantially increasing the use of drone strikes within the United States to combat suspected terrorists plotting against the Pakistani people.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_at...
The U.S. State Department has sought comment from Pakistan and have been told that a suspected terrorist was the target. The Pakistan government has apologized for the mistake. They are conducting an internal investigation.
The Pakistan government has committed to make every effort not to kill more innocent Americans, though it cannot promise that mistakes will not be made.
"They're doing their best," said a spokesman from the U.S. State Department, "and have only killed between 286 and 890 American civilians, including 168 to 197 American children."
The President of Pakistan is substantially increasing the use of drone strikes within the United States to combat suspected terrorists plotting against the Pakistani people.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_at...
Breastfeeding in public
Perhaps the largest non-issue that is an issue in America today is breastfeeding in public.
Breast milk is the healthiest food a baby can ingest, as it contains not only high nutrition but other non-food elements which make it incredibly healthy for consumption.
Why in the name of common sense would anyone be opposed to breastfeeding in public? Forget discretion. Even if a woman shows her entire breast, is this somehow going to corrupt society? Will people who witness it lose their minds and jump off bridges? Hardly. Men routinely walk around beaches and even the streets exposing their bare chests. Why would anyone who believes in equality discriminate against women showing their chests?
It makes no sense. I'm baffled. A woman's breast is a miraculous creation of nature, and humans, I believe, are the only animals whose females have developed breasts even when they are not nursing. It's a breast, for God's sake. Get over it.
A porn star once said something very interesting. She had starred in a number of low budget slasher films in which women actors were slaughtered with knives and machetes, and she recalled a scene where a woman's breast had been cut off. I know, it's disgusting. But no one complained. Yet when she starred in an adult film and another actor kissed her breast, people who knew her were outraged. They thought she should seek treatment for her mental health.
I have come to the inescapable conclusion that society is nuts.
Breast milk is the healthiest food a baby can ingest, as it contains not only high nutrition but other non-food elements which make it incredibly healthy for consumption.
Why in the name of common sense would anyone be opposed to breastfeeding in public? Forget discretion. Even if a woman shows her entire breast, is this somehow going to corrupt society? Will people who witness it lose their minds and jump off bridges? Hardly. Men routinely walk around beaches and even the streets exposing their bare chests. Why would anyone who believes in equality discriminate against women showing their chests?
It makes no sense. I'm baffled. A woman's breast is a miraculous creation of nature, and humans, I believe, are the only animals whose females have developed breasts even when they are not nursing. It's a breast, for God's sake. Get over it.
A porn star once said something very interesting. She had starred in a number of low budget slasher films in which women actors were slaughtered with knives and machetes, and she recalled a scene where a woman's breast had been cut off. I know, it's disgusting. But no one complained. Yet when she starred in an adult film and another actor kissed her breast, people who knew her were outraged. They thought she should seek treatment for her mental health.
I have come to the inescapable conclusion that society is nuts.
The Knockout Game
A woman is walking up the street when all of a sudden a young man - a total stranger - sneaks up behind her and punches her in the jaw, knocking her unconscious. She falls and her head smacks the concrete sidewalk. A teacher is walking along the street with his briefcase and passes a group of youths when one of them jumps out of the crowd and punches him in the face, knocking him out cold. He falls and his head hits the curb with a sickening thud. The youths walk away loudly laughing and complimenting the member of their group who threw the sucker punch.
Welcome to the Knockout Game. This a game practiced by mainly urban youth who randomly pick victims then blindside them with punches to the face. Winners are those who knock out the unsuspecting men, women and children they attack.
This is one case where you can only hope that an intended victim is someone with a concealed carry permit. You envision the man realizing what they plan to do, stepping back, withdrawing his weapon, and defending himself without compunction.
Anyone who could commit an attack like this is a subhuman, vicious, vile, disgusting excuse for a human being. The only redeeming factor is that one day these people may grow up and look back at what they did with a sense of self-loathing. That same person who attacked the woman or the teacher, may someday be a father, and when he looks into his baby's eyes, he will have to imagine that somebody could do to his precious and beloved child what he did to others.
At least one hopes these people are capable of developing a sense of empathy and conscience, but if you watch videos of this "game," you will surely wonder if there is any hope.
Welcome to the Knockout Game. This a game practiced by mainly urban youth who randomly pick victims then blindside them with punches to the face. Winners are those who knock out the unsuspecting men, women and children they attack.
This is one case where you can only hope that an intended victim is someone with a concealed carry permit. You envision the man realizing what they plan to do, stepping back, withdrawing his weapon, and defending himself without compunction.
Anyone who could commit an attack like this is a subhuman, vicious, vile, disgusting excuse for a human being. The only redeeming factor is that one day these people may grow up and look back at what they did with a sense of self-loathing. That same person who attacked the woman or the teacher, may someday be a father, and when he looks into his baby's eyes, he will have to imagine that somebody could do to his precious and beloved child what he did to others.
At least one hopes these people are capable of developing a sense of empathy and conscience, but if you watch videos of this "game," you will surely wonder if there is any hope.
February 24, 2014
Coke or Pepsi?
Coke or Pepsi?
by
Jim Power
Copyright 2013
Imagine the camera panning to a a small, single-engine plane burning in the desert. A man is lying a short distance away, blood on his forehead, and he suddenly awakens after being knocked unconscious in the crash. He runs to the plane, grabs a knapsack filled with water bottles then runs away as the plane explodes. He looks around and as far as the eye can see there is only desert.
The man begins walking and comes to a sign that indicates two outposts. An arrow points east and states: "50 miles" and an arrow points west and states: "100 miles." He begins walking east.
The camera shows the man walking with a hopeful step at first, but the sun is blistering hot, and he consumes his water at an alarming rate. He walks, and walks, and walks. Several times the camera shows the cooking sun in a clear sky. Eventually the man falls, but he gets up, walks more miles, falls again, and continues like this for some time. He drinks the last of his water and holds his final canteen upside down but not a single drop comes out.
The camera now shows the man mightily struggling. His face is sunburned, his clothes ragged, his lips parched. He falls, begins to crawl, and then seems to give up. He raises his head a final time with sand on his nose and sees in the distance what looks like the outpost. He fears it may be a mirage.
The man gets up and staggers with the last of his energy to a deserted building and tentatively reaches out to touch the wooden deck. He is shocked to feel real wood and knows it is not a mirage. He walks around the corner and sees a Coke machine. It is lit and and shows and the picture of an ice cold can on the front. He hurries up to it, hauls out his wallet with fumbling hands, withdraws some change, and inserts it. He presses the button and hears the sound of a can tumbling down the chute. He is in ecstasy now as he licks his cracked lips. But then he sees a can of ice cold Pepsi land in the slot. He looks devastated and turns to his left, noticing for the first time a sign that reads: "Sorry, the Coke is all sold out."
The scene ends with the man walking toward the outpost 150 miles away, his jacket thrown over his shoulder, and his head down. The can of Pepsi is still in the slot, untouched.
Coke or nothing. - Jim Power
by
Jim Power
Copyright 2013
Imagine the camera panning to a a small, single-engine plane burning in the desert. A man is lying a short distance away, blood on his forehead, and he suddenly awakens after being knocked unconscious in the crash. He runs to the plane, grabs a knapsack filled with water bottles then runs away as the plane explodes. He looks around and as far as the eye can see there is only desert.
The man begins walking and comes to a sign that indicates two outposts. An arrow points east and states: "50 miles" and an arrow points west and states: "100 miles." He begins walking east.
The camera shows the man walking with a hopeful step at first, but the sun is blistering hot, and he consumes his water at an alarming rate. He walks, and walks, and walks. Several times the camera shows the cooking sun in a clear sky. Eventually the man falls, but he gets up, walks more miles, falls again, and continues like this for some time. He drinks the last of his water and holds his final canteen upside down but not a single drop comes out.
The camera now shows the man mightily struggling. His face is sunburned, his clothes ragged, his lips parched. He falls, begins to crawl, and then seems to give up. He raises his head a final time with sand on his nose and sees in the distance what looks like the outpost. He fears it may be a mirage.
The man gets up and staggers with the last of his energy to a deserted building and tentatively reaches out to touch the wooden deck. He is shocked to feel real wood and knows it is not a mirage. He walks around the corner and sees a Coke machine. It is lit and and shows and the picture of an ice cold can on the front. He hurries up to it, hauls out his wallet with fumbling hands, withdraws some change, and inserts it. He presses the button and hears the sound of a can tumbling down the chute. He is in ecstasy now as he licks his cracked lips. But then he sees a can of ice cold Pepsi land in the slot. He looks devastated and turns to his left, noticing for the first time a sign that reads: "Sorry, the Coke is all sold out."
The scene ends with the man walking toward the outpost 150 miles away, his jacket thrown over his shoulder, and his head down. The can of Pepsi is still in the slot, untouched.
Coke or nothing. - Jim Power
February 21, 2014
Canadian women win hockey gold at Olympics
When the Canadian women won hockey gold at the 2014 Sochi Olympics, the nation lost its collective mind. Canadians coast to coast shut down work and school, legislators put business on the back burner, and the nation held its collective breath after responding to a 2-0 deficit with a mere 3:26 left in the third period. Then the country leapt when Marie-Philip Poulin scored in overtime.
Why the euphoria?
Hockey is Canada's national game, but it is also the soul of the nation. For a country of almost four million square miles, it is hard to feel connected to someone five time zones away. Hockey is the glue that unites kids on ponds in Newfoundland and seniors in rinks in Victoria. It is the country's history, its heritage, its one venture where it does not matter if you are French or English, man or woman, young or old.
The greatest beauty of this particular game - and it was one of the greatest games in hockey history - is that women took center stage. They were the stars, the bodies which exerted an irresistible gravitational pull. Women strive just like men, victories are enjoyed, losses endured. It is this element of the human spirit, the refusal to quit, the hope that all is not lost even in the darkest hour, that inspires all people, regardless of nationality or gender. It is our greatest gift as a species and win or lose, every woman on that ice, on both teams, is a champion for the ages.
Why the euphoria?
Hockey is Canada's national game, but it is also the soul of the nation. For a country of almost four million square miles, it is hard to feel connected to someone five time zones away. Hockey is the glue that unites kids on ponds in Newfoundland and seniors in rinks in Victoria. It is the country's history, its heritage, its one venture where it does not matter if you are French or English, man or woman, young or old.
The greatest beauty of this particular game - and it was one of the greatest games in hockey history - is that women took center stage. They were the stars, the bodies which exerted an irresistible gravitational pull. Women strive just like men, victories are enjoyed, losses endured. It is this element of the human spirit, the refusal to quit, the hope that all is not lost even in the darkest hour, that inspires all people, regardless of nationality or gender. It is our greatest gift as a species and win or lose, every woman on that ice, on both teams, is a champion for the ages.
Should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry?
Cases are now before the courts regarding whether siblings should be allowed to get married, including two brothers in Germany. Should the state allow such marriages; or, more precisely, should it prohibit them?
Fifty years ago interracial marriages were banned in 17 states. Several hundred years ago interracial marriages were unthinkable. Homosexuality was illegal in many American states and even today laws exist against gay sexual activity. But today interracial and homosexual marriages are increasingly common. The question is, why were they ever banned in the first place? Who gave a group of men the right to tell interracial couples and homosexual couples that their love was not valid and did not deserve to be recognized by the state? In some cases these men even treated fellow citizens as criminals if they fell in love with someone of the wrong color or gender.
Who gave any government the right to do this? Answer: nobody. Governments merely impose their morality on others. This totalitarianism often flows from religion. Christopher Hitchens said that religion poisons everything. I don't agree, as many great accomplishments and deeds have been inspired by religion. But religion does give tyrants the ability to demand compliance without relying on reason or even simple human decency.
Will the time come when adult brothers and sisters fight the same battle as previously fought by interracial and gay couples? And can they win? I don't know, but I do know that governments have no right to make moral laws. They should not order an adult citizen to refrain from drinking liquor or smoking pot, but they can prevent him from impaired driving. Only once he gets behind the wheel does he enter the government's jurisdiction.
Would I prevent an adult brother and sister from marrying? No. To me, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business alone, so long as they do not harm others. The pat argument used against brother/sister unions is that the children will be mentally or physically handicapped.
First of all, this can be a contradiction, as some couples would not be able to reproduce because of biological reasons, and therefore the argument is rendered impotent. Yet some people who oppose brother/sister marriages even if one of the partners was sterile. Secondly, I don't believe offspring would have an exceptional chance of being so-called 'inferior.' In the wild, many animals breed in such a way and produce perfectly healthy offspring. Cheetahs, for instance, have such a low genetic variability that they can no longer produce kittens without cross breeding. Deer, rabbits, and squirrels all breed in extremely or relatively confined ranges. Elk have herd bulls which produce the majority of young, and these young grow up to breed among themselves.
The other factor is that people with physical and mental disabilities, and people with hereditary diseases, are permitted to fall in love and reproduce in general society. If avoiding so-called 'inferior' offspring was the all-consuming goal, such as in animal husbandry, these people would be prohibited from reproducing, just as the Nazis attempted in the eugenics era.
Should the government prevent consenting adults who love each other from living together in wedlock? No, I believe interracial and gay couples should be allowed to love and marry. But what about you? What is your opinion? And can you express it entirely in logical, rational terms without relying on moral and religious outrage as a justification? Argue it with the mind, not the heart. See what you come up with.
Fifty years ago interracial marriages were banned in 17 states. Several hundred years ago interracial marriages were unthinkable. Homosexuality was illegal in many American states and even today laws exist against gay sexual activity. But today interracial and homosexual marriages are increasingly common. The question is, why were they ever banned in the first place? Who gave a group of men the right to tell interracial couples and homosexual couples that their love was not valid and did not deserve to be recognized by the state? In some cases these men even treated fellow citizens as criminals if they fell in love with someone of the wrong color or gender.
Who gave any government the right to do this? Answer: nobody. Governments merely impose their morality on others. This totalitarianism often flows from religion. Christopher Hitchens said that religion poisons everything. I don't agree, as many great accomplishments and deeds have been inspired by religion. But religion does give tyrants the ability to demand compliance without relying on reason or even simple human decency.
Will the time come when adult brothers and sisters fight the same battle as previously fought by interracial and gay couples? And can they win? I don't know, but I do know that governments have no right to make moral laws. They should not order an adult citizen to refrain from drinking liquor or smoking pot, but they can prevent him from impaired driving. Only once he gets behind the wheel does he enter the government's jurisdiction.
Would I prevent an adult brother and sister from marrying? No. To me, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business alone, so long as they do not harm others. The pat argument used against brother/sister unions is that the children will be mentally or physically handicapped.
First of all, this can be a contradiction, as some couples would not be able to reproduce because of biological reasons, and therefore the argument is rendered impotent. Yet some people who oppose brother/sister marriages even if one of the partners was sterile. Secondly, I don't believe offspring would have an exceptional chance of being so-called 'inferior.' In the wild, many animals breed in such a way and produce perfectly healthy offspring. Cheetahs, for instance, have such a low genetic variability that they can no longer produce kittens without cross breeding. Deer, rabbits, and squirrels all breed in extremely or relatively confined ranges. Elk have herd bulls which produce the majority of young, and these young grow up to breed among themselves.
The other factor is that people with physical and mental disabilities, and people with hereditary diseases, are permitted to fall in love and reproduce in general society. If avoiding so-called 'inferior' offspring was the all-consuming goal, such as in animal husbandry, these people would be prohibited from reproducing, just as the Nazis attempted in the eugenics era.
Should the government prevent consenting adults who love each other from living together in wedlock? No, I believe interracial and gay couples should be allowed to love and marry. But what about you? What is your opinion? And can you express it entirely in logical, rational terms without relying on moral and religious outrage as a justification? Argue it with the mind, not the heart. See what you come up with.
February 20, 2014
Infinity doesn't exist
There is no such thing as infinity. Time is not infinite, space is not infinite, nor are love, hate and numbers infinite. How do I know? A turtle told me.
Imagine outer space. You're flying in a rocket ship at dizzying speeds but at some point you reach the end of the universe. You crash into a wall behind which nothing exists, not even empty space.
Imagine a race of 110 yards between a hare and a turtle. The hare, knowing he is exponentially faster than the turtle, sits under a tree after the firing gun cracks, munches on a carrot, and has a snooze. When he wakes up, the turtle is at the one hundred yard mark with only ten yards to go, but the hare can run 35 mph and the turtle waddles about as quickly as paint dries.
The hare takes off in pursuit but can never catch the turtle, even if it takes the turtle a week to walk the final 10 yards. Why? Well, if infinity exists, the hare would forever cut the distance in half. He would reduce the 100-yard gain to 50 yards, then 25 yards, then 12.5 yards, then 6.25 yards. Forever and ever, if infinity exists, that number would be split in half, even though the number would become so long it would circle the earth a billion times to the billionth power, squared.
Infinity does not exist. Time and space are finite.
Imagine outer space. You're flying in a rocket ship at dizzying speeds but at some point you reach the end of the universe. You crash into a wall behind which nothing exists, not even empty space.
Imagine a race of 110 yards between a hare and a turtle. The hare, knowing he is exponentially faster than the turtle, sits under a tree after the firing gun cracks, munches on a carrot, and has a snooze. When he wakes up, the turtle is at the one hundred yard mark with only ten yards to go, but the hare can run 35 mph and the turtle waddles about as quickly as paint dries.
The hare takes off in pursuit but can never catch the turtle, even if it takes the turtle a week to walk the final 10 yards. Why? Well, if infinity exists, the hare would forever cut the distance in half. He would reduce the 100-yard gain to 50 yards, then 25 yards, then 12.5 yards, then 6.25 yards. Forever and ever, if infinity exists, that number would be split in half, even though the number would become so long it would circle the earth a billion times to the billionth power, squared.
Infinity does not exist. Time and space are finite.
February 18, 2014
Top 10 music favorites
What are your Top 10 music favorites? Here are mine:
10.) Bolero by Ravel;
9.) Carmina Burana by Orff;
8.) Vocalise by Sergei Rachmaninoff;
7.) Michael Jackson;
6.) Rihanna;
5.) Pink Floyd;
4.) Led Zeppelin;
3.) Donna Summer;
2.) Black Sabbath;
1.) The Doors.
10.) Bolero by Ravel;
9.) Carmina Burana by Orff;
8.) Vocalise by Sergei Rachmaninoff;
7.) Michael Jackson;
6.) Rihanna;
5.) Pink Floyd;
4.) Led Zeppelin;
3.) Donna Summer;
2.) Black Sabbath;
1.) The Doors.
Jim Power
I have always believed in free thought and free speech. You often hear the statement: "People are the same everywhere you go." I don't accept that. I think people are different everywhere you go.
None ...more
None ...more
- Jim Power's profile
- 48 followers
