Author Archives: nuge01

Drunk Driving Fatality Investigation: Search of suspects home yeilds treasure trove including RMV Drivers’ Manual, Gas Cans and Extra Vehicles.

Following a fatal crash on I-495 which left 4 people dead on Friday evening,  investigators have searched the home of the OUI suspect and found a startling cache of automotive literature and auto memorabilia. The suspect was driving a large capacity Cadillac Escalade when the crash occurred.

State Police found treasure trove including an  RMV Drivers’ Manual, 2 full five gasoline cans,  and 2 extra vehicles; including another high powered Ford SUV and Audi A8. The Audi is known to be able to exceed the national posted speed limits by as much as 100 mph.

Officer Krupky of the Framingham, MA State Police Barracks, told the AP that his department was  shocked to find a well worn copy of the RMV Driver’s guide as well and an old learner’s certificate. They also found a cache of scale model cars, and other memorabilia including a 4 barrel carburetor , a Hurst shifter knob, a steering device called a “suicide knob” (illegal in MA), and a books on car engines including one on the installation of a “nitro kit” which is known to be used in high speed racing. Also found were many models of Japanese “kits cars”.

One neighbor of the victims said, the very fact that both the Parents and their son the suspect were both certified by the RMV seems proof that the organization fails to apprise citizens of the full danger posed by automobiles; most particularly by high capacity SUVs with excessive horsepower.

An RMV spokesman said we are proud to offer driver safety and training materials and said further, “Although the driver clearly did receive a certificate showing they passed the RMV test; there was no connection to the RMV and the suspect was not an employee”. The RMV is following its longstanding policy of refusing to accept responsibility for motor vehicle related tragedies.

To learn more on the details of the shocking police findings go here.


Dr. Suess on Capitol Hill

I am Rand

I am Rand
Rand I am

That Rand-I-am
That Rand-I-am!
I do not like
those #StandwithRand(s)

Would you drone
your countrymen?

I do not drone them,
I do not drone
my countrymen.

Would you drone them
Here or there?

Okay maybe there
Not  likely here

Probably would not drone them here.
We would not drone just
I would not drone
my countrymen.
I would not drone them,

Would you drone them
in their house?
Would you drone them
with A MOUSE?

I do not drone them
in a house.
I do not drone them
with a mouse.
I’d might not drone them
here, but there…?
I do not drone just
I do not drone my countrymen.
I do not drone them, Rand-I-am.

Would you? Could you?
in a car?
Drone them? Drone them?
Here they are.

I probably would not ,
in a car,
unless that  car was very far

You may drone them.
You will see.
You may drone them locally.
Not locally.
I probably would not locally.
I can’t imagine! NOW let me be!

I would not drone them here, I swear.
We’ll probably stop at OVER THERE!

You will not drone them.
So you say.
Trust us! Trust us!
But you may.
If you really want to, you may I say.

If you don’t let me be,
I might just try it.
Wait and see. (Pushes button, whirring overhead.)

I like to drone my countrymen!
I do!! I’ll drone them, Rand-I-am!
And I would drone them in a boat!
Will drone all those who get my goat…
And I will drone them in RED STATES.
And in the dark. All those I HATE!!
In their cars. All those still FREE.
It’s just so fun and good you see!

So I will lock them in cell blocks.
And I will drone all those on FOX.
And I will drone them in THE HOUSE.
And I will drone them with a mouse.
Hope and Change drones here and there.
Say! I will drone them ANYWHERE!

I’d love to drone
my countrymen!
Thank you!
Thank you,

When Integrity meets Cognitive Dissonance – The intellectual transformation from left to right

Interesting article:  Why Do Some Liberals Become Conservatives? by Jean Kaufman; a favorite subject that I see explored often since 9-11; but I’m guessing (hoping really) there will be a big  wave after the age of Obama.

But although they may not be interested in change, change is interested in them.  It usually begins with something external, some new information encountered seemingly by accident, something that starts to bug the person because it contradicts or doesn’t fit easily into his or her pre-existing framework. It’s like a buzzing fly that won’t quit and can’t be ignored. It causes discomfort, a sense of unease, and the disequilibrium that comes from the dilemma known as cognitive dissonance.

It’s such an unpleasant experience that people are usually eager to resolve it. How they do that is one point at which changers split off from non-changers. The latter group, if faced with that very same information, might just swat that fly — that is, in their discomfort at the knowledge that seems incongruous with their previous beliefs, they would either discredit the new information, minimize it, rationalize it, or shut it out entirely, thus ending the discomfort and the dilemma.

But those who ultimately end up as changers can’t seem to put it away that easily. For them, something once seen cannot be unseen. Perhaps they have a different habit of mind to begin with, one more accustomed to challenging its own beliefs and assumptions, one more uncomfortable with contradictions.

I’ve often cited Owen Harries, “Primer for Polemicists” as explaining the mechanism, and the remote possibility of changing someones mind.

Rule 1: Forget about trying to convert your adversary. In any serious ideological confrontation the chances of success on this score are so remote as to exclude it as a rational objective. On the very rare occasions when it does happen, it will be because the person converted has already and independently come to harbour serious doubts and is teetering on the edge of ideological defection. This is due, more often than not, to some outrageous action by his own side or some shocking revelation: witness the effects on members of Communist parties in the West of the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 and the Khrushchev speech of 1956. Then, but only then, a particular argument or example may provide the catalyst to complete the process. When that happens it should be treated as the equivalent of winning a lottery – bearing in mind Lord Bryce’s remark (actually made when discussing American presidential elections) that success in a lottery is no excuse for lotteries.

This rule is important for two reasons: because beginners are likely to confuse polemical exchanges with genuine intellectual debate, in which persuading is a proper and sensible goal; and because, in the oddly symbiotic relationship that often develops in a prolonged polemic, even the experienced are susceptible of becoming fascinated by their adversaries.

However when you talk about the slow motion, steady drip conversion (no catalytic act or event); it relies on a Kaufman’s buzzing fly – the inability to dismiss cognitive dissonance via various defense mechanisms. I call this intellectual integrity.  

When a mother uses denial to deny her son is a murderer despite overwhelming evidence, one can understand the intense urgent and temporal psychic need which drives her denial.

In my opinion, when one can deploy all these defense mechanisms (avoidance being the most popular among liberals – as Klavan says “shut up!”) to shield one’s thinking from facts and the logical conclusions; over many years, it reflects dishonesty and “lack of integrity”. I don’t mean them as goddamn lying liars who lie (though they swarm in the professional liberal class).

Cognitive Dissonance is fundamentally the psychic pain caused what you feel or want to think by not being integrated with what you know. The pain caused by this dissonance has to exceed the fear of relinquishing prior beliefs which are held dear. 

I think it’s akin to rock bottom in alcoholics. Once you hit yours, its amazing how the floodgates open and you start to see past beliefs (and attendant behaviors) as insane. Why a Horowitz or a Mamet or a NeoNeocon end up as the most zealous proponents of challenging the insanity.

Real pain to real people !!

I went in for my annual review last week and my boss had some pretty bad news. It turns out finance ran the year-end numbers and it showed my company was at all not profitable last year and in fact in Q4 we were actually losing money.

 Also, he felt specifically that I had not made any improvements whatsoever; and it seems likely that some of my decisions in 2012 had actually hurt the bottom line performance, so I would have to take a hit. Despite my producing exactly the same poor results as in 2011, he would keep me on but they were NOT going to give me my full scheduled annual increase.

 So rather than the 4.85% increase I was counting on, I’m only getting 2.85% percent increase this year. This is going to cause some real pain in my household. I’m trying as best I can to figure out how to handle this, but it’s going to have a real effect on my family.

 I’ve gone through our budget and it turns out we spend a lot of money on:

  • Groceries
  • Heating Oil
  • Electricity
  • Mortgage
  • Clothes for the family.
  • Credit Card Debt for those items we really want but cannot afford via cash flow.
  • Beer (Imports, Micro Ales & IPAs, not that domestic swill) and Wine (Oregon Pinots maybe, but otherwise French)  
  • Dinners with friends at our fine local restaurants
  • Drinks with friends after dinner
  • Weekly Take-out charges for the kids while we dine out
  • Vacation in Wellfleet or the Vineyard on the good years.
  • Summer Camps
  • Music Lessons for the kids
  • Music purchases from Amazon and iTunes
  • Lastest iPhones and bigger screen HDTV to handle new high definition FiOS
  • Premium Cable TV with all the Movie & Sports channels, Movies on demand if we miss them while out.

So after I prioritized, and made some tough calls, I decided to go back to my boss and ask him to reconsider.

I told him that while I realize I had wasted a lot of company money with weekly “team building” meals, all new laptops to replace the ones we bought in 2010, that booze-fueled off-site in Vegas, and still did not produce much this past year; if I could NOT have a 4.85% increase, I would not be able to feed my children.

I’m hoping he listens to reason. So, I’ve told everyone in the office who would listen about the situation and they really agree that he’s being an evil dick for making my kids starve, sitting in the dark in their underwear in an unheated house.

>>>>>>>What an *hole!<<<<<<<<<


McCarthyism cries the NYTimes

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

TED CRUZ lands repeated blows unblocked by moderately compelling rebuttals from Hagel. This would be comical if it were not sad that so many “educated” readers will not recognize what a fully contrived narrative. Behold the audacity and hypocrisy of those making the ludicrous analogy.

I wonder if accused pederast Senator Harry Reid (Google it) thinks about this travesty.


Hillary lying about lying. “some guys out for a walk deciding to kill Americans.” Disgusting.

She might just as well have said, “What Difference does it make, we won, you lost, now shut up.”

#1 – She’s arguing like a child.

#2 She understands quite clearly that folks are NOT trying to determine why the terrorists acted that night, but why the Obama team lied and mislead for so many weeks when they knew the truth all along.

And so with lots of sound and fury she poses the question, “What difference does it make now why they did what they did that night?”

If you’ve been dummed down far enough, it’s a great answer.

Update: WORD FOR THE DAY – Autostupification

Which brings me to the point of this post. Apparently the indignation at Clinton’s call to auto-stupefaction and the analytic dissection of the folly behind the remarks took place largely “on the right,” while, in the mainstream media, Clinton’s remarks were greeted with great admiration. “Good for Hillary,” she showed those guys on Capitol Hill a thing or two.

Dehumanizing the enemy

..via Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR
Fun ironic essay.
Not so funny essay on current events/media/collectivist tactics.

“Instead of commanding firing squads, they play mind games of manipulative illusions, in which the demonization of dissent plays a crucial role. The basic premise hasn’t changed: as much as the statists want you to love them, they want you to hate their opponents even more.”

“Maintain the perception of being constantly under attack.  Don’t examine the opponents’ beliefs, nor answer their arguments.  Discredit any media channels that offer them a platform.  Enforce the following media template: the opposition is evil, treasonous, unfathomable, and psychotic.  They can’t be reasoned with.  They are inspired by fascism and financed by a conspiracy of shady oligarchs.  Defame their donors.  Whatever the mischief you’re planning to pull off, accuse them of doing it first; then proceed as planned, describing your actions as a necessary intervention.  And ridicule, ridicule, ridicule!

This is what made it easy for Stalin to purge his opponents: by the time he charged them with treason, the orchestrated media coverage had already made them universally hated…” 

“Their young audiences, deprived of adequate education and learning about history and current events from Hollywood movies and TV shows, will not recognize the symptoms of an encroaching totalitarianism either.  Upon hearing a dissenter who disparages the benevolent guidance of the state, they will immediately recognize a stereotype that is being relentlessly demonized and dehumanized on their screens: the ignorant, close-minded, right-wing nut job.  Chances are they will smugly ridicule him with the jokes they heard from their favorite media personalities.  In another generation, they may as well feel morally obligated to report the dissenter to the authorities — and be thrilled at the chance to partake in the historic mission of crushing the remnants of the evil reactionaries, even if they happen to be their parents.”

 Oleg is the creator of a satirical website,