http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/ Sanity is for the Weak! en Copyright 2010 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:23:36 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss This basically says it all... ]]>http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2010/04/the_economy_according_maxine.htmlhttp://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2010/04/the_economy_according_maxine.htmlThu, 29 Apr 2010 19:23:36 -0800

You will never look at Monopoly the same again! Beginning in 1941, an increasing number of British Airmen were becoming involuntary guests of the Third Reich. The Crown was casting about for ways and means to facilitate their escape. Obviously, one of the most helpful aids to an escape would be a useful and accurate map, one showing the locations of 'safe houses' where a POW on-the-lam could go for food and shelter. Paper maps had some real drawbacks: They make a lot of noise when opened and folded, they wear out rapidly, and if they get wet, they become useless. Someone in MI-5 (similar to America's OSS ) got the idea of printing escape maps on silk. It's durable, can be scrunched-up into tiny wads, and unfolded as many times as needed, and makes no noise whatsoever. At that time, there was only one manufacturer in Great Britain that had perfected the technology of printing on silk, and that was John Waddington, Ltd. When approached by the government, the firm was only too happy to do its bit for the war effort.

By pure coincidence, Waddington was also the U.K. Licensee for the popular American board game, Monopoly. As it happened, 'games and pastimes' was a category of item qualified for insertion into 'CARE packages', dispatched by the International Red Cross to prisoners of war. Under the strictest of secrecy, in a securely guarded and inaccessible old workshop on the grounds of Waddington's, a group of sworn-to-secrecy employees began mass-producing escape maps, keyed to each region of Germany or Italy where Allied POW camps were located. When processed, these maps could be folded into such tiny dots that they would actually fit inside a Monopoly playing piece. As long as they were at it, the clever workmen at Waddington's also managed to add: 1. A playing token, containing a small magnetic compass 2. A two-part metal file that could easily be screwed together 3. Useful amounts of genuine high-denomination German, Italian, and French currency, hidden within the piles of Monopoly money! British and American air crews were advised, before taking off on their first mission, how to identify a 'rigged' Monopoly set -- by means of a tiny red dot, one cleverly rigged to look like an ordinary printing glitch, located in the corner of the Free Parking square. Of the estimated 35,000 Allied POWS who successfully escaped, an estimated one-third were aided in their flight by the rigged Monopoly sets.. Everyone who did so was sworn to secrecy indefinitely, since the British Government might want to use this highly successful ruse in still another, future war. The story wasn't declassified until 2007, when the surviving craftsmen from Waddington's, as well as the firm itself, were finally honored in a public ceremony. It's always nice when you can play that 'Get Out of Jail' Free' card! ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2010/04/world_war_ii_and_the_game_of_m.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2010/04/world_war_ii_and_the_game_of_m.html Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:23:15 -0800 Time for the Nut Case Doctor to get back into gear. My kids often called me a nut case when they were growing up...guess they were correct. Check back. No more sleeping at the switch. ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2010/04/have_i_been_asleep_at_the_swit.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2010/04/have_i_been_asleep_at_the_swit.html Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:35:22 -0800 ....at least that is the question which seems to be occupying Western Europe these days with the prevailing opinion on the "sit" side of the equation. You fellas ever had that option suggested at your house? Have you been told it is better? I used to tell my sons to sit. But au contraire, here is an article illustrating Why A Man Should Stand To Pee. Read it and weep, thou "sit" proponents. ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/12/to_sit_or_not_to_sit_that_is_t.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/12/to_sit_or_not_to_sit_that_is_t.html Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:47:52 -0800 I have reprinted a copy of an article by Dr. David Michael Green, Professor of Political Science at Hofstra University in New York. This article was first published in progressive OpEdNew.com on December 19, 2009. The original article is found here and is titled: Now I'm Really Getting Pissed Off. The very long article is copied here for your ease, but the original can be found at the link above. Dr. Green: "Hey did you hear about the iconic African-American guy who plays golf, and whose relationship with the public is in a free-fall lately? No, as a matter of fact – I’m not talking about Tiger Woods. You know, I’ve really been trying not to write an article every other week about all the things I don’t like about Barack Obama. But the little prick is making it very hard. Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage. How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage. Did this clown really say on national television that “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street”?!?! Really, Barack? So, like, my question is: Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?!?! Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government? Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing? Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now? Are you freakin’ kidding me??? What’s up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don’t actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter… But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don’t really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that. Are you going to tell us that “I did not run for office to be shovel-feeding the military-industrial complex”? But what – they’re just so darned pushy? “…I did not run for office to continue George Bush’s valiant effort at shredding the Bill of Rights. It’s just that those government-limiting rules are so darned pesky.” “…I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the coffers of health insurance companies. It’s just that they asked so nicely.” “…I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I just never got around to doing anything about it.” “…I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just didn’t want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more troops.” Here’s a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he’s turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He’s being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He’s being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy. And he doesn’t even seem to realize it. Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself “a good solid B+” for his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his healthcare legislation passed? Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya? I am seriously beginning to worry that this cat is delusional. He has lopped off twenty full points from his job approval rating in less than a year’s time, falling now below fifty percent. His party, once dominant in generic congressional election poll questions, is today almost even with hated Republicans in the public mind. Last month, Obama’s inverted coattails (don’t even ask where those go) got two Democrats clobbered running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The otherwise obnoxious George F. Will (very) rightly points out that in Kentucky, “a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12 points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington”. Wow. Obama is now wrecking state senate races! What’s next? Will local Republican candidates for sheriff win office just by opposing the embarrassment in the White House who chooses abysmal policies and then refuses to fight for them, lest he should ruffle any feathers? “For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart in a recent AP article. "What we don’t know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?” Au contraire, Peter. Au contraire. I think anyone more sentient than a newborn amoeba can answer that question. The first thing to note is that the economy is not coming back anytime soon, if it comes back at all. Unless, of course, you’re a fat cat Wall Street banker. Then you’re just fine, because the Bush-Obama administration took care of you quite nicely, thanks very much. The rest of us poor slobs out here in real-world land, on the other hand, got a “jobs summit”. I can’t even begin to describe how insulting Obama conducting a “jobs summit” is to me, or what an unbelievably ham-fisted piece of public relations that was for the White House, which is increasingly showing itself not just to be sickeningly regressive, but also fully inept. I think I speak for a whole lot of Americans when I say that, one year into his stewardship over a destroyed economy that was actually atomizing for at least six months before inauguration day, I don’t want my president sitting around a table, running a dog-and-pony show, pretending to kick around ideas on how to generate jobs. I wanted him to have those ideas, himself, before he was inaugurated. I wanted those to be real ideas, that produce real jobs for real Americans who are really hurting. I wanted that to be, and still be, the be-all and end-all of his presidency, not some distant fourth-place priority, behind healthcare and the White House dog selection process. And, especially not some fourth-place priority behind jive healthcare reform. Which brings us to the second answer to Mr. Hart’s question. If Democrats think they’ll be screwed next November because of unemployment, wait till Congress passes this healthcare monstrosity. Or doesn’t. At this point, either way they’re gonna get slammed for it, and rightly so. If they don’t pass anything, they will be seen as unable to govern. This perception will be quite true because they will have failed to pass a major piece of legislation, despite having 60-40 majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the presidency. It doesn’t get much better than that for a governing party in the American system. But it will be true in an even more profound sense, because the whole priority structure of the Democratic agenda is wrong. Sure, people want healthcare reform right now (especially if it were to miraculously also have the virtue of being authentic healthcare reform), but what they really want, overwhelmingly, is jobs. This choice of priorities is the equivalent of, say, invading Iraq when you’ve been attacked by people in Afghanistan. Surely no president would be that stupid, right? Surely any political party would realize the costs of having priorities so divorced from those of the voters, right? On the other hand, the Democrats and their hapless president are probably in worse shape if they actually pass this legislation. Especially now that it’s been stripped of nearly every real progressive reform imaginable, it has become an incredibly stupid bill, from the political perspective. It will force people who can’t afford it to spend a giant amount of money on lousy insurance, without any real choice to hold down costs, and it will fund this by hacking away at the Medicare budget. No wonder an insurance industry lobbyist broadcast an email last week declaring: “We WIN. Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.” But here’s a little riddle that any sixth-grader can easily figure out, although it seems to have eluded the brain trust at the White House: If insurance companies are winning big-time, then who is doing the losing? Something tells me that if Democrats are dumb enough to pass their own legislation, voters will provide them the answer to that puzzle in November of 2010, and then again two years later. What could be stupider than saddling thirty-five million Americans with a new monthly bill that will probably represent the second or third biggest item in their budget, in exchange for crappy private sector health insurance that is unlikely to pay out when needed, and wastes a third of the dollars paid in premiums on bureaucracy and profits anyhow? Slapping big fines on them if they don’t pony up for the insurance, perhaps? Yep, that’s in there too. This bill alone could mobilize legions of people to go to the polls and vote for whichever party didn’t do it, and I’m pretty sure the GOP won’t be shy about reminding Americans who that is. I mean, if Democrats were searching for legislation less likely to win them votes, why didn’t they just bring back slavery or the debtor’s prison? Why not come out for pedophilia? It would have been so much more efficient. At least they wouldn’t have spent the last year looking like idiotic bunglers who, in addition to sponsoring really unpopular ideas, also inadvertently left their testicles at the coat check and have spent the last thirty years trying to find their way back to the gala. Ah, but wait! If you order now, there’s more! As I understand it, the bill doesn’t even actually force insurance companies to cover people, at least in the sense that they can charge prohibitive amounts to those with whatever they define as pre-existing conditions. You know, like the young woman who had a policy but died when she was denied cancer treatment because she had a bad case of acne as a teenager. This will be a total train wreck for the Democratic Party. Already, the public opposes the plan by a ratio of 47 to 32 percent. And they haven’t even been handed the bill for it yet. And they haven’t even had their premiums skyrocket yet. And they haven’t even seen insurance corporation executives buy small countries for use as second homes with the increased compensation they will be floating in. And they haven’t even found out what this does to their Medicare yet. And they haven’t even seen the impact on the national debt yet. And they haven’t even realized that the ‘good’ parts of the bill don’t go into effect until FOUR YEARS from now. You know, elite Republicans may be sociopaths, and they may be lower on the moral totem pole than your basic cannibal, but they’re not stupid. I bet they’re salivating at the idea that this thing passes. I bet they’d even have Olympia Snowe vote for it if necessary, just to put it over the top. They must be laughing their asses off at this gift. All they have to do is oppose it right down the line, then say “Told ya so!” at the next election, squashing the pathetic Demognats, one after the next. Hey, even if worse comes to worse and the thing eventually becomes popular, they can always wait a decade or two and become champions of the new publically beloved healthcare system – just like they did for Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, etc. This is President Nothingburger’s great gift to America, along with doing nothing about jobs, doing nothing about the Middle East, nothing about civil liberties, nothing about civil rights, and now doing nothing at Copenhagen. Regarding the latter, the world is literally on fire, and he jets in, gives a speech haranguing the delegates that “Now is not the time for talk, now is the time for action”, then splits even before the vote in order to beat the snowstorm headed to the east coast that might delay him getting home to his comfy bed. I’m not kidding. You can’t make this shit up, man. This guy is killing me, though at the same time I still can’t quite figure him out. Here’s what I get: This president is a corporate hack. Like Bush or Clinton, he has constituents, alright – but you and I are not on that particular list. Here’s what I don’t get: He is radically tanking, at a moment when people no longer have patience for those kind of politics anymore. Here’s what I get: This president has his fingers in many pies, as he needs to, ranging from global warming to economic implosion to two wars abroad to massive federal debt. Here’s what I don’t get: Why does he bother to do these things in a way that pleases no one, and only dramatically undercuts his own political standing? Why does he refuse to make anyone his enemy, thus making everyone his enemy? Is he just massively deluded? I wouldn’t have thought so, but watching the guy give himself a very good grade for 2009 – straight face and all – during the same year he’s lost twenty points off his job approval rating, and at a moment when even blacks and gays are deserting him, you know, you have to wonder. Is he happy just to be a one-term president – just to say he’s been there and done that, and then sell some more books – even if he is reviled as one of the worst in history? Maybe. But what about the rest of us? The rest of us, indeed. It’s been quite some time since anyone in the White House ever cared about that sorry pack of rabble. Obama looked like he could’ve been something different. He ain’t. So this is it, folks. Change you can believe in? More like bullshit you can take a bath in, if you ask me.” ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/12/even_the_liberals_are_sick_of_1.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/12/even_the_liberals_are_sick_of_1.html Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:08:03 -0800 I need to apologize to my Democrat friends (all three of them) over my last post about the Democrats just wanting power to control. In fairness.....so do the Republicans. Politics seemed to attract the Obsessive-Compulsive Control Freaks of the world. Not all, of course, just 90% have serious control issues. The other 90% are money hungry. (Does that equal 100%? According to Yogi Berra it would!) Countless of them have the Napoleonic God Complex.]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/12/apologies_to_my_democrat_frien.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/12/apologies_to_my_democrat_frien.html Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:16:20 -0800 Did you ever notice that Windows based computers and the Democratic Party mentalities are rather similar? Seriously! Admittedly I have not yet checked out Windows 7, but every other Windows box I have owned tends to believe I am too stupid to take care of myself. Without asking, Windows downloads updates, runs my security checks, arranges interactions between programs, etc ad nauseam. The only thing it asks is when it crashes, do I want to send notice to Windows? The Democratic Party, particularly the current flavor of President Obama, wants to take care of us by controlling the health care system, controlling the banking system, controlling major corporations including automobile companies, etc ad nauseam. When they crash, they blame it on the past Republican president. The real issue with both Windows and the Democrats is power. They want to control what we do and how we do it. Thank goodness for my Apple computer! ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/11/pc_computers_and_the_democrati.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/11/pc_computers_and_the_democrati.html Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:00:00 -0800 Guess again if you think President Barack Obama is simply brilliant and smooth and highly intellectual. Not so my fine feathered friend. Check out the Barack Obama: Gaffe machine. By the way...did you ever wonder why Obama needs a teleprompter to get through....any speech where he will have to stay on track? Cassy Fiano has some Smokin' Hot Commentary. which illustrates some pre-election examples. ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/11/barack_obama_gaffe_master_1.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/11/barack_obama_gaffe_master_1.html Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:59:12 -0800 If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is? If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? So, tell me again, what is it about President Barack Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Never fear my friend, you have three years and three months to come up with an answer. ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/11/if_george_bush_had_done_this.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/11/if_george_bush_had_done_this.html Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:39:22 -0800 Can you believe how much social life support First Lady Michelle Obama needs? The Obama's love to spend your tax money. From trillions in the supposedly beneficial bail-out to $1.5+ million for Ms. Obama's social needs. It is as if they want to break you, taxpayer, and this country. There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense. Hillary Clinton only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket. Michelle Obama's social spending of your tax money: 1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C . (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady) 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary) 4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady) 5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady) 13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Dir ector of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady) 16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady) 17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) This does not include the occasion specific contractors. Total: $1,591,200 Worst of all: You and I have NO control to stop the bleeding.]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/how_is_your_social_calendar_th.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/how_is_your_social_calendar_th.html Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:14:18 -0800 The government wants to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he does not understand it, passed by a Congress that has not read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also has not read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke. Anyone See A Problem Here? ]]>http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/let_understand_this_correctly.htmlhttp://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/let_understand_this_correctly.htmlThu, 22 Oct 2009 09:39:45 -0800

Curtis & Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily News Newspaper in Starkville, MS. and bought a mule for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day. The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night.." Curtis & Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back." The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already." They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule." The farmer asked, "What in the world ya'll gonna do with a dead mule?" Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off." The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!" Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don't hafta tell nobody he's dead!" A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis & Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked. "What'd you fellers ever do with that dead mule?" They said,"We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do." Leroy said,"Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898." The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?" Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back." Curtis and Leroy now work for the government. They're overseeing the Bailout Program.

]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/curtis_and_leroy_1.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/curtis_and_leroy_1.html Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:06:09 -0800 Have you seen the claims alleging Snopes.com is biased and extremely liberal and slanting information. Perhaps you have seen the claims that Snopes.com is a mom and pops operation by a couple in San Fernando Valley, CA? FactCheck.org basically debunks these claims and indicated Snopes is basically legitimate, although they also agree you should never completely believe anything you read on the internet including, as they say, even what is written on FackCheck.org without checking the research yourself. All of this has gotten me to thinking: Finding the “truth” is an interesting subject. Here is my take. To begin with, I am reminded of one of the early lines in the movie Braveheart with Mel Gibson: “History is written by liars.” Being a psychologist I have often thought about what is truth. I believe history is written by liars, whether the person knows it is a lie or not. If there is absolute true in any piece of history, it is only there by pure accident. Generally, a statement put forth to be “historical fact” is, in reality. a mixture of truth and fiction. And, by the way, EVERY piece of information you have learned is “history!” The information may have only occurred a minute ago or even a brief second ago. But when you find out about it, the information or situation is over. It is history! It is past! Everything you know or learn is history. When I was in elementary school we always had a section of class called “Current Events” and the teacher talked about the news for the day. But in truth, the events were not current. They were history. The class should have been called “Historical Events” or (to make people happy) “Recent Historical Events.” OK, armed with this information (whether you believe it or not), let us move on. How can I say all people who write/provide history are liars, you ask? The answer is simple, cowboy. Stick with me. I believe there are basically three types of reporters of “truth,” AKA “history writers.” First, is the person who is obviously fabricating or telling bald face lie in order to achieve some personal goal. Lying is intentional and calculated. Sounds like many politicians we all know. Second, is the person who tries to tell the “facts” of an event or situation, but has a personal, political, religious, philosophical, etc bias which slants the telling into a partially correct statement. Likely this person truly believes his or her version of the facts is correct. There is no intentional fabrication. Sounds like many media outlets we know. Third, is the person who honestly attempts to convey the “facts” of an event or situation in the best, most honest manner possible. The problem here is that the person almost always does not know the entire situation or event. The person knows only a portion and it is upon that portion the person bases his or her statement of the “facts.” Another problem here is that of individual perception. Each of us, based upon our own life experience and beliefs tend to interpret information differently. Eyewitness testimony in court is a good example. You can have an auto crash observed by five different people and the testimony each person gives in court will be somewhat (and maybe largely) different. Are the witnesses “lying” according to how the court views it? No, each witness is doing his or her best. But the historical event “auto crash” is told in differing stories and the court is supposed to figure out the truth. If each witness was telling the exact truth, there would be nothing to figure out. So, in a sense, each witness has told a lie…if only a partial, unintentional lie. Speaking of court testimony, in my work I am often called upon to testify in court. As we all know, before I (or anyone) gets up to testify I have to raise my right hand and I am asked: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” (Or some similar version depending upon the jurisdiction.) And I (or the potential witness) have to answer in the affirmative. Promising to tell the “whole truth” is a lie in itself. Almost no one knows the whole truth. The person knows their perception of what was seen and the person believes it to be the whole truth. In reality, it is only what the person saw or heard or read or deduced or examined or however else the person arrived at some information. The truth is: We do not know whole truth! We know some stuff related to the subject and maybe we know a lot of stuff related to the subject (like a world class expert), but we do not know all the truth…..and, sadly, likely we never will know “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Even world class experts who do research on a given subject change their opinion or statement of “the truth” from time to time. Now if you want to be argumentative we could discuss religion, philosophy, research experts, a person’s own life experience, and so on. While those are all useful, when it is all said and done you still do not know the “whole truth.” What you know is that piece of the truth that is important to you, that fits your perception, that helps you feel comfortable and safe with yourself and with what surrounds you. In my opinion, the only way to know “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is to get information from someone who actually does know everything. Have you conversed with God lately or spoke with some wise extraterrestrial passing through your town? ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/the_truth_the_whole_truth_and.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/10/the_truth_the_whole_truth_and.html Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:39:17 -0800 Is Love Real or is it a Hollywood Fantasy? In my opinion, in a serious relationship between a man and a woman it works like this (simplistically stated). The woman wants security and money. The man wants fun and sex. If the security and the fun in the relationship grow and wax strong, then love develops a strong bond between the partners. Money and sex are insufficient to maintain a strong, positive relationship for an enduring amount of time. Admittedly there is a cross-over of wants between the woman and the man. Before you call me crass and narrow minded, let me offer some additional thoughts. Security equals: Fidelity, emotional support, kindness, encouragement, strong shoulder to cry upon, persistence regardless of problems, patience, freedom to be herself, and the knowledge that he will be there for her whenever she needs. In essence, she does not need to worry about his attitude or behavior with her. Money equals: Financial support for her and children, bills paid, home and with pleasant decorations, transportation, food, shopping (a lady friend of mine said she likes "extreme sports" like "compulsive shopping") :-), entertaining with friends, and recreational opportunities. Fun equals: Laughing, joking, teasing (properly), goofing off, ignoring social rules occasionally, acting like a kid (as if men ever grow out of being a kid), spontaneous actions, and doing something with no other purpose than to feel good and be happy. Sex equals: Need I describe the basis in detail??? But also, a message of commitment (and if connected with fidelity the message goes both ways). Also fun, tenderness, intimacy, romance (the best romance some males can do is sex), emotional comfort, and peacefulness. If a couple lives many years with this type of relationship which develops into true love, ultimately the relationship will become more bonded in an etherial manner. A caring which one cannot describe with words. And I do not care what you choose to believe, no relationship begins with this etherial bonding...no matter how strong you feel in the beginning, no matter your culture, your personality, your religion, your political beliefs, your philosophical opinions, your hopes and dreams. ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/09/docs_take_on_love.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/09/docs_take_on_love.html Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:09:27 -0800 This is how the psychotic doc's mind runs: What does James Bond have in common with Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania? Perhaps not much in reality, but it struck me interesting in several of the James Bond books/movies the apolitical criminal organization intent upon controlling the whole world was SPECTRE, which stood for: SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. Switch hitter, Senator Specter (switching from the Democratic Party to the Republican and back again) has an eerily sounding name. Humm....One Wonders.... (Our new president wants to control the world.) ]]> http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/09/senator_specter_and_james_bond.html http://www.psychoticdoctor.com/blog/2009/09/senator_specter_and_james_bond.html Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:59:50 -0800