(below) actually mean? This is the standard of definitive news reporting, in the English language, in New Zealand today:

“Over the past three decades alone, the Navy’s fleet has shrunk from almost 600 ships to 308 today. It included nearly 1200 aircraft and more than 130,000 sailors and civilians.”

And then—

“While the US Navy’s operations overseas are growing considerably, it has been forced to navigate through some serious accidents while showing brute force to its enemies.”

—which is brilliantly ‘poetic’ and ‘clever’ … but is it accurate? (Clue: does the US’s navy actually have any enemies?)

“Mr Argus, Sir~”

Oh no …

“Yes, Little Ollivia?”

“Are you nit-picking again, Sir?”

“Wars have been started through miscommunications, Missy. No.”

But don’t fret. The laws for The Draft are, I understand, still in place although in abeyance and in The Land Of The Free they can be invoked with a stroke of a pen at any time.

There, problem solved. And if the gobs are disgruntled—

“Mr Argus, Sir~”

“Yes, Little Ollivia?”

… … … I don’t like you, Sir …”

“I don’t like meself sometimes, Kiddo …”


Jolly chappies

“Don’t listen to ’em, Don … ya doin’ just great!”

—shackle the ungrateful little snowflakes to their oars~! Bring back the cat, I say! Keelhaul the bastards! Or even better … set up a few Commissions of Enquiry.


Problem solved. (If it actually is a problem, and not just some disgusting little oik reporter out to make a name for herself.)


The above quotes from:  CLICK HERE




Screen Shot 2017-11-26 at 09.17.55.png

Regardless, I for one am a bit impressed …

17 thoughts on “WHAT THE HELL

  1. Thanks for being impressed. You take enough money from the citizens, from whatever they have or need, and you wreck the economy for all but the wealthiest and you also can have the world’s largest military force. There have been a series of accidents that the brass and the consultants totally blame on not enough money yet. See they have had to live with in the budget as have the civilian support safety nets due to sequestration. That was the law passed by the republicans that said if the budget doesn’t shrink than mandatory cuts will happen to both the military and the civilian side. Yet the republicans keep trying to increase the money to the precious military and defence contractors by taking even more from the civilian protections. Seems the poor largest military can’t , just can’t do with less, so we have to have accidents to insure we get congress to vote us more than the 50 billion already slated for an increase in this budget alone.
    Sad generals and admirals, paling with the big defence corporations can’t be so sweet on this budget. Be sides they already screwed the service members over so they can’t take from them. The only solution is to do away with food for the poor, assistance for the poor, heat for the poor, schooling for the poor, and so on… so the wealthy can keep getting wealthy and the military can get more shiny things.

    In case you think I am anti-military , I am not . I served two tours. One Navy, one Army. I just know unneeded bloat, graft, and self serving when I see it. Hugs.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve often wondered why people who vote always (mostly always) simply accept what they get rather than sue for misreprentation~?

      I New Zealand we have the ‘truth in advertising’ laws. But as far as I know they don’t apply to political advertising …

      There’s a demented nutcase in NZ who keeps whimpering online about how the Great Unwashed should actually have the power to counter anything emanating from Parliament (given enough popular support). No, it’s not me—I’d post links to her broadsides but she’s even more longwinded than moi.

      And as long as you have—anywhere—in a ‘democracy’ greater numbers of folks who simply can’t think rationally, you have what you get.
      To change it?* You’d have to start with the very young and teach ’em to think … (yeah, I know … yada yada yada yada and ol’ Argus is off again)

      * You wish …

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Argus, it was not a majority that put tRumpsky in office. It was the minority and he lost the popular vote. The stupid electoral college that should have been done away with years ago screwed us. It is about 32 % who are die hard support tRumpsky no matter what.

        The great news is we finally have a ground swell movement and young excited people getting involved and fighting for the changes we need. Yes wish they had gotten involved earlier but the chance is there for 2018. I will take it. IF you are drowning you don’t get choosy about the color of the rope that someone throws you. Again how do you suggest getting to the children to teach them to think before the parents close their minds. Hugs


      2. Scottie;
        if people could think qua think they wouldn’t vote at all (nobody worth voting for).
        But they vote along indoctrinal lines, regardless. In NZ the Labour Party (or the National Party) could field a camel and staunch Labourites/Nationalites would vote for it (in fact, they do …). I don’t think reality comes into it.

        You can’t get to the kids before their parents (mostly). But even retrospectively you can teach them to think, by providing the tools and the methods.

        As the Jesuits bragged, words to the effect of “Whoever gets there firstest with the mostest, wins”. True.
        But it shouldn’t be made easy for them by withholding the Tools of Thought. As much as I’m often against compulsion, those Tools should be made compulsory across the board.
        Nobody should be compelled what to believe, but all should be compelled to master the Tools of Rational thinking.

        So for starters politicians at least should be forced to make good on their promises—OR do lengthy gaol time (and not in a Gentleman’s prison).
        It’s called responsibility …

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Hey, not sure if linking to a twitter thread works, but as you’re keen on the pyramids, have a read of this

        Liked by 1 person

      2. JZ:

        I understand it’s obligatory these days so let’s get it over with:

        shit, fuck, fuck fuck fucketty fuck fuck

        —and then on with the discussion. As you can see from the line above, the link did work. Boom boom!

        Thank heavens I don’t go along with the Space Aliens ideas, or even the common perceptions of ‘Atlantis’; and I understand the wee fellow’s frustrations—I get a bit that way myself when I try to relate ‘explanations’ with blatant physical facts …


  2. I have a science question. I just heard a person say that science is not conclusive by consensus. However I think in a way it is proven / settled / a fact by consensus. If 98% of scientist in a field of study say the data represents X, and 2% of scientist ( some who many not even be in that field ) say no it means B or N. I think we can say it is agreed on that it is X.

    I say this because it is now the go to argument in states that climate change is not settled science, and that evolution is disputed and has huge errors / problems. Yet just last night I was listening to Richard Dawkins and he saying that we need to start using the word fact. Evolution is a fact. He says theory confuses people. The science behind each of these subjects are well documented, the data clear, and we need to accept it. That is not to say a person who thinks they have a better idea can’t explore it. Do you think a conclusion by a large majority should be rendered invalid because a small minority doesn’t accept it without viable alternative evidence or data? Be well. Hugs


    1. You might like the post I scribbled last night and launched this morning, Scottie:


      As for the validity of science—if science says it is so, then it is so, no?

      Or is it ‘so’ until someone comes along with a better (?) notion and we all (mostly all) switch over to the new notion and yesterday’s ‘science’ is relegated to the ho-ho bin?

      Hell — I remember that until fairly recently a noted scientist declared outright that rockets would never work in space (there’s nothing for them to push against, you see …). But he was just a lone voice.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes I understand and agree. However the point missed is MOST of what we call science is work done on the back of what came before. We build on the good and throw out what doesn’t fit or work. Scientific study is the one field that will change if it is shown wrong ( you will have the one or two odd beings here or there that will never give up their preconceived prior notions, but they are the minority ) and scientist are the ones trying to prove each and things wrong to show they are correct. It is self correct and I love that. Hugs


      2. Yesterday’s scientific ‘fact’ is often tomorrow’s Big Giggle, Scottie.

        And in defense of science, the scientists will be the first to tell you that it’s all ‘theory’ anyway and open to rewriting when a more popular (oops) better theory comes along.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Yes better theory developed most of the time from the prior work. It is rare a whole line of thinking has to be thrown out. Yes some of the early stuff like that junk about spontaneous life in a basket of dirty socks and wheat, or the who breath of life thing I can not remember the name that was said to be your life force. ( but not breathing does tend to mean no life I think ) In some disciplines it changes faster and more deeply than others because we don’t have as much evidence understanding to apply. I just watched the entire YouTube PPS Eons channel and it was fascinating. They told how Ideas changed or were discovered on some things by going back to stuff that was looked at 50 years ago and redoing it with today’s abilities, showing stuff that was entirely changing what we thought. They are changing ideas as they discover stuff. I get the feeling you like to think a big cabal of scientist are busy hiding all the information from the little humans for some nefarious reason. I just don’t think that is happening. Anyway, think I will rewatch the last Jurassic park / world movie. Hugs


      4. Eek! You make me sound like a Conspiracy Theorist; for shame, Sir! (Actually … you can quote me on this:

        I do believe that entrenched experts will fight like rabid cats and dogs to protect their tenures (incomes and prestige).

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I agree a few might. Some even. But I do not think the majority would. Ones like that guy in Egypt who use to be in charge of their ancient stuff, pyramids and stuff, he couldn’t accept anything that did not give him credit. But many more have let their own ideas go to embrace better ideas. Hugs


      6. There we differ, Scottie. I invoke a lifetime’s observation (in many often unrelated fields) of human nature. Progress per se is often more a factor of economics/military than pure science.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s