"Why would an ox that had gored a human be put to death?"

I had always assumed it had to do with future behavior. A lion can't find any more gazelles, or he gets too old to run after them any more. To him humans are stinky and nasty but they sure are slow. At this stage in his life, they're beginning to look more and more like dinner every day, until finally he's realizes it's the best dinner around for him. He wanders into the village where there are unsuspecting people, adults and children, not paying too much attention because hey, lions just don't eat humans and we have more important tasks to do anyway.

The lion singles out a reasonably-sized critter, one big enough to satisfy his appetite but not too large to carry. He pounces on the man, breaks his neck, the man goes limp, and the lion carries him off. Wow, that was easy, and yeah, they taste like carnivore, not at all like herbivore, but it's still edible. I know what I'm having for dinner next time.

Similarly, a circus elephant has absolutely had enough of being poked and prodded and generally jerked around. All her life she has been docile and quiet like all the other elephants in the circus. Everyone sets a good example for the other elephants and behaves and does what these humans tell them to. Finally this one snaps and stomps the hell out of her trainer. That's it! Begone! Die! And the trainer does. Wow, that's pretty easy, I got what I wanted, finally. If I keep that up, maybe now they'll stop dragging me around and making me do stupid things for them.

The dog who has attacked a human has learned how easy it is to drag them off or tear their throats out or mangle an arm (yummy, that taste of blood). Not every dog will attack people, but dogs that have attacked people ... have attacked people. Just from their past behavior we know that this dog has a people-attacking capability, therefore we have to assume that the thought of attacking people occurred to this dog at least once, and if the thought occurs to this dog again, he is more likely to act on it than is a dog to whom the thought has never occurred.

These animals are capable of doing the same thing again. It may take a year or three before they do so, but they have had one rewarding experience from the day they got angry and took it out on a human being--which is to say, they learned from experience just how easy it is to rise up against a human and win.

And so the best thing to do with these animals is to kill them, before they kill a human.

"Mockery is not a response"

No, but it is a reaction, which is why I hate it when Prager uses that word. "When we come back, I'll take your reactions." No, I want their repsonses, thanks. Finally, Prager got the right word.

Raising a good child

If you want to raise a good child, you must first decide that goodness is more imporatant than:

Happiness
Success
Intelligence

What's not to agree with? I wanted my children to be intelligent, of course. More than that I wanted them to appreciate their minds and wish very hard to develop them. Sadly their father didn't see the point; he had his hobbies and his laptop and he while he ignored his kids his intellectual laziness set examples for them. It was easier for them to regard roller coasters as the highest plane of existence, just as their dad did. This may be wearing off; I certainly hope so.

They did not, however, go as low as my first husband did, and claim that "all that matters in this life is to enjoy it" by having a good time. Hooray for shallowness.

Success is nice, too. You can be good on your own personal level but there are people who are good on a very grand scale, and those people do a LOT of good. That's what success is for. But if you're Good on a small scale because your resources are small, you're still good. And God bless you.

Do people filter reality through the prism of their agenda?

Absolutely! Why do liberals think that only conservatives do this? People also filter issues through the prism of their psyches.

Actually, I think I know why. When a liberal considers ANY issue, he considers his viewpoint as normative. This line, which is way left of center, is to them the center. Everything to the right of that line is "conservative" (which is how they labeled Bill Clinton "conservative", as well as Barack Obama), the line is "Mainstream", and the few things remaining on the left of that line are just "liberal" to them, never are those things "radical" or "nutty".

"It's a conservative radioactive cloud."

Good one, Dennis. Very clever. And I expect there really are a few bloggers up at the nutty "Huffington Post" who believe this.

"Conservatives dislike being irradiated just as much as liberals do."

I don't know why liberals can't get this through their heads. We don't want to drink dirty water, either, nor breathe dirty air, but they seem to think we do. But because we disagree (NOT "DIFFER") about how to cure the problems, and even disagree on the extent and seriousness of the problem, well, that gives them all the excuse they need to start throwing all the favorite labels.

I'm reminded of a title. No, I have never read this book. You probably have been told that its author is SIXHIRB. I have listened to him for quite a few hours, and I will vouch for it that he is not. Thus, I want some day to read this book. You can read it now, though.

The Male-Female Hour

He comes in and grabs her bottom. How do you react to this?

I love all the wives who have called in and said, "Woohoo! That's fine with me! It's the first thing on his mind, and though it might not have been the first thing on mine, I can turn in an instant and be ready for him!"

This would have been unthinkable in the Seventies among college women. Of course, if you've ever ready "The Total Woman" or "Fascinating Womanhood", both of which were huge sellers in the Seventies, you know that some women aren't so twisted up and made to be foolish as my college-educated sisters.

I'm glad Prager specified that he is talking about good marriages where there is both love and consideration on both parts.

I fully agree with the proposition that men want a lot of sex and their wives need to know that, accept it, and be ready.

Sadly, my marriage was the worst. My husband refused to pay the slightest attention to me. You may argue that I caused this to happen by being too giving and too accepting and too forgiving. My first marriage was the same way, and I just gave and gave and he started beating me and treating me like hell. I lost twenty pounds in the first three months. But we had sex every single night of the first two and a half years, and it was by my insistence. The second marriage, I tried to do the same thing, but he started turning his back on me, and it wasn't for a back massage, either. Eventually I decided I must be putting him off by trying to initiate it as often as I did, and we found he was only interested once every few months. But, since sex with him hurt, I didn't complain much.

Matters outside the bedroom were particularly telling. He'd come home from work without announcing his entrance. If I happened to be in another part of the house where I couldn't see the front door, he could be home for some time before I even became aware of it. I could speak to him from the kitchen and never hear an answer. I could speak to him across the dinner table and he'd ignore me. I could reach out to him and he would leave the room. I could ask him to change the light bulb that was too high for me to reach and that was a 100% guarantee that I'd be changing the light bulb sooner or later.

Put another dish in the dishwasher? I should be so lucky. I could have been doing the dishes naked and he'd have refused to look at me. Sure, I caused this, by not knowing how to make him put me on that Princess pedestal. By giving and giving and giving and asking nothing in return, I got nothing in return.

So when, after three months of silent treatment, he'd reach for me for sex, it was impossible to feel loved or wanted or thought highly of; it was more like "I'm a wad of hamburger; maybe he should go get himself a blow-up doll. He'd probably treat her better."





I actually recommend the above two titles. They were reviled and belittled in the Seventies, which should be recommendation enough. But if you have had your mind twisted by your college education, as mine was, you ought to read the book I'm linking below. She addresses all that crap. I actually joined a "women's support group" and found all the women in it had been brainwashed with the same tired lines about how everything is her RIGHT and he has none. One was approaching a divorse and kept quoting all the same lines that Schlessinger also quotes. "He said to me, 'I try and I try and I try but nothing's ever good enough for you.'" And this was supposed to be evidence of his meanness.

Read this book or else:



Okay, I forgot about this book by the same author. I haven't read it but would recommend it merely on the strength of her name.