This is my second blog.

My first blog chronicled my experiences over three years caring for my dad as he lived through and finally died from Alzheimer's. That is the book that is for sale.

This second blog kind of chronicles of life, what it is like to start your life over in your late 50's. After caretaking, you are damaged, file bankruptcy, and the world doesn't care what you did. After 8 months of unemployment, you wake each day knowing the world doesn't want you. Finally you do find a job, 5 weeks before homelessness, but doing what you did 30 years ago and getting paid what you did 30 years ago. So this is starting over.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

Saturday, November 7, 2015


Anyone else have this uneasy feeling that somone is going to take out Donald Trump pretty soon?  Not that I am supporting him or trush him, but I just suspect eventually someone is going to make sure he doesn't actually win this thing.

But some group will pay 5k for anyhone to shout "Trump is a racist" so wouldn't it be a hoot for Trump to come out tonite on SNL and immediately say "Trump is a racist" and then demand the organization pay him the 5k which he will immediately donate to the "Let's Build The Wall Fund".

So back to JFK.

There is, with the millions and millions of facts, really only one solid fact to remember: the afternoon press conference with the doctors who all agreed that there was an entry wound on the front at the throat and an exit wound in the back of the head.  Couldn't tell if the front head was entry or exit or both.

Thus defeats the single gunman hypothesis.  After that, it is all speculation.  The absolute best stuff to watch is on YouTube and it's the raw news coverage from the 3 stations that day.  The witnesses on Elm who saw the bullets being fired from the top of the grassy knoll.  The cop who also was part owner or employee, can't remember which, who furst secured the floor of the book depository who identified the rifle on the floor as a german Mauser rifle and went balistic later when the story was released that it was the Italian bolt action rifle and insisted to his dying day it was a Mauser.

All interesting.  You can pretty much find enough facts and evidence to implicate just about anyone and any group in the killing as the culprits.  But every option involves assumptions of evidence and the ignoring of other evidence.

Which brings me to todays topic, Bill O'Reilly.  O'Reilly has been very successful branding his name to a series of books "The Killing of XXXX".  And his latest book, The Killing of Reagan, apparently is going to be another best seller; but is it accurate and true?

This week, there was a very heated interview O'Reilly did with George Will who wrote a very good article critical of the book and how it was written.  It is a wonderful interview to watch.  O'Reilly immediately begins by trying to impeach the character of George Will, one of the best ad homenium attacks you will ever see.

But the funniest part is when O'Reilly explains why he didn't interview all those closest to Reagan in the White House,  He didn't interview them because they would have an agenda and he didn't want the facts of who Reagan was and what was happening in the WH being colored by people who knew who Reagan was, worked with Reagan and worked in the WH.

A fascinating concept.  So I called a friend of mine, Professor Bull J. Moose of WMU.

Professor Moose, how are you tonite"

"I'm fine, Barkley, how are you?"

"Doing great.  Professor, where and what degrees do you possess?"

"Well, I have a Masters and PhD from Berkley, Colorado, and USC"

"Wow, that is quite impressive, so you are well thought of in the scholastic world I suspect"

"I suppose so"

"What do you think of Bill O'Reilly, Professor?"

"He is a jerk, megalomaniac, and idiot"

"Wow, those are strong words professor, let me ask you this, have you ever met O'Reilly?"


"have you ever watched Bill O'Reilly's show?"

"oh please, no"

"have you ever read any of his books"

"absolutely not"

"so you have no vested interest in Bill O'Reilly at all, is that correct"

"that is correct"

"thank you professor"

"What paper did you say you work...click

Okay, so there you have it, a completely unbiased opinion of Bill O'Reilly by someone with no interest or agenda in Bill O'Reilly

I felt for George Will, you could see in his face 30 seconds into the interview he knew he was being interviewed by a total idiot who controlled the mic and was in for a textbook case of what happens when you debate someone who's only expertise is working in as many logical fallacies as humanly possible.

The point is O'Reilly wrote a book, well, someone else probably wrote most of the book, and had an agenda and ignored anyone whom might oppose that agenda.

Conspiracy theories are like that too.  How many times have you heard somene say building 7 fell straight down into it's footprint?  Not true, but it continually is said over and over and over, totally ignoring the evidence it did not fall straight down.  Authors will always start a book with the bad guys in mind, will provide all sorts of 'facts' that support their theory and ignore all those other facts that show it is not the subject of their theory.