# FT205: “Liberals reconcile conflicting positions with imaginary logic.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 17th, 2014

# Fundamental Truth

## We have Complex Numbers because there is no such thing as a Square-Root of a Negative Number

If we graph AC voltage and AC current we would see two sine waves.  Graphs that rise from zero, reach a peak, fall back through zero, reach a nadir and then rise back up to zero.  Which repeats over and over.  And when we have voltage and current we get power.  If we pick a point in time on our AC voltage and current graphs we can multiply the value for the current by the value of the voltage to arrive at a value for power.  If these two sine waves are on top of each other we will get the highest value for power.  If one graph moves ahead or behind the other (so we can see two sine waves instead of one) we will have a value less than the highest power.

Picture two capital ‘S’s lying on their side.  So they look like one period of a sine wave.  And one is on top of the other so we only see one.  If we draw a vertical line through the highest point on these ‘sine waves’ both ‘S’s will have the same highest value.  Let’s call that value ‘3’.  Giving us a power of 9 (3 X 3).  Now let’s move one ‘sine wave’ to the right.  And look at that same vertical line.  With the one ‘sine wave’ moved they won’t have the same value at that point.  One will be less than the other.  Because the maximum value for that ‘sine wave’ occurs to the right of the maximum value of the other.  Let’s say the value for the moved ‘sine wave’ at that point is now 2.  Giving us a power of 6 (2 X 3).

When the power and current are 100% in phase we get our maximum power.  When they move out of phase we get a value of power less than the maximum.  Even though the voltage and current waves are unchanged.  The degree they are out of phase is called the phase angle.  And it’s a problem for power companies.  Because the typical electric meter only measures part of the power a customer uses.  The real or active power.  Not the reactive power.  And it’s a combination of the active and reactive power that gives us apparent power.  What the power companies produce.  In the ideal world (where the voltage and current sine waves are on top of each other perfectly in phase) reactive power is zero and apparent power equals active power.  Mathematically we express this with complex numbers.  Where there is a real part (the active part).  And an imaginary part (the reactive part).  Where i2 = -1.  Something that can’t happen in the realm of real numbers.  As there is no such thing as a square-root of a negative number.  But it is this use of imaginary numbers that let’s engineers build the world around us.

## Criminalizing Cigarette Smoking plus Decriminalizing Marijuana Smoking Equals more Democrat Votes

Complicated, yes?  Few of us understand this.  But that’s okay.  We don’t have to.  Engineers are very smart people that can do remarkable things mathematically to model and build our world.  And when they do that world is a better place.  Which is all most of us care about.  So imaginary numbers may be a foreign concept to most.  But they provide a very ordered and sensical world.  Unlike other imaginary things.  Like unicorns.  Fairies.  And imaginary logic.

Liberals are high practitioners of imaginary logic.  On its face it seems like gibberish.  Illogical.  And nonsensical.  But like complex numbers it’s the combination of these nonsensical parts that serve to advance an agenda.  For example, in their ideal world everyone would abort an unplanned and/or unwanted child.  While also saying that same-sex couples should be able to adopt and raise children.  But how can a same-sex couple adopt a child if no unplanned or unwanted child is given up for adoption?  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where unfettered abortion plus same-sex adoption equals more Democrat votes.

Liberals have banned cigarette smoking wherever they could.  First there were no smoking sections in restaurants.  Then they banned smoking entirely from restaurants.  Once upon a time people could smoke in the workplace.  Then they forced them into smoking lounges.  Then outside of the building.  And finally a minimum distance away from the doorway.  Because smoking will kill you.  The people around you breathing in second-hand smoke.  And the people breathing in the stink you leave behind after smoking (third-hand smoke).  Smoke in the lungs is the number one killer in America. It is so horrible that no one should be able to smoke.  No one should be able to advertise smoking.  Even the cigarette packages shouldn’t be pretty as that may entice kids to start smoking.  But liberals have no problem with people smoking unfiltered marijuana cigarettes.  With marijuana they take the exact opposite position than they do with cigarettes.  Go ahead and smoke.  You aren’t hurting anyone.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking plus decriminalizing marijuana smoking equals more Democrat votes.

## Hollywood Liberals hate Cigarettes and Guns but love them in their Movies

Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein recently said on the Howard Stern radio show that he hates the National Rifle Association (NRA).  And is going to make a movie to destroy them.  For he thinks guns in America are a horrible thing.  He hates them.  And hates people having them.  But he loves them when they are in his movies.  And has become quite wealthy glorifying horrific gun violence.  If you are unfamiliar with some of the movies he produced you can look them up on IMDB.  Here are just a few that are filled with over the top and very graphic gun violence (as well as sword violence, knife violence, blunt force violence, etc.).  Django Unchained (2012).  Grindhouse (2007).  Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003).  Gangs of New York (2002).  Pulp Fiction (1994).  True Romance (1993).  To name a few.  This is how the View content advisory under Violence and Gore begins for Django Unchained: “Note that most of the violence in this film are [sic] over the top and very graphic.”

Harvey Weinstein is a liberal Democrat.  Who believes the only reason why people are using guns to shoot a lot of people is because those guns are for sale.  Cigarette ads and pretty packaging will entice kids to start smoking.  But showing wholesale violence like in his movies would never encourage a kid to pick up a gun?  For that matter, the next time you see one of these movies note how many people smoke in them (or see Alcohol/Drugs/ Smoking under View content advisory on IMDB).  Having Joe Camel on a cigarette package is going to get a kid to start smoking but seeing his or her favorite movie star smoking—and making smoking look so cool—isn’t?   Of course it is.  Far more than any cigarette ad is.  Just as the vicious gun violence in these movies is desensitizing some kids to gun violence.  And is the reason why young kids are having pretend gun fights at school.  Not because they are card-carrying members of the NRA.  But because they saw it in a movie.

Liberals believe cigarettes and guns are horrible things.  And no one should touch them.  But liberal movie producers fill their movies with cigarettes and guns.  Because they are so cool and fun to watch.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking and gun ownership plus glorifying cigarette smoking and vicious gun violence (and sex and drugs) in the movies equals more Democrat votes.  Which is what imaginary logic is all about.  Democrat votes.  Which is why liberals can have conflicting positions on the same subject.  Because they don’t really care about the subject.  Or the people they harm.  They just want the power that comes with getting people to vote Democrat.

www.PITHOCRATES.com