Sunday, June 18, 2017

The Food Chain: A Sunday Rumination

     [The following piece first appeared at Eternity Road on May 29, 2005. In my opinion, it’s by far the most important thing I’ve ever written. The ideas it presents are what makes Christianity unique among religions, infinitely superior to all others, and alone among them wholly compatible with the moral and ethical requirements of Man. As it is once again Corpus Christi Sunday, I repost it today for your edification and entertainment. -- FWP]


     At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hugry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat. And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days. But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days, the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame? But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple. And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent. For the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. [Matthew 12:1-8]

     The most fundamental of all relations among living things is the food relation. For any two species, which one can eat the other, either in theory or in practice, determines just about everything else about their interactions.

     This might seem a little fuzzy in certain cases. Beyond question, a dog can kill and eat a man. The same is true for the Portuguese Man O' War. But how often does it happen? Yet there are millions of people in various parts of the world for whom dog or jellyfish is a regular part of their diets. (You can stop shuddering now.) In the usual case, Man is considered the eater and these other species the eaten.

     Thus, a brief exploration of the food chain.

     Man has been an eater for a lot longer than he's been a builder of civilizations. His career as a hunter has established him as the world champion at that contest. His development of systematic agriculture demonstrated that his hegemony extends equally well to the plant kingdom. By all measures, he's at the pinnacle of the food chain. He eats whatever he wishes, and only in the rarest of cases does any other species eat him.

     The centrality of food relations to Earth's biosystem is so obvious that we're all but unaware of it. Two of the more significant but less frequently pondered manifestations of the thing can be found in our nightmares and our rites of worship and propitiation.

     Almost as soon as men began to compose tales for one another's entertainment, they invented creatures with power to hunt, kill, and eat human beings. Vampires, ghouls, and werewolves are items of fantasy, traditional terrors that have been invoked in horror tales for many centuries. Yet what is it that makes them so terrifying? Not that they can kill men, for far lesser creatures can do that, if they get the breaks. No, their ability to frighten comes from their greater-than-human hunting ability, and their view of men as food.

     There's nothing that terrifies like the prospect of being eaten. Men have gone into battle against other men under conditions that virtually guaranteed their deaths, yet they've often gone willingly, sometimes even eagerly. They still do. But no man can face the prospect of being an entree for a greater creature without quaking in fear.

     Mess with a man's assumptions about the food chain and you upend his whole concept of himself as a man.

     On the other side, there are human practices with relation to their concepts of divinity. Divinities -- gods -- are by definition superior to men. Yet their participation in the life of Man is not categorically predatory, even in those creeds which place evil gods on an equal par with good ones, and see the history of the world as a struggle between equally matched forces of light and darkness in which humans are less than pawns. In our attempts to win the favor of the gods, and on occasion to avert their wrath, men have traditionally offered sacrifices to them. Those sacrifices have almost always been food.

     Contemplate the nature of ritual sacrifice for a moment. What's offered to the god being propitiated is something valuable to men: creatures men had to hunt or cultivate, whose substance could nourish and sustain human life. Yet it is deliberately removed from the human economy, usually by burning, in the attempt to convey to the god the sense that we acknowledge his superiority to us. By denying themselves the consumption of the offered food and instead offering it to the god, the sacrificers make plain that they submit themselves to him. Metaphorically, the sacrificed items are substitutes for human bodies: pleadings that the shamans and their congregants not be eaten.

     The Biblical story of God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham's readiness to obey, is terrifying and exalting for that reason. On the one hand, the God of the Old Testament was not perceived even by His Chosen People, of whom Abraham was the progenitor, as being so intrinsically kindly disposed toward Man that He would never, ever demand such a sacrifice. Moreover, His power was such that there was no question that He could enforce His will in such a matter, and much worse besides. On the other hand, God intervened at the last instant to prevent the sacrifice, having established to His satisfaction that Abraham submitted entirely to His will. Thus, the pact between God and the children of Abraham -- the Jewish people -- was sealed as one of guidance and beneficence from above in exchange for worship and obedience from below. God did not intend to eat His people.


     Clearly, the food relation is a superiority / inferiority relation. He who eats is the stronger, who can have his will in all things. He who is eaten is the weaker, who must prostrate himself before the other in the hope of benevolence or mercy.

     Men, the highest of the creatures of this world, do not eat one another, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Those micro-societies that have practiced cannibalism have extinguished themselves thereby -- there are some very nasty diseases, with fatality rates approaching 100%, that arise from cannibalism -- or have been humbled and re-educated by more civilized, more insightful peoples. We have attained enough insight into moral matters, and most particularly into the fundamental equality of rights all men should enjoy, to regard cannibalism with appropriate horror.

     But we still tell, and shudder over, stories of powerful, inhuman creatures that hunger for human flesh and blood. Vampire legends make up a healthy fraction of our fantastic literature. When we figure in the werewolf, the ghoul, and the occasional extraterrestrial who regards us as haute cuisine, we've covered the overwhelming majority of our scare stories. That's how fundamental the food relation is to our view of our place in the natural world.

     There aren't many religious sects in the modern world that still practice the old form of ritual sacrifice, in which a food item -- usually an animal -- is offered up to a god in hopes of winning his favor or pardon. The devotees of Santeria do it, now and then, as do the practitioners of voudoun. But these are meager survivals of old, animistic-pagan creeds. Their adherents are few and will probably never be many.


     However, a form of sacrifice still characterizes the most important religious rite in the world. Its devotees number in the billions. They partake of this sacrifice at every opportunity; to them, it is the highest a living man can rise in communion with God. And most curiously of all, it is a bidirectional sacrifice, the only such ever celebrated in all the eons of Man.

     I speak, of course, of the Miracle of Transubstantiation in the Christian Eucharist.

     In the days of Christ, the ritual sacrifice of food animals at the Temple in Jerusalem was still the preeminent religious rite in the classical world. The Hebrews regarded those sacrifices as God's due for extending His protection over them as His Chosen People. Indeed, according to the Book of Exodus, such sacrifices were ordained by God Himself, as He gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. The Jews of that time considered them the only truly complete act of religious devotion.

     Christ upended their world by inverting the food chain. No more would they give up their sustenance in propitiation of the divine will. Henceforward, it would be the other way around: the Son of God would be the Sacrifice, and His people would partake.

     From the Gospel According To John:

     "I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

     The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." [John 6:48-58]

     The rite of the Eucharist, in commemoration of the Last Supper, offers bread and wine to God and prays that they might be found acceptable. In response to this humble offering, and in fulfillment of Christ's promise, through the celebrant-priest He works the Transubstantiation, which allows the form of the bread and wine to remain as they are, but converts their substance into the body and blood of Christ. At each Mass, a traditional sacrifice of food to God is met with a renewal of the offering of Christ's body and blood to the world, for the remission of sin and as a perpetual grant of His grace to all who will accept it.

     No other creed has anything to compare with the Eucharist. Nor could any conceivable rite, however elaborately crusted with mystery or symbolism, approach the stunning power of God Himself, in the Person of His Son, offering Himself as food to lowly Man.

     He could eat us all. Instead He offers Himself as food, that we may remember His Sacrifice for us, and draw as close to Him as mortal creatures can get while still in this world.

     Today is the Sunday ordained for the celebration of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrifice beyond all others, that no offering by mortal men could ever equal. The proof that the food chain is not God's manacle about our hands. The unanswerable refutation of those who insist that a malevolent power bestrides the universe. The ironclad guarantee that we are not to be eaten, but to be fed.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Clapper on intellectual integrity.

Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional testimony by saying, “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner.”[1]
An extraordinary statement from James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence.

Note too our former CIA Director John Brennan, who, prior to 1980, once voted for a Communist Party candidate. Reason: To "[signal] my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change."

Yes. That would be my choice were I wanting to signal my unhappiness. Last November I certainly voted for Donald Trump to signal my unhappiness with a lot of things but I could have as easily have voted communist. A trifling difference.

Notes
[1] "Clapper’s Unhinged Russia-Bashing." By David Marks, Cosortiumnews.com, 6/15/17.
[2] "Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist." By Tal Kopan, CNN, 9/15/16.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Assorted

     Once again I’m badly pressed for time, so have a few quick observations on stories and opinion pieces of recent note.


1. A Useful List.

     The Daily Caller has compiled a useful list of physical assaults by Leftists on conservatives and Republicans. I suggest that you save it, as there’s no way of knowing when you’ll next confront some Lefty scoffer who’s adamant that it’s Righties who are the violent ones.

     However, the way to meet this that writer Amanda Green suggests here is almost guaranteed to be ineffective:

     For those of you who are saying Trump should be killed — or even that he should be tried for treason — ask yourselves this. How did you feel when people said that about Obama? Why did you feel that way? Now ask yourself this: what makes your objections to criticisms about Obama any more right than the objections to your criticisms about Trump?

     The Left’s answer to this plaintive objection will be as follows, albeit not so neatly phrased: Obama is the epitome of good; Trump is the embodiment of evil. Q. E. D. And there is absolutely no way to reason them out of that stance.


2. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

     Some abominations are too abominable even to be made into D-list horror movies:

     Industry Kitchen is now serving up a unicorn inspired pizza. They call it the Pop Candy Land Pizza. It is a monstrosity.

     The unicorn pizza is not what a pizza should be.

     It is not a comforting embrace of hot cheese and tomato sauce. It does not feature mozzarella ready to burn the roof of your mouth and hang down past your chin.

     Instead, it is a pizza made with rainbow dough, covered in vanilla icing, sprinkles, popping candy, and pink and blue cotton handy.

     If Paul W. S. Anderson wants to make a real horror movie, to redeem himself for having made Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, he should consider “unicorn pizza” for its central motif. I can’t imagine anything that’s worse. Not much worse, anyway.


3. And While We’re On The Subject Of Rainbows.

     It would appear that the makers of Skittles are about to succumb to yet another claim of “appropriation:”

     Skittles has temporarily ditched its rainbow theme in favor of an all-white look in the United Kingdom and Germany in order to give LGBT pride celebrations "center stage."

     Michelle Green, a spokeswoman for the Chicago-based Wrigley Company, which makes Skittles, tells The Associated Press that since rainbow colors are identified with both LGBT pride and Skittles, the candy maker chose one color during the celebrations "in order for Pride's rainbow to take center stage."

     June is LGBT Pride month. The Skittles switch began in late March and wraps up in September. The candy is sold in a black-and-white wrapper.

     Bad move, Skittles. Unless you resist such notions, they’ll be used to take all your freedom of expression from you, not just your use of the colors of the rainbow.

     I recall T-shirts that looked rather like this:

     ...to which the LGBT activists objected on the grounds that the rainbow is “their symbol.” I don’t know what reply the T-shirt maker made to that absurd claim...but I haven’t seen the shirt on anyone in quite some time.

     Whack them across the chops for their presumption. Rhetorically, that is. I wouldn’t want to be accused of fomenting violence against poofters, dykes, the confused, or the delusional.


4. And I Was Worried For The Oxford Comma!

     Sound the general alarm! ‘Whom’ is endangered!

     When Twitter users open their home pages, they are greeted by an inset box at the top of the screen in which three words appear in gray type: “Who to follow.”

     Correct grammar? Certainly not.

     Plenty of Twitter users, including members of the blue-checkmarked elite, have complained about that oversight. “The ‘whoms’ put up a good fight, but we ultimately opted for a more natural cadence and the ‘whos’ won out,” says Twitter spokeswoman Brielle Villablanca.

     So far, so innocent. But matters are not so simple:

     The writer Calvin Trillin has gone further: “As far as I’m concerned, ‘whom’ is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler,” he once wrote.

     Think about it: Would anyone listen to a band called “The Whom”? And for that matter, would the signature phrases of “Ghostbusters” and a certain Bo Diddley song have worked if they read “Whom ya gonna call?” and “Whom Do You Love?”

     “Whom” has hung on somewhat better with the written than the spoken word, but it is losing ground there, too. A scan of thousands of titles through Google Books shows one use of “whom” for every five of “who” in the year 1800. By the start of the 20th century it was one to every six, and by the beginning of the 21st century it was one to 11.

     So, is “whom” headed the way of “thou,” a word people now encounter mostly when reading religious texts or Shakespeare?

     Edward Sapir, an anthropologist and linguist of the last century, predicted in a 1921 book on language that “within a couple of hundred years from to-day not even the most learned jurist will be saying ‘Whom did you see?’... No logical or historical argument will avail to save this hapless ‘whom.’ ”

     Quick! There’s no time to lose! Man the grammatical barricades! And keep a sharp eye on pronoun usages among your supposed comrades. After all, you never know whom you can trust.


     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. It’s on to the fun stuff. You know: scooping the back yard, mowing the lawn, cleaning out the cat boxes, and so on. I hope to be back in form tomorrow.

Friday, June 16, 2017

A Public Service Announcement

     Perhaps my guiltiest pleasure is really silly movies: movies of such cartoonish implausibility that complete (albeit temporary) paralysis of the reason is required to view them at all, much less with enjoyment. Comic-book movies. Vampire movies. Movies with lots of gunfire and explosions. Movies with body counts that would rival World War I (which didn’t result in too many movies of quality). To give you a sense for the depth of this...condition, I may be the only living American who actually liked Green Lantern.

     However, there are limits. Over the past three days I’ve encountered them twice.

     First, there’s Milla Jovovich’s star-vehicle series Resident Evil, loosely based on the video games of the same name. I happen to like Milla Jovovich. I find her quite beautiful and talented. (Yeah, yeah, she could use some tits. Her husband, director Paul W. S. Anderson, doesn’t seem to mind.) As I enjoyed the first five movies in that series rather a lot, I was waiting for the sixth and last: Resident Evil: The Final Chapter.

     Great God in heaven, what a stinker! A completely idiotic premise, an incoherent plot, grade-school-quality acting, and a conclusion that almost had me wishing the villains had won! It made me grateful that that was “the final chapter"...if it was, and dear God, may it please be so.

     After I saw that abortion this past Wednesday, I thought I’d seen the worst movie since Bloodrayne. I didn’t expect to see an even worse one today: a movie so bad that it might have taken the Worst Movie of All Time crown from Bloodrayne.

     That movie was Underworld: Blood Wars.

     I consider Kate Beckinsale one of the most beautiful women alive. She doesn’t have Jovovich’s breadth of talent, but she’s awfully nice to look at. (Yeah, yeah, she could use some tits, too.) I’d managed to enjoy the previous Underworld movies despite their general implausibility and two-dimensional quality. But this latest celluloid turd...this ultimately stupid insult to moviegoers...this complete waste of everyone and everything that was expended upon its making...this utter befoulment of the cinematic form is so bad that I think if I were forced to choose between a bullet between the eyes and watching it again, I’d say “Shoot me now. Please.”

     Friends, creditors, and poor relations, avoid these movies. No matter how cheaply you can purchase them from a remainder bin or at a flea market. I tell you sincerely, with tears in my eyes, no compensation could possibly be enough! If she’s beautiful, intelligent, sensuous, daring, and thinks you’re devastatingly handsome and sexy, but suggests that it would make a really nifty “date night” to tuck in, snuggle up, and watch one of them while making random whoopie, immediately tell her that you have gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes II simplex, apologize for not admitting your maladies sooner, and move swiftly away.

     You’ll thank me. I promise you. Now excuse me, please, while I get drunk enough to dull the pain.

Enough Of Us

     If you’ve been reading my drivel for any length of time, you’ve surely noticed that I don’t like to write about what other Internet Commentarial members are currently addressing. I prefer to let such things simmer a bit longer, that I might bring them a broader perspective and a deeper penetration when I finally do get around to them...always assuming, of course, that I don’t manage to forget about them in the interests of the sanity of my readership (and myself).

     Not today, Gentle Reader. Oh, most definitely not today.


     I’ve been doing this crap for too long. I’m losing an ability I’ve long cherished: the ability to summon the degree of detachment required to perform a sober, dispassionate analysis of whatever events are currently uppermost in Americans’ minds. In other words – and we badly need some other words if the qualifiers and subordinate clauses aren’t to proliferate like some grammatical version of The Blob – these days I get too mad to think, far too often, before I set my fingers to the keys.

     One of the techniques valuable for summoning said detachment is the deliberate retreat into history. Sometimes history provides monitory notes relevant to our era. Sometimes it provides important comparisons or contrasts. And on rare but precious occasions, history calms us, reassures us that despite the bleakness of our current outlook, nevertheless all will be well. You can go back to sleep, Fran; this latest tempest won’t burst its teapot.

     Not this time. This time Godwin, whoever the hell he was, can shove it up his ass.


     Recently another Web writer – sorry, I’ve misplaced the link – argued that “We didn’t get Hitler because of Hitler; we got Hitler because of Weimar.” It’s an interesting contention, albeit not entirely correct. Yes, the corrupting effects of the Weimar Republic were inadequately understood, including by the many Germans who wallowed happily in its decadence. Yes, the inflation of the early Twenties should have been taken more seriously as a harbinger of what Germans would subsequently demand – and receive. Yes, the political class of that time and place should have taken decisive action against the Sturmabteilung before the NSDAP became too powerful to defeat. Yes, yes, yes.

     But these weren’t evocations of Nazism. They didn’t create Hitler. They were opportunities gifted to Hitler and the Nazis; Hitler was canny enough to note and capitalize on them. In other words, if Hitler and his allegiants hadn’t been there and waiting, the Third Reich would not have occurred.

     We got Hitler because of:

  • The Franco-Prussian War of 1870;
  • The German seizure of Alsace and Lorraine;
  • Otto von Bismarck and his social-welfare programs;
  • General Alfred von Schlieffen and his worship of Hannibal;
  • Helmuth von Moltke, his timorous nature, and France’s success at the Marne;
  • The butcher’s bills presented to Europe by World War I,. and the influenza plague of 1918-19;
  • The Treaty of Versailles and its crafters’ attempt to remake Europe;
  • French encouragement of the secession of the Rhineland as a separate republic;
  • The reluctance of England and France to enforce the Versailles disarmament provisions upon Germany;

     ...and only after all that the Weimar Republic crap that followed.

     But my list above is also a set of resultants. We got those conditions, and therefore Hitler, because of post-Waterloo, post-Congress-of-Vienna Europe. We got Hitler because of European historical militarism – German and French. We got Hitler because of the sum of all European history from the Treaties of Westphalia forward, if not from the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire.

     We got Hitler because of Mankind.


     Anyone ever heard of Albert Fish? His “career” was contemporaneous with the rise of the Nazis. You should read at least a little about him. The totality of his record might prove to be more than you can stand.

     Albert Fish was eventually tried, convicted, and executed for multiple murders. He died in the electric chair. It’s quite possible that he enjoyed the experience.

     I feel it’s safe to say that very nearly no one actually seeks out pain, self-damage, or self-degradation. Albert Fish loved all three. He was unique in his time; the population of the United States was just barely large enough to include one such as he. Back then, there were barely a hundred million of us. Today there are three times as many: enough that there are probably several Albert Fishes awaiting discovery and capture. We may have already seen their forerunners. Consider as candidates Albert deSalvo, Ted Bundy, and Ed Gein.

     Human characteristics are distributed according to laws whose outlines we can barely discern. Fortunately, certain of them are exceedingly rare. There must be “enough of us” for those traits to make a recognized appearance.

     One Albert Fish is “enough.”


     Mitteleuropa in the Twenties, badly depopulated by the Great War, the influenza epidemic, and the contemporaneous loss of moral, ethical, and civilizational confidence, produced only one Adolf Hitler. One was enough. Today the Old World, like the New, is at least three times as populous. There are probably several would-be murderers of millions roaming the place.

     Americans are generally of a different weave and cut from the peoples of other lands. Among other things, we haven’t been nearly as enamored of government power or government intrusions as our European cousins. Until fairly recently, you could legitimately say that nearly all of us were “liberals” in the original sense of the word.

     American statist “liberalism,” which has drained all of the word’s original meaning, is only about fifty years old. Fifty years is a fairly short time in political terms. (Consider that it took eighty years, give or take a couple, for the Soviet Union to collapse.) Yet our greatly expanded numbers compared to the Twenties, when several varieties of Communism – yes, including Nazism – were straining to establish beachheads here, has provided a substantial base of “recruits” to that ideology. Even among a people predisposed to prefer freedom and resent encroachments upon it, a sufficient population will provide such recruits.

     In contrast with persons who prefer freedom and respect its requirements, persons predisposed to collectivist totalitarianism of any variety will be willing to use violence to get their way. In a nation with our numbers, there will be some at the very least who are willing to don a brown – or a black – shirt and go into the streets to savage their opponents. There will be a larger number, ideologically allied to the thugs, who’ll strain to rationalize and justify violence committed by their fellow travelers.

     That population will also provide for political assassins: usually, more than one.


     So far we’ve had only one James Hodgkinson. However, the Leftist calls and rationalizations for violence, up to and including murder, that have emanated from Hodgkinson’s fellow thinkers will continue to exert a pull on the huge American population. If there are more like Hodgkinson – that is, more leftists willing to kill and die for their noxious ideology – they will emerge in response to that pull...probably far sooner than one might expect.

     No matter how good conservative officeholder Smith’s situational awareness, there will be times when he’s inattentive, undefended, or both. Should Smith come under the crosshairs of another Hodgkinson at such a time, his life will be in peril. Perhaps so will those of his loved ones. It won’t matter to Smith or his loved ones whether Hodgkinson survives the event.

     At this time, all the political violence, along with all the rhetoric that encourages and rationalizes it, emanates from the Left. However, as Tom Kratman has noted, that won’t remain the case for long. It cannot. Indeed, it must not.

     Tom has said it. I have said it. And Mark Steyn has said it. Others of proven judgment, such as Jonah Goldberg, have foreseen it and thrown up their hands.

     What will you do, Gentle Reader?

50 years down the pike.

For decades white America made a desperate attempt to raise blacks to the level of the First World. It didn’t work. Instead [it] saw a dragging down of society to the culture of the ghetto. Blacks were behaving as usual as spoiled brats. Anything that upset them, as everything did, any expectation that they behave, led to cries of racism and depredations by such as Black Lives Matter.

As I mentioned, my parents had said that blacks could not function in the First World. It seemed that they were right. Desegregation had not worked, nor integration, nor quotas nor affirmative action nor Head Start. What didn’t work was turning blacks into members of a European civilization in which they had no interest. It would have worked no better had blacks lived in China, Japan, or Russia.

Nothing worked and nothing is going to work.[1]

This year the Naval Academy will, once again, admit minority candidates with lower board scores and grades than whites and some minorities with even lower scores will arrive at the Academy from the Naval Academy Preparatory School.

This is the state of play 50 years after the beginning of the "Civil Rights Revolution" as we continue to cling to the fairy tales of equality and integration.

Notes
[1] " Oncoming Racial Doom: The Clash of Cultures." By Fred Reed, Fred On Everything, 6/15/17.

H/t: The Burning Platform.

Stupidity is a polite word for it.

The European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. The EU system corrupts virtually everybody who comes close to it. It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.
"Why the EU Constitutes a Mortal Threat to Europeans." By Fjordman, Gates of Vienna, 6/15/17 (footnote omitted).

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Seduction Of Violence

     The following Mark Steyn video was recorded six hours before James Hodgkinson’s attack on the Republican Congressmen at the softball field.

     Spread it around. Make it go viral. Please!

Toward A Single Standard

     There’s been a lot of angry talk on the Right in the aftermath of yesterday’s murderous attack on a group of Republican Congressmen. Anger is understandable; anger is cleansing. But anger is also useful. If we fail to employ it to best advantage now. while it’s fresh and hot, I fear that we’ll regret the lost opportunity.


     For many, the most enraging thing about our national discourse has been the double standard that appears to be in place: specifically, demonizations and exhortations to violence, if offered by the Left, are treated as no big deal, while anything from the Right that even hints at anger is denounced as “hurtful” and “unconstructive.” We get catechized for our “tone.” Sometimes the participants include conservative figures who really ought to know better.

     Double standards are rife in today’s political environment. The Left gets cleanly away with all manner of vilifications; the Right is admonished for speaking its mind even in conventionally polite terms. Leftists make use of boycott threats and scurrilous accusations to undermine Rightists’ livelihoods and other important connections; Rightists don’t dare, for fear of being accused of “discrimination.” Leftists freely advocate and employ violence and intimidation to silence speakers on the Right; Rightists are accused of “censorship” for merely criticizing Leftist rhetoric.

     If this is allowed to continue, there will be no national discourse, courteous or otherwise. Conservatives simply won’t bother to speak to anyone but other, “pre-qualified” conservatives; Leftists will own the periodicals and the airwaves, and will command the tides of conviction and opinion.

     This morning, Ace deposeth and sayeth:

     Now is not the time to start yelling "Rhetoric doesn't cause violence!" 1, it almost certainly does -- a society that condones thievery will see more thieving, after all -- and 2, we cannot continue living under the "Republican rhetoric only causes violence!" rule.

     A bad rule is many times worse when it is only applied against a disfavored caste.

     I would rather live under a regime in which a Bad Law was applied equally to everyone than a regime in which a Bad Law is only applied against me and my friends, family, and allies.

     How will the left ever learn its "rules" are vicious if the right keeps White Knighting in order to spare them of its pain?

     He has a point...but it needs additional sharpening.


     There are better and worse ways to implement the Left’s standard against it. Here’s an example of what not to do. Granted, Larry Correia is entitled to his opinions, and to his choice of words. Moreover, I have no doubt that the person upon whom he poured out his vitriol deserves no better. But it gets us nowhere, apart from a little catharsis, to do what Correia did in that piece.

     The proper target isn’t the activists of the Left; it’s their handmaidens in the media. The Left has succeeded in making their double standard stick because of its media allies. Therefore, we must deprive them of those allies, by making the alliance too painful to be borne.

     The two things media outlets value most are:

  • Their revenues;
  • Their reputations for credibility.

     Those sensitive zones are where we must attack.

     Note that one of those targets is a favorite of the Left, as well. Leftist activists routinely harass conservatives’ employers, often by threatening boycotts. (It doesn’t help that so many corporations have “human resources” departments run by leftist viragoes and vindictive homosexuals.) There’s no reason we can’t do the very same to Left-aligned media institutions, especially considering that we generally dislike those institutions in the first place.

     To attack a media outlet’s reputation for credibility, we must make use of the three loci in which conservatives have a voice:

  • The handful of conservative-friendly cable news channels;
  • Conservative voices on talk radio;
  • The World Wide Web.

     Any deviation from exactitude, proper context, or proportionality the target has exhibited must be brought to the attention of our allies in those zones, and given the proper characterization for the purpose. Needless to say, we must be scrupulously accurate in all such strokes. More to the point, we must be angry about it. Our anger at the disservice to the news-consuming public must be plain and open.

     Enough of such treatment, and both the editorial staffs and the accounting departments at the target will realize that the jig is up.


     “It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The gentlemen may cry peace, peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!” – Patrick Henry

     The Left is at war not just with the Right, but with all of “normal” America: the America whose citizens want nothing so much as to be left in peace. Warfare of any sort is unpleasant. Yet once commenced, there’s no backing away from the conflict, short of surrender. There’s no way to build a fortress against the Left’s demands, within which we’ll be safe with the remnants of our freedom.

     Now is the time for the constructive use of our anger. The Left’s double standard must be cast down and destroyed before more blood can be spilled. We may not get another chance.

Great headlines.

Putin Offers Asylum To "Leaker" Comey.[1]
He did, actually. Here are the relevant passages:
Vladimir Putin trolled the US on Thursday, when speaking in a live call-in show with the Russian nation, the Russian president likened Comey to Edward Snowden, who was granted asylum in Russia in 2013, and scoffed at James Comey's disclosure of his conversations with U.S. President Donald Trump, saying the move has made Comey eligible for political asylum in Russia.

"It looks weird when the chief of a security agency records his conversation with the commander-in-chief and then hands it over to media via his friend," Putin was quoted by Russia's Tass. “This is strange. What is the difference then between the FBI director and Mr. Snowden? He is not a head of the special services, but a human rights activist.”

The trolling concluded when Putin said that "by the way, if he (Comey) is subject to any sort of persecution in connection with this, we will be ready to give him political asylum in Russia. And he should know about this."[2]

Continuing in the mode of frankness:

Predictably, the Russian president once again reiterrated his denial of meddling in the U.S. election, saying that Russia has openly expressed its views and hasn't engaged in any covert activities.

Continuing the combative mood, Putin then turned the tables on the US, saying it was the US which has sought to influence Russian elections by funding NGOs as part of its aspirations for global domination. "Turn a globe and point your finger anywhere, you will find American interests and interference there."[3]

I don't think this is a man who concerns himself with Twitter.

Notes
[1] "Putin Offers Asylum To 'Leaker' Comey." By Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, 6/15/17 (emphasis in original).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The Shootings

     Heavy sigh. I really did mean to eat lunch and rest for a few minutes.

     By now, any American who pays the least attention to the news will be aware of the mass shooting this morning in Washington, D.C. Majority Whip Steve Scalise was wounded as were several other Republican Congressmen, aides, and associates. The shooter, James Hodgkinson, died in custody of the Capitol Police, who were on the scene as part of Congressman Scalise’s security detail.

     Hodgkinson, be it noted, was a volunteer for Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. His intent, if the statements of persons at the scene may be relied upon, was to shoot as many Republicans as possible.

     Now it’s time for some harsh realities: This is not, as some are claiming, the consequence of “violent rhetoric.” Rather, it arose from the combination of two factors:

  1. The storm of vicious, utterly unprincipled denunciations of the Republicans by the Democrats, out of their fury over having been beaten and a hunger for partisan advantage;
  2. The de facto legitimization of street violence offered by left-wing groups such as AntiFa and Black Bloc, nearly none of which has been accurately reported by the media.

     The usual moral inhibitions that restrain people from committing violence against others obviously failed to operate on Hodgkinson. Why? Because of the Democrats’ vicious denunciations. They’ve characterized the Republicans as Satan’s minions, unworthy of consideration as human beings, and therefore without any right to life, peace, or privacy. That freed Hodgkinson to try to take their lives.

     Violence is a continuum that reaches from a mock swat on the wrist to murder. Once that continuum has been entered and no official reaction has occurred, those who have embarked upon it will proceed further toward the murder pole. Unless they’re met with the force of the law, they will continue to advance toward murder.

     It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats who’ve participated in these demonizations wanted this outcome. It was foreseeable from the moment they first claimed that the GOP wants to wreak harm upon the innocent.

     If there is any conscience left in such despicable figures as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, they’ll don sackcloth and ashes and make a public confesssion of their guilt for this horror. However, given what we know about the Democrats and their unquenchable lust for power, it’s far more likely that they’ll use the incident to blather about “the need for more gun control.”

     As useless as the Republicans have often been, there can be no standing mute about this. It’s time for a nationwide roar of condemnation of everyone who’s participated in the vilification of Republicans and conservatives. (It’s also time for law enforcement to realize that watching street violence from the sidelines is not an option, no matter what some dickhead mayor or commissioner says.) The Left has left us without a choice in the matter.

Day Off

     If it seems to you, Gentle Reader, that these have been getting more frequent of late, that’s just because they have. Today I’m terribly tired, and worse, I have a host of obligations to meet, so I must spend today on things other than my interminable opinion spouting. I hope to be back tomorrow.

Pearls of expression.

[Interviewer: The Bible indicates] Jesus said, "I'm not coming to bring peace but the sword."

[Father Daniel Maes:] If you kill or injure someone with the sword, then throughout the Christianity nobody will say, "That man is following the gospel." But if a Muslim blows itself up in a large group of people, then there are Muslims who will say, "I should actually do that too, but I don’t have the courage."

"'Without Putin, Syria Would Have Ceased to Exist': Interview With Flemish Priest Living in Syria." By Erik van de Beek, Russia Insider, 6/13/17.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

The PDOOMA Series

     [Owing to the return of the global warming evangelists and their claims that President Trump has doomed us all by pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords, I’ve decided to reissue these four essays, which first appeared at Eternity Road in late 2009 and 2010. Some of the links are dead, but as they were links to other Eternity Road essays, you shouldn’t let it trouble you. -- FWP]


1. PDOOMA!

     The government is extremely fond of amassing great quantities of statistics. These are raised to the nth degree, the cube roots are extracted, and the results are arranged into elaborate and impressive displays. What must be kept ever in mind, however, is that in every case, the figures are first put down by a village watchman, and he puts down anything he damn well pleases. -- Sir Josiah Stamp
     If it cannot be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. -- Robert A. Heinlein
     43.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. – Author unknown

     Among the eternal verities of the engineering trade is this:

What matters most about any figure injected into a technical discussion is its error bar.

     The size of the error bar -- in layman’s terms, the amount by which the figure cited could be high or low -- determines whether the figure is worthy of consideration, as evidence or as support for some proposed solution to a problem.

  • A small error bar, which indicates high confidence in the figure, enhances the authority of the figure.
  • A large error bar, which indicates low confidence in the figure, renders the figure suspect and unreliable.
  • An unknown or undisclosed error bar indicates that the figure is a PDOOMA.

     PDOOMA, one of engineering’s most beloved acronyms, stands for “Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass.” The figure is almost certainly guesswork or worse -- in extreme cases, pure fiction. The best giveaway to a PDOOMA figure is the absence of an error bar.

     The PDOOMA figure is becoming a major player in political rhetoric. Conservatives have had to cope with quite a few of them in recent years. Because we prefer not to fight too many duels -- ammunition has gotten quite expensive, y’know -- we usually refrain from calling the PDOOMA's proponent a liar. The usual conservative response to a PDOOMA from a left-liberal is simply to dispute the figure's accuracy, or perhaps its relevance. But the unprecedented proliferation of political PDOOMAs has made that approach counterproductive. As Ann Coulter said in her book Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right, we find ourselves passing over quite a lot of leftist fiction so we can concentrate on the lies of earth-shaking magnitude.

     Here are a few PDOOMAs of recent vintage:

  • Al Gore's claim that, if nothing is done about "global warming," Earth will experience a sea level rise of twenty feet.
  • Marian Wright Edelman's claim that every extra dollar devoted to Head Start funding would ultimately save $3.35 in federal and state welfare expenditures.
  • Congressional Democrats claim that $500 billion can be squeezed out of Medicare expenditures over the next ten years by "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse."
  • Barack Hussein Obama's "47 million Americans can't get health insurance."
  • Barack Hussein Obama's "650,000 jobs created or saved" by the $787 billion stimulus bill.

     ...and not an error bar in the lot.

     The most annoying aspect of these PDOOMAs is how hard it is to get their promulgators to stand their ground and defend it. When challenged, they immediately change the subject, or attack the objector -- and subsequently act as if the PDOOMA went unchallenged, and should be taken as authoritative and trustworthy. But left-liberalism being inherently fraudulent and treacherous, perhaps this is only to be expected.

     The proliferation of PDOOMAs on the subject of health care has slowed down somewhat in recent weeks, but there remain a couple that animate the Democrats' drive for the nationalization of American medicine. One is the "47 million uninsured" canard. No responsible analyst would propound such a figure without also stating how he'd arrived at it, what the error bar is, and whether factors other than the politically potent implication of unaffordability play a part in a significant fraction of the total. The last of those is a particularly important question at a time when among America's most important social ills is our problem with illegal immigration.

     But no field beats "global warming / climate change" for reliance on the PDOOMA. The whole "discipline" is PDOOMAs from first to last. Global temperature assessment is inherently fraught with major uncertainties. Measurements of global temperature have error bars of several Centigrade degrees. The recent revelations of wholesale distortion and data-dredging at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, apparently carried on shamelessly by hundreds, if not thousands, of the best known "global warming" flacksters in the world, should be a lesson to us about the probity of "scientific measurements" advanced to serve a political cause. Self-nominated "scientists" are just as capable of deception, including self-deception, as any other human being...especially when vast quantities of money are at stake.

     If there's an irony over this originating from the Right, it would be that, since left-liberals are generally aware that their own "statistics" and "projections" are PDOOMAs, they instinctively reject figures that countervail their contentions. For example, it will do you no good in a conversation with a gun-control advocate to cite Florida's impressive decrease in violent crimes after it became a shall-issue state -- very nearly 80% over the first two years. He'll assume you made it up. Nor will he bother to check it for himself; it violates Holy Leftist Writ about the evil of firearms, and that's all he needs to know. Neither can you make any headway with a rabid welfarist by pointing out that the Reagan-era tax rate cuts correlated with federal revenue increases of over $390 billion per year by 1989. "Tax cut" is profanity to a statist of any stripe; you simply have to be lying.

     In other words, you can't persuade a left-liberal by using facts.

     Indeed, it might not be possible to persuade a left-liberal by any means available to Man. Left-liberal Causes, being quasi-religious in nature, receive devotion of religious intensity from their devotees. That's why they're unabashed about their use of PDOOMAs. The end justifies the means; no deception is out of bounds if it serves Ultimate Truth.

     Depressing, especially to one who respects the connection between numbers and reality.


2. PDOOMA! Part 2: The Trouble With Temperature

     There's already been a lot of discussion of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit document leak. The documents have been authenticated by persons at the institution and pored over by thousands of readers. The implications of the statements therein are utterly damning for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) thesis. Perhaps worst of all is the annotated FORTRAN 90 source code for one of the CRU's key climate models, which clearly attempts to turn sow's-ear temperature data into a silk purse of AGW confirmation by a range of manipulations too sordid for a serious scientist to bear. Though we cannot expect AGW's political backers to run up a white flag just yet -- there's too much money and power at stake -- nevertheless, it's clear that we have the warmistas on the run.

     Yet, in all the Sturm und Drang that's flown over the AGW issue, there's a question your Curmudgeon has been waiting for someone to ask, but which has unaccountably never been raised in any forum:

What is the current temperature of the Earth?

     "Global warming" must surely refer to the temperature of the globe, no? Or at least, to the temperature of that part of the globe that's relevant to its resident organisms: the upper crust, the oceans, and the atmosphere. So what is it? If the Earth is getting warmer, then its temperature today must be higher than what it was at some relevant past moment, right? Right?

     The Earth doesn't have a convenient orifice into which to stick a thermometer, does it? Worse, if it did, it wouldn't tell us anything particularly useful.

     Of course, a dedicated warmista would wave the question aside as "naive," no doubt with a considerable display of irritation. He'd be equally likely to dismiss its reductionist versions: what's the current temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, or of the Atlantic Ocean, or of the Gulf of Mexico, et cetera. But that doesn't mean that the questions are meaningless or irrelevant to the subject. Indeed, they're the most important questions of all.

     Their importance lies in this: They cannot be answered satisfactorily, now or ever.

     The temperature of a large body is inherently unknowable. Temperature, like simultaneity, is a local phenomenon: the larger the locale, the less certain one's determinations will be. Your Curmudgeon could fairly assume that the air temperature over the Fortress of Crankitude will be about the same as that over its next-door neighbor at any given instant, but he'd guarantee that it will differ from the temperature over a house a mile or two away. Since the two key thermal aspects of life on Earth, the atmosphere and the oceans, are chaotic systems characterized by continuous fluctuations of unknown magnitude, their temperatures are as unknowable as the length of the coastline of Norway.

     The situation is actually worse than that. Temperature is supposed to correspond to the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance whose temperature one is taking. It's an empirical sort of metric, since we can't actually measure the kinetic energy of all those little particles and take their average; instead, we use a correlation to the expansion of some substance, such as mercury or alcohol. If, when exposed to the thing whose temperature is to be taken, a fixed mass of our chosen metrical substance expands by so much, we say its temperature is thus-and-such...which completely ignores the prior mechanical and thermodynamic state of the metrical substance itself.

     In short, the state variable called temperature is one of the least precise of all the measures known to physics, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Any good physicist will tell you this, Sunday-supplement gee-whiz references to such things as the temperature of the Earth's core or the surface of the Sun notwithstanding.

     This makes "investigations" such as AGW a fool's errand.

     We have a natural sense, direct from our nerve endings, for "hotter" and "cooler" as those conceptions apply to small objects and local conditions. That shouldn't be allowed to fool us into thinking we can know the temperature of a large region or a large body with arbitrary precision -- and the precision required to invest any credibility in the representations of the warmistas is unbelievably fine, measured in tenths of a Centigrade degree. But that level of precision is what the warmistas have sought to sell us.

     The AGW thesis has been a con job from first to last, a castle of power-seeking lies built on a foundation of fantasy-precision sand. That it should have come tumbling down at the slightest of temblors was only to be expected. As we in the software trade like to say:

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

     Perhaps we don't say it often enough.


3. PDOOMA! Part 3: Clarity About "The Environment"

     The East Anglia CRU document leak and its sequels are proving to be everything a freedom-minded man could have wished. The entire edifice of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) promoters has collapsed as its leading lights proffer ever less credible explanations for the materials revealed. The FORTRAN 90 source code to the CRU's principal climate model is particularly valuable for the embedded comments, which make it plain that massive data fudging was performed to produce even a semblance of AGW hazard.

     Which makes this a nearly perfect time to talk about environmental issues in general.

***

     Back in the Sixties, Americans became receptive to suggestions that air pollution was a problem to be addressed. The air in our major cities was admittedly less than pleasant, owing in part to industrial emissions, in part to automobile exhaust, and in part to the unavoidable consequences of packing large numbers of people into a small space. Political will was marshaled; Washington emitted laws and regulations concerning effluent control, of which the best known are those pertaining to car exhausts. Automakers and manufacturers resisted at first, but eventually submitted to the new dictates.

     Urban air got steadily cleaner and clearer. At least some of the credit does belong to the pollution control laws. In particular, what comes out of a modern car's exhaust pipe is far less noxious than the emissions of its Sixties forebears. That the cost of these measures was considerable is undeniable. That a federal solution was optimal is open to dispute.

     A "vertical" city with a high population density, such as New York or Chicago, has a number of alternative approaches to the problem of automobile-generated air pollution. Granted that one of these is literally forbidding cars to emit noxious fumes. But there are others, some of which address the air-quality problem simultaneously with other matters that are arguably as important: taxing industrial effluents by weight; closing the core of the city to personal motor vehicles; instituting high-quality mass transit. All of those approaches, being localized, could be locally adjusted to changes in the situation without involving the federal government.

     A "horizontal" city, such as Milwaukee or Indianapolis, will have a harder time instituting good, city-wide mass transit, but by the same token its geographical dispersion will render its air pollution problems less intense. If it has any Manhattan-like dense zones, those could be closed to personal vehicles, provided municipal transit is made available. The value of local control of the relevant ordinances is the same as it would be to a "vertical" town.

     Had America's cities adopted such local approaches to local air quality, in all probability they would have achieved as satisfactory a reduction of their air pollution problems as has federal intervention -- and without surrendering more control over their affairs to a federal government already well beyond its Constitutional sphere. But the era was excessively favorable to the federalization of just about everything.

***

     The other objective environmental problem of note is fresh-water pollution. There has never been much of a "personal" component to this; most pollution of fresh water sources is caused by industrial effluents and the rain-driven runoff of agrochemicals. Robert A. Heinlein noted in his book Expanded Universe that the easy way to deal with industrial effluents into fresh-water rivers and streams is to compel factories to put their water input immediately downstream from their effluent output. The negative feedback that would provide would be sufficient by itself -- and once again, the matter could be left to local ordinances, rather than having to federalize it.

     Agrochemicals present a stiffer problem, as they're vitally necessary to modern agriculture and no one can stop the rain from falling. Technological approaches are possible; for example, many important fertilizers and pesticides are susceptible to being "fixed" into the soil, or made mechanically adhesive to the leaves of plants. However, there doesn't seem to be a perfect answer, though perfection isn't something mere humans should expect to achieve, however hard we might strive toward it.

     The great chimera of the day is the pollution of subterranean fresh-water aquifers. Barring the excavation of deep-shaft mines in residential neighborhoods, this is flatly impossible. The soil is itself a cleansing mechanism; as water seeps through it, the soil leaches away virtually anything it might have carried on the surface. Indeed, Man has not yet produced a water-sanitizing system nearly as effective or efficient as a hundred feet of good old mother Earth.

***

     Thus we dispose of the two objective environmental problems of modern technological society. All else, regardless of the motivations or protests of the source, is froth and gas:

  • Clear-cutting the Amazon Basin? Not to worry; the world's oxygen supply is more than adequate, nor are the ocean plankton or the rest of the planet's green biomass about to go on strike.
  • Holes in the ozone layer? Another of the classic bug-bears. The holes over the poles have been there for centuries; they're an effect of the high-altitude radiation belts and their interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. They wax; they wane, and then they do it all over again.
  • Animal species disappearing? Which animals, please? Few of the world's macroscopic species are endangered by anything but superstition. None of the animals most prominently cited as endangered are critical to any aspect of any regional ecology. In addition, many of the claims are fraudulent, contrived by treating a local population of some species as an independent species in its own right. That's the case with the spotted owl, on whose behalf anti-lumber-industry agitators nearly shut down logging operations in the Pacific Northwest for several years.
  • Auto-immune disease induced by chemical exposure? This is rot. The various "experts" paid to testify to it by plaintiffs' lawyers are entirely unable to provide scientific support for their notions.
  • Loss of "wetlands?" "Wetland" is merely a more attractive word for "swamp." Draining swamps reduces communicable diseases and saves lives. There is no ecological requirement for the mosquito.

     There are other fashionable environmental causes, but none known to your Curmudgeon are any better grounded than those above. The above are sufficiently representative to assert that the point has been made.

***

     Needless to say, what your Curmudgeon has written here is blasphemy to the environmentally correct. But then, these "green bigots" (Thomas Sowell) put anything and everything ahead of human freedom and human flourishing. They disguise their true agendas well...until something like the East Anglia CRU document leak occurs, and we see them scramble for another justification for their demands.

     An incident from some years ago has much point. Your Curmudgeon was visiting a friend who lived at that time in the Mojave Desert, a large stretch of sand essentially devoid of life and useless for anything but dune-buggy racing and weapons testing. On one occasion when driving through the desert on the way to one of its few tourist attractions, we passed some obvious dune-buggy tracks, causing your Curmudgeon's friend's wife, a rather extreme environmentalist, to say that "when you scar the desert, it doesn't heal."

     Being a guest, your Curmudgeon forbore to comment, but he was thinking furiously. What "scar?" What would constitute "healing?" If disturbing the distribution of the sand in a barren stretch of desert should be forbidden, what human impacts on the environment should be permitted?

     In the view of the true-green environmentalist, that last question is too dangerous to answer candidly. It leads to places he wants no one to go who isn't already sworn to the cause.

     Food for thought.


4. PDOOMA! Part 4: The Masks Are Now ALL The Way Off!

     It has been said, and truly, that "three can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Well, there might be more than three up to their eyelashes in the anthropogenic-global-warming mire, but not a lot more:

     The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was“only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

     “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

     Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

     Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

     So more than just the temperature data was faked, fudged, and massaged into a warm glow, eh? As a certain Vulcan second officer might say, "Fascinating."

     Not that the "research data" put forward in support of the AGW thesis was ever trustworthy or compelling. Various inherent difficulties about the matter from an analytical perspective alone would have guaranteed a great deal of skepticism from honest scientists even if we'd never learned of the East Anglia frauds. Now we know that it wasn't just us hoi polloi who smelled something corrupt in it. Given the amounts of money and pressure national governments and the UN have mobilized to get the scientific community onto the AGW bandwagon, there can be little doubt that many geophysicists were approached about signing on to the IPCC's deceits, and turned them down.

     We appear to have dodged a bullet. We must take care not to allow our political class to shove us back into its path.

Creating Useful Simulations

     As the warmistas are still banging their pots and pans together and shrieking that their climate models “prove” that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a real effect that will have catastrophic consequences if not drastically curtailed, it occurred to me that it might be useful to post some of what I’ve learned about simulation, so that those of us who are skeptical of the whole thing will have more ammunition for their tussles over it.

     I have some standing in the field, having spent forty years doing simulations for various purposes. While the technicata are fascinating to others doing such things, what really matters are the validity rules: what one must do to make one’s program a true simulation of a real process, rather than a fanciful look at a process that only exists within the simulation.

     The fundamental rule of simulation validity contains all the others:

The simulation must replicate all the relevant processes within the thing being simulated.

     The fun begins with the question “What constitutes a relevant process?”


     As we’re mostly interested in the problem of climate modeling, we’re concerned with energy flows into and out of the atmosphere: all the sources and sinks of energy that could affect the global temperature (assuming that a “global temperature” of some sort is truly relevant). Some energy sources and sinks can be dismissed as “trivial:” the input from the flapping of birds’ wings, for example. However, there are several others that are clearly significant:

  • Sources:
    1. Solar input.
    2. Cosmic radiation input.
    3. The production of heat by human energy generation.
    4. Other biological activity.
    5. Vulcanism.
  • Sinks:
    1. Heat lost to space.
    2. Heat absorption by the oceans.
    3. Heat absorption by the Earth’s solid mass.

     Each of these things is controlled by processes which must be simulated in their own right – and none of them are simple. For example, cosmic radiation, while a relatively small source of heat, affects cloud formation, and clouds are a critical factor in the insulation of the atmosphere. When the Sun is especially active, the solar wind is strong, which reduces the input of cosmic radiation. That causes clouds to form at a different rate, and to have a different average mass, volume, albedo, and longevity.

     Certain important processes are incompletely understood. For example, our Sun is a variable star. Its output varies by about four percent (4%) around its mean. Therefore, so does the solar input to our atmosphere’s energy system. As the Sun is overwhelmingly the largest source of atmospheric heat, this is a significant roadblock to the creation of a useful climate simulation. No climate model yet created has accounted for that variation, which is likely the key to explaining geologically recent climate changes such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.

     Another incompletely understood process is convection at the top of the atmosphere. Energy, as every first-year physics student learns, is only transferred from one medium to another in three ways:

  1. Conduction;
  2. Convection;
  3. Radiation.

     Recent studies of the convection between the uppermost atmospheric layers and the solar wind suggest that there’s more energy transfer taking place there than was previously believed. However, because the top layers of the atmosphere are thin and interact with both the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field, researchers do not yet have an adequate understanding of that process. Therefore, climate modelers cannot plausibly claim to have sufficiently accounted for it in their models.

     The warmistas’ models concentrate on a couple of processes they believe dominant, and slough all others or treat them as negligible. Their favorite, of course, is the “greenhouse effect:” the increased heat retention of a gas allowed to trap an increasing amount of carbon dioxide. This effect has been demonstrated, but only in closed systems free of several important properties and processes in the Earth’s atmosphere. Those closed systems, for example, don’t form clouds. They don’t contain biological entities that react to changes in their environment. And of course, they can’t and don’t account for changes in radiative input such as the Sun undergoes.

     Scant wonder the climate models are all over the map, and have failed to produce predictions accurate even to within a generous error allowance. They’re not modeling the Earth’s atmosphere, with its complex energy-transfer and feedback processes; they’re modeling uniquely simpler systems that include only a portion of those processes, as if the others were of no importance, and claiming that their models reflect atmospheric reality.


     To sum up: a simulation is useful only to the extent that it incorporates all the significant mechanisms in the thing being simulated. If those mechanisms are themselves incomplete or uncertain, the simulation will be useless, possibly even misleading. I submit that that is a wholly adequate justification for dismissing claims of anthropogenic global warming made on the basis of climate models.

     However, it is reasonable to suspect that the warmistas are principally interested in something other than scientific knowledge. Their drive for political power, and the eager cooperation they’ve received from statists of various stripes, suggests that the models are mainly a means to an end. That end, to the best of my ability to discern its lineaments, will not be favorable to freedom.

     If I am correct in this surmise, the whole of the AGW drumbeating comes down to a search for a justification for totalitarian control over the world economy: a degree of power over human activity no tyrant has ever achieved, on the grounds that if it’s not granted to them, “we’re all going to fry.” That’s a card-palming any three-card monte hustler would be thrilled to execute successfully.

     I am reminded of a classic gag: A cop on a nightshift beat comes upon a drunk running his hands through the grass around a lamppost. Of course he asks the drunk what he’s doing. The reply: “I dropped my keys about fifty feet away.”

     Bemused, the cop asks the drunk, “Then why aren’t you looking for them over there?”

     The drunk replies, “The light is better here.”

Monday, June 12, 2017

Incorrectitude: Caricature Humor

     Back when, we thought nothing of humor that caricatures observable group characteristics. The group might be men, women, the elderly, an occupational group, a race, a religion, or some ethnic group. It didn’t matter as long as the joke was genuinely funny.

     But what makes a joke “funny” varies from one listener to the next. In the case of caricature humor, it had to accord with the general perception of the characteristic at the center of the joke – and back when, we generally didn’t blush at noticing such things and remarking on them, funnily or otherwise. It was understood that we loved the people who were the butts of those jokes, meant them no harm, and wouldn’t have them any other way.

     As I’m feeling particularly in-your-face today, have a few old caricature jests of the sort Americans – including the Americans whose groups were being lampooned – enjoyed in those older and far more innocent times.


1. “Wild women.”

     The grizzled old hobo had chopped his quota of firewood and the kind lady who was his benefactress had admitted him to her kitchen for his meal. While the old mendicant stuffed himself on her offerings, she plied him with an endless series of questions. Though it tried him mightily, he did his best to eat and respond simultaneously.

     When he’d all but emptied his plates, she asked him, “And what was your occupation before you fell into your present plight, my man?”

     “I was a sailor, ma’am,” the hobo said between mouthfuls.

     “Oh, a sailor! Well, you must have had some exciting adventures!”

     “Yes, ma’am, I surely did. Why, once I was shipwrecked on the coast of Africa, and while making my way back I came upon a tribe of wild women who had no tongues.”

     “Good heavens!” his hostess exclaimed. “How could they talk, then?”

     “They couldn’t, ma’am,” the old hobo said as he grabbed the last slice of bread with one hand and reached for his hat with the other. “That’s what made them wild.”


2. Expertise is where you find it.

     “Some time ago,” the socialite said, “I had a Negro cook named Beulah whose compositions were the envy of our neighborhood. One evening when I was entertaining some friends at dinner, one of them remarked on the fancy frills Beulah had put on the crust of her apple pie and asked how it was done. So I called Beulah to the table and asked for her secret.

     “Beulah curtsied and said, ‘Ah tried every fork in yo' kitchen and ah still couldn’t get it the way ah wanted it, so ah jes took out mah false teeth and did the job right propah!’”


3. Affairs of the heart.

     Mistress was very stern toward Hilda, her Swedish milkmaid. “Hilda,” she said, “I saw the milkman kissing you this morning. In the future, I’ll bring the milk in.”

     Hilda, however, was not disturbed, “Vel, it ain’t no use, by yiminy, because he promised to kiss no one but me!”


4. Yankee thrift.

     As is well known to students of American history, upon learning that President Harding had passed away, Vice President Calvin Coolidge was sworn into the presidency by his father, a justice of the peace. A famous oil painting shows the ceremony taking place over a kerosene lamp.

     Some years later, the Sons of the Revolution, having decided that the lamp was an important historical item that deserved to be on display in their collection, asked President Coolidge for the lamp.

     “Can’t do it,” the president replied. “It’s still a pretty good lamp.”


5. A mistake in indoor couture.

     A London hunter who employed a Scotsman as his guide made the fellow a present of a handsome fur cap, the sort with heavy ear flaps for extra protection from the cold. The guide was most appreciative and donned the cap at once to show it.

     On his next visit to the lodge at which they regularly met, the hunter asked the old Scot how he liked the cap and whether he’d gotten a lot of use from it. “I hae not wore it since the accident,” came the gloomy reply.

     The hunter was dismayed. “What accident?”

     “Jock MacLeod offered to buy me a drink,” the old Scot said with a sigh, “ and I didna hear him.”


6. Waste should always be deplored.

     A woman who lived on the second floor of her apartment building was straining to wash the outside surface of a window. In her zeal to reach every corner of the thing, she leaned too far out the window, lost her purchase on the sill, and fell into the garbage can situated just below it. This greatly startled the old Chinaman who was passing by at that moment.

     The old Chinese jumped back, surveyed the situation, collected himself, and continued on, muttering, “Amellicans velly wasteful. Woman good for ten years yet.”


7. Resolving to live dangerously.

     An elderly man with a beautiful young girl on his arm arrived at the doctor’s office, announced that their next stop was at the marriage license office, and asked for a blood test. The doctor, noting the difference in their ages, decided to inquire further. “How old are the two of you?”

     “I’m 87,” the old gentleman said. “She’s 17.”

     The doctor was shocked. Suspecting something other than romance was afoot, he decided to counsel the groom-to-be. “Sir,” he said in his most carefully controlled, we’re-all-men-of-science-here tone, “though I’m moved to...congratulate you, I must warn you: that much of a difference in your ages could be fatal.”

     The old gentleman appeared shaken. He looked off into a corner for a moment, then shrugged and said, “Oh, well. If she dies, she dies.”


8. Union rules.

     One day, while at work in the mill, a fellow who had the reputation of being “not all there” was inattentive and got his thumb too close to the saw, severing it all but for a few shreds of flesh. He was at once rushed to the doctor, who, while treating him, tried a jape: “Since you cut your thumb almost all the way off, why didn’t you finish it and do a good clean job?”

     “Waaal,” the fellow replied, “that’s as far as I got when the whistle blew.”


9. All he could take.

     After many angry words, he rose from his chair and exclaimed, “This has gone on long enough! I’m going right out of your life!”

     She, appalled at this unexpected turn in their quarrel, replied “No! Henry darling, where are you going?”

     “Where I’ll never trouble you again,” Henry said as he donned his hat and coat. “Far from here, where wild adventure will blot out the memories of this moment. Perhaps the heights of the Himalayas...or the jungles of Africa...or out on the stormy seas...” And with that he yanked open the door, exited, and slammed it behind him.

     She stood paralyzed, unable to believe what had occurred. But a moment later the door opened again and he re-entered their home. He doffed his hat and coat, glared at her, and said, “It’s lucky for you that it’s raining!”


10. Decorum matters.

     Illinois Central Railroad depot manager Halloran was at his office desk one Friday morning when someone came through the door unheralded and without knocking. He looked up to find a burly Irish track worker looming over him.

     “Me name’s Casey,” the track worker said. “Oi want a pass to St. Louis. Oi worruk in th’ yards.”

     “That’s no way to ask for a pass,” Halloran said. “You should introduce yourself politely. Come back in an hour and try it again.”

     The crestfallen track worker nodded and departed. An hour later there was a diffident knock at Halloran’s office door. “Come in!”

     In came the big Irishman, cap in hand. “Excuse me, sir,” the man said, “Are yez Mister Halloran?”

     Halloran smiled and rose. “I am,” he said. “And who might you be?”

     “Me name is Patrick Casey,” the worker said, “Oi’ve been workin’ out in the yard.”

     “Well, I’m pleased to meet you, Mr. Casey,” Halloran said. “And what may I do for you?”

     Casey grinned. “Yez can go to Hell. Oi’ve a job an’ a pass on the Wabash.”


     Got any favorite politically incorrect humor to add, Gentle Reader?

Russian lie monopoly.

This was announced on Fox Business News sometime in the last two weeks on Stuart Varney's show, IIRC. The speaker was former Goldman Sachs partner, Peter Kiernan:
Anybody, and I've had some experience with Russia, anybody who does and deals with Russia will not be shocked when they hear that Russia does not always tell the truth.
This was put forth with no challenge from the host. It's as though Russia and its nefarious leaders and people have cornered the market on speaking lies.

It wasn't that long ago that the U.S. president was talking about how if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan, that millions of Americans who "have stopped looking for work" are not unemployed, that "Fast and Furious" began under Bush '43, that a YouTube video led to the attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi, that the Coalition air attack on Syrian Arab Army troops in Deir ez-Zor was a mistake, that Assad used nerve gas in Ghouta, and that America is a Muslim nation. Another president denied that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky and yet another one promised that he would not approve new taxes.

It's as though intelligent people here have the memory and attention span of a spaniel.

This kind of nonsense on Fox is par for the course. Gen. Jack Keane and LTC Ralph Peters routinely peddle the notion that Russia is dead set on an expansionist foreign policy and K.T. McFarland echoed their sentiments when she regularly appeared on Fox before going over to the National Security Council.

Something is being sold big time. As seen on TV!

Sunday, June 11, 2017

For Trinity Sunday: A Sunday Rumination

     Today is Trinity Sunday, one of the three feasts that cap the Easter season. It’s customary on this day to reflect on the “mystery of the Trinity:” that is, that there are three distinct Persons yet a single God. It’s one of the aspects of Christian thought that Christians have puzzled over and non-Christians have scoffed at for centuries.

     Yet the mystery is not as mysterious as it seems. Rather, it’s bound up in the supreme mystery, the one Man’s mind is too limited to comprehend.

     Ponder the following snippet from Shadow Of A Sword:

     “I never really got that part,” Christine said.
     Ray nodded. “Understandably so. It seems paradoxical. I don’t really think we’re expected to ‘get’ it. Just accept it on the evidence.”
     The room had grown dim. It had gotten quite late, but neither Ray nor Christine was in any hurry to conclude their chat.
     “What makes it hard for most people,” Ray said, “is that we tend to think of God as just a very powerful temporal entity, like some sort of super-magician. But He’s not. He created time. He looks down on it from above, the way you or I would read a map. He knows the path we follow because He knows all the paths we might follow, and what might flow from every one of them.” He sat back and reflected for a moment. “So our time-dependent language about ‘choosing’ and ‘knowing’ gets us into trouble when we try to apply it to God.”
     “You know,” Christine said, “that would go a long way toward explaining the Trinity, too.”
     “Hm? How so?”
     “Well, why is the Trinity a tough nut to crack? Because people can’t be in more than one place at a time, right? Wherever you go, there you are, and you’re still you.”
     “Uh...” Am I getting in over my head here? “That could be part of it.”
     She leaned toward him, intensity and delight merging in her expression. “But if you take the Gospels as factual, then the evidence says there were three divine Persons, even if that’s tough for us time-bound types to imagine. You don’t have to figure out how you could pull it off. You just have to allow that He can do that sort of thing even if we can’t!”

     Christine’s take on the Trinity is, of course, my own: the mystery isn’t in the Trinity, but in the nature of God. God, the supratemporal Supreme Being who created time and wrote the laws of our universe, is not knowable in His entirety by a human mind. What He can do – including “trinitizing” Himself – goes far beyond any man’s capacity to understand.

     The exchange causes Father Raymond Altomare, Christine’s interlocutor in the passage above, to experience something of a personal breakthrough:

     Ray opened his mouth, closed it without speaking. Christine frowned.
     “Did I say something wrong, Father?”
     “Not at all, dear,” he said. “In fact, I think you’ve been teaching me my trade.” He grimaced in rueful remembrance. “I used to think more about these things when I was a teen. Talks like this one were why I wanted to become a priest. Then I got caught up in all the social activism nonsense that infects the church these days. You know, the stuff Father Schliemann disdained and that I tried to bring here with me.”
     The stuff that drove you away.
     “The social welfare crap is a lot easier than being a man of God,” he said. “That’s probably why it seduces so many priests away from their real responsibilities.” Ray rose and ambled aimlessly around the sitting room. “After all, when you spend your time distributing food, or clothing, or fliers for some rally or demonstration, you know exactly what you’re doing. You can count up your results, even if it’s just in pounds of bread or sheets of paper. Preaching the Christian faith, proclaiming the love of God and the importance of Christ’s New Covenant, getting people to accept that it’s vitally important even though you can’t prove it, is a lot harder to enter into a spreadsheet.”

     One of the aspects of Christianity that makes it intellectually exciting is exactly that: its message of unconditional love and forgiveness is coupled to a mystery the mind can paw at endlessly but never unlock: the mystery of God’s nature and – because we think in time-dependent terms – His reasons for creating the world and putting us in it. Far too many clerics have, in Stephen King’s words, “put both feet in this world,” essentially abandoning the doctrinal elements of Christianity that make it endlessly fascinating to contemplate...because it’s too challenging for them to explain!

     It’s not necessary that He have reasons for Creation that we would understand. Neither is it required that we understand His triune nature. C. S. Lewis, as usual, has an intriguing take on it:

     The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. "To be" means "to be in competition".

     Now the Enemy's philosophy is nothing more nor less than one continued attempt to evade this very obvious truth. He aims at a contradiction. Things are to be many, yet somehow also one. The good of one self is to be the good of another. This impossibility He calls love, and this same monotonous panacea can be detected under all He does and even all He is—or claims to be. Thus He is not content, even Himself, to be a sheer arithmetical unity; He claims to be three as well as one, in order that this nonsense about Love may find a foothold in His own nature. At the other end of the scale, He introduces into matter that obscene invention the organism, in which the parts are perverted from their natural destiny of competition and made to co-operate.

     [From The Screwtape Letters, of course!]

     This is eminently plausible, though there’s no way to “prove” it. A passage of stunning beauty in Julie Hall’s novel Huntress expresses Lewis’s idea in a more personal way:

     “I created your inmost being and knit you together in your mother’s womb. My eyes saw your unformed body, and all your days have been written in My book before even one of them came to be. Shall I continue, dear Audrey, to tell you how great My love is for you? Shall I tell you how I have always known the plans I have for you, plans to prosper and not harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future? Shall I remind you how you came and prayed to Me and how I listened? How you found Me because you sought Me with your whole heart?”
     Words I had once known came up from a deep place within my heart: How great the love the Father has lavished upon us, that we should be called children of God.

     A Being willing and able to create whole universes – and we can’t be sure ours is the only one, now can we? – and populate them with creatures whose wills are as free as His own, and whose natures cause them to love and to yearn for love, could plausibly choose to express love within His own nature. It’s consistent with establishing laws that permit us to learn, grow, and prosper. It’s also consistent with assuming the guise of a Man and allowing others to torture and execute Him, merely to establish His Authority.

     And though it’s ultimately beyond our power to comprehend in its entirety, it’s as exciting as all the temporal conundrums of life rolled into one.

     Happy Trinity Sunday to all my Gentle Readers. Be sure to make the Sign of the Cross often, today and every day. And may God, in all Three Persons, bless and keep you all!

Book Review: “Huntress”

     A writer who deliberately produces explicitly Christian fiction can get pretty lonely. There aren’t many such books worthy of your time. Most Christian fiction is excessively preachy, takes wholesale liberties with Christian theocosmogony, or is execrably written...sometimes all three at once. Any of the three can spell death for the story’s embedded theme, to say nothing of the effect on the reader’s reading pleasure.

     That makes it an occasion of great pleasure to introduce Julie Hall.

     Miss Hall exhibits some stylistic faults that are typical of the fledgling novelist. Inappropriate lead-in participial constructions; wrong choice of time-sequence-designation words; an occasional ambiguity of dialogue attribution. I notice such things; it’s my personal curse. But I’m sure she’ll unlearn them with practice, and anyway, they didn’t keep me from hugely enjoying this half-adventure, half-romance romp through a fanciful afterlife.

     Miss Hall’s fantasy of the afterlife hints at a basis in the Christian mythos, but isn’t completely explicit about it. However, most of the usual features are there, though two exceptions are notable above all others:

  1. There’s no role for the Redeemer as of yet;
  2. The dead have jobs, and rather demanding jobs at that.

     Jobs in the afterlife! With assignments, designated teams, and a hierarchy to report to! There are probably status meetings now and then, too. Well, if you’re going to write a fantasy of the afterlife, yet retain as much as possible of the Christian framework, you have to make “adjustments” like that. And as I’ve already said, Miss Hall has crafted a highly enjoyable tale – so much so that I’m eagerly awaiting the sequel, which will become available on June 13.

     Much to her surprise, protagonist Audrey finds herself assigned to a combat role – against demons, of course – and she’s required to train like the dickens for it. Along the way she discovers both a quirk of romantic attraction in the afterlife and that she has a special role even among the demon hunters. (It’s a bit of a head-scratcher to imagine that God would need humans to take a role in fighting demons, but hey, this is a fantasy.) Her progress with both of these occupies her more thoroughly than she expects. Her prolonged inability to remember her mortal life adds complications and a unique poignancy to the story. More I cannot say without dissipating the mystery around why Audrey has been chosen for her job as a demon huntress and her special part within that job.

     One feature of Huntress stands out sufficiently to give it special mention: Miss Hall’s use of the Christian motif of temptation. Her demons don’t have the ability to affect the material world directly. They’re engaged in striving to sway vulnerable humans by suggestion, tempting them to commit evil deeds, just as in standard Christian doctrine. Heaven’s hunters combat the demons in a paraphysical way, specifically to prevent them from exercising such sway. This is entirely consistent with the role of the demonic in Christian thought, and a notable contrast with tales such as John Conroe’s Demon Accords, in which demons can manipulate matter and attack mortal creatures. However, in those paraphysical combats, the demons are vulnerable to destruction by heaven’s hunters...and the hunters are equally vulnerable. We’re informed at one point that among the possible consequences is a fate “worse than death,” though Miss Hall doesn’t elaborate on it.

     I hope Miss Hall has more than just this one series in her. Highly recommended.