Friday, October 23, 2020
Agenda Giveaways
Sad to say, these days there aren’t many questions that don’t have a political component. Politics has crept into places where it never was before and – in the great majority of cases – doesn’t belong. I’ve written about the reasons for this in the past, so I shan’t bore you this morning by repeating myself.
Among the most egregious cases of politics where it doesn’t belong are those that pertain to science and / or technology. Some of the political players manage to disguise their agendas better than others, which is why I’m writing on this subject. It’s vital that Americans who want to see clearly be equipped to detect a political agenda in an issue that “should” rest on purely rational considerations.
One I have in mind this morning, courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, is the nature of electrical power generation and distribution. The U.S. has three distinct power distribution regions, or “grids.” One services East of the Rockies; one services West of the Rockies; and one services the state of Texas. There are people who see this as a problem. Why? What advantages would accrue to American electrical power consumers were the three grids to be integrated?
This article in IEEE Spectrum discusses the subject – in a politicized way. It’s fairly long, but if you have the stamina I suggest that you read it for yourself rather than take my word for its orientation.
The article is in the form of an interview, but it doesn’t take long to detect that putative interviewer Steven Cherry is entirely in agreement with interviewee Peter Fairley that the grids “should” be integrated. It doesn’t take much longer to detect Fairley’s agenda. All one must do is note the occurrences of words and phrases about highly politicized pseudo-issues:
- Wind farms
- Climate change
- Renewable energy
- “move off of our largely carbon-based sources of power”
- “accelerate the shutdown of coal-fired power”
- “U.S. administration’s connections to—devotion to—the coal industry.”
- “the oil and gas industry is definitely also a major political backer of the Trump administration.”
- “states have their own public utility commission that has to approve new power lines.”
- “making renewable energy look less competitive.”
- “the Trump administration...violates DOE’s own scientific integrity policies”
- “recognize the huge challenge that climate change poses and to change the way we live and to change our energy system”
At several points Fairley asserts that “the financial and reliability benefits are substantial” and that the integration of the three grids would “pay for itself.” Yet he adduces no evidence to that effect. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado did a study that says so; that’s enough for him.
Notice also that there are questions that interviewer Cherry never bothers to ask:
What would it cost?
What disruptions would it involve?
How long would they last?
What new vulnerabilities would it create?
Who would be affected and to what degree?
The failure to ask those questions is the deadest of dead giveaways. Cherry is no more a disinterested interviewer than Fairley – a journalist, not a scientist nor engineer – is a disinterested student of the subject.
The subject is interesting and complex from a technological standpoint, but even more so from a political perspective. A single, nationwide grid would naturally come under the control of some federal agency. How would that control be used? What constraints and what oversight would apply? Would power producers have equal, unbiased access to the grid, or would there be wheeling and dealing to exclude disfavored competitors? Would the state governments have any role? Who would be held liable for anything that might go wrong?
This has been an agenda-detection study in the public interest – the real public interest, in which the public is presumed interested in what might be done to it, under what rationales, and who would make out like bandits as a consequence.
Beware him who offers you something for nothing, something that’s all upside and no downside, something “too good to be true.” For that, too, is a giveaway.
Leftists In Media True To Form
If you’ve viewed any of the Lesley Stahl “interview” of President Trump –I have — you’re already aware of Stahl’s robotic attempt to deflect attention from the well-verified, well-confirmed Hunter Biden laptop containing damning evidence of Biden family corruption, including the former vice president himself. The laptop, she insists, “can’t be verified.” Why not? “Because it can’t be verified.” This doesn’t even rise to the level of circular reasoning. It’s mere repetition – and President Trump wouldn’t allow it.
But it’s the habit of left-wing partisans who masquerade as “journalists” to do that. Show them clear evidence that global temperatures have no causal relationship to carbon dioxide emissions...show them that some professor they admire has falsified his case against the right to keep and bear arms...show them that majority sentiment was plainly for some Republican initiative or against some Democrat initiative...show them a case of Democrat corruption that’s as plain as 72-point type and they’ll mechanically chant “No evidence!”
It’s simply what they do. Journalists, as a trade, aren’t particularly bright, and left-wing “journalists” are substandard even in that company. They aren’t smart enough to have any other tactics at hand. Nor does it ever occur to them that their opponents, alert to the proclivities of left-wing “journalists,” might have something in their back pockets.
With the Bobulinski disclosures now part of the public record, there can be no further doubt that the emails and text messages on the laptop are both authentic and damning. Of course, only the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and the New York Post are reporting plainly on the Bobulinski evidence. The rest of the media are busy straining to attack Bobulinski’s credibility. That’s what you get from media organs that have been thoroughly colonized and conquered by the Left.
In a sane society – i.e., one in which “journalists” who are really Democrat activists with bylines aren’t tolerated by the information-consuming public – the blatant corruption revealed by the laptop would be the end of the Biden for President campaign. Which, I suppose, is as much a criticism of our society as it is of the laughable “standards” proclaimed by those who purport to provide us with “the news.”
Four years distilled.
Russia is not interfering in the election, it is the big tech Internet companies and mainstream media that are attempting to steal the election for their candidate, Beijing Joe. . . .It's absurd that we tolerate the pond scum running and owning the tech giants. Who are these arrogant twinks, faculty-lounge fairies, and scraggle beards who presume to act as watchman at the gate and suffocate opinion on a whim? Who knew that a few hundred true-thinking, righteous people would become the gatekeepers of acceptable opinion in the blink of an eye, something the government itself had failed to achieve in 231 years?* * * *
DOJ Attorney General William Barr, John Durham, Christopher Wray (FBI), and Gina Haspel (CIA) are the gatekeepers of the deep state Washington swamp. They have slow-walked, and deliberately impeded the investigations into Democrat political malfeasance that would have exonerated President Trump; proved the truthfulness of his claims; and exposed the illegal and deeply troubling dirty tricks being used to overthrow him.[1]
And, yes, Barr and Durham are slow-walking the pursuit of reckoning for assorted toads and sellouts that have run our country in recent years. Vicious and instant persecution for the Manaforts, Flynns, and Assanges. Sure. But molasses in winter when it comes to manifest, sustained subversion and nation-wide leftist street violence.
Notes
[1] "Remembering Martha Mitchell." By Linda Goudsmit, New Zeal, 10/21/20.
Thursday, October 22, 2020
Planned Chaos: A Coda
Macdonough’s SongWhether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth--
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote--
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King--
Or Holy People's Will--
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying --after--me:--Once there was The People--Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, 0 ye slain!
Once there was The People--it shall never be again!-- Rudyard Kipling --
This is KILLING my Productivity!
I'm in the midst of the Medicare signup season. Time to talk to clients, look for new ones, and put people on appropriate plans, before the deadline (Dec. 7) closes, is limited.
Additionally, I've been working on getting the bioterrorism novel completed, and generally making good progress.
So, I personally consider this constant flood of news to be a blatant effort to clamp down on my productivity. It's making it hard to tear myself away from the web browser and get some work done.
Item 1 - shady donor to Biden linked to the 2008 financial meltdown.
Item 2 - WHY the Supreme Court's decision to not look at the extended voting in PA is bogus.
Item 3 - GOP, for once, fights back!
Item 4 - Once again, RINOs stab us in the back.
And, that's just in the last few hours.
Planned Chaos
No, I’m not thinking of the book by Ludwig von Mises, though it is somewhat relevant. I have in mind the mushrooming portents of violence-to-come that’s presaged by these stories:
- Fourth-Generation Warfare
- DonaldTrumpWatch website tracks Trump donors.
- Activist group plans post-election chaos.
- Anti-Trumpers plan mass resistance.
- The AntiFa Industry At Work.
There’s a great deal of consistency in the reporting on this subject. What frightens me in particular is that there’s a general consensus that the results of the election will not matter. Even in the event of a landslide Biden victory – not particularly plausible, but let’s allow the possibility – disruptions and violence intended to induce President Trump to leave office will follow. Homeowners known to have supported the president will be targeted for arson. Individuals who’ve been seen wearing Trump-supporting T-shirts, hats, or buttons will be assaulted when they leave their homes. Aggressions far beyond the usual “cancel culture” BS will be rampant.
Chaos is coming. The Left is going all in. And no: You really don’t have enough ammo.
For a long time – at least three decades and probably longer – two periodicals have been regarded as the flagship publications of the American Left: The Nation and The New Republic. As a rule, when a major opinion piece breaks in either one, you may take it as written that it proclaims an element of Leftist doctrine. That makes this New Republic article a matter for widespread dissemination and discussion.
Before I excerpt the most relevant portions of the article, I shall say this: I have several copies of the article saved, including some on removable media. It cannot be taken from me by any hacker. I will not permit The New Republic’s editors any post facto mealy-mouthed “We were only kidding” nonsense. If you would care to read the whole thing, then regardless of whatever The New Republic does or its preferences to the contrary, all you need to do is tell me so.
Now to the critical excerpts. Please read them all, with attention.
Having won a clear Electoral College victory, Trump has taken the opportunities he has been given to nominate three [Supreme Court Justices]. Senate Republicans have been approving them through the process the Constitution set out. They acted strategically to hold one of those seats open. You will not find in the Constitution a prohibition against doing so, or, for that matter, any suggestion that the court should be evenly balanced between the appointees of two political camps or parties that didn’t exist at the Founding and that aren’t intrinsic features of our political order.Republicans haven’t flouted the constitutional order. They’ve made use of it. Things haven’t gone wrong because a system that was humming along fine until recently has been damaged in some fundamental way. The system is humming along essentially as it always has with increasingly dire results. The crisis is not that the American constitutional system is broken but that the American constitutional system is working—perhaps not as the Framers intended but, as a legal and administrative matter, mostly as it was designed to....
Those in the center giving a thought to court-packing now are considering “constitutional hardball not to win the game,” as Jurecic and Hennessey write, “but to get to a place where the cycle of retaliation and politicization can be ended.” But if it’s possible—granted, a very large if—why shouldn’t the game be won? We’ve seen multiple periods of one-party dominance in our history; we’ve also seen defeated political parties wither and die. Why shouldn’t the Republican Party join them?...
The American left should work toward abolishing the Constitution someday—either for a new document or a new democratic order without a written constitution....
This and this alone was the genius of the Founders and Framers: not a special capacity for principled compromise and not extraordinary foresight or a collective wisdom sure to endure through the ages, but rather the force of their will. That is what it takes to break from an empire; that is what it took to cobble a nation together out of states with divergent economic and sociopolitical interests. And as we approach the close of a year in which we’ve fought bitterly over what we should claim from our history and what we should take from these men, it seems probable that we should try to inherit at least their audacity—whatever spirit convinced them they possessed the consciences and the intelligence to create not only a new country but a kind of society new to the world.
Do we have any less a right to do so? It is beyond debate that we are their moral superiors; after over two centuries of democratic experience here and of observing the democracies that have bloomed across the globe, we know infinitely more about the institutions that they built and democratic governance than they did. They declared themselves the tribunes of a public that they defined and delimited for their convenience. On the day we as a people finally rise beyond narrow faction and above the power of capital to make ourselves a new republic, it is certain that we will do better—securing for truly all Americans not only a framework of now familiar political freedoms but a framework of economic rights rooted in the notion that democratic values and a revulsion for arbitrary, unchallenged authority should shape more than just our system of government. Until then, a half-measure: If it is given the opportunity, the Democratic Party—without hesitation, guilt, or apology—should pack the Supreme Court to its advantage.
The author’s name is Osita Nwanevu. We might well ask where he and his antipathy to the American Constitutional order were born.
Some time ago, I wrote:
Few politicians, whatever lip service they give to the Constitution, are happy to be constrained by it. This is because by its very existence the Constitution expresses a small set of rules which together constitute the principle of republican government:
- There must be a Supreme Law;
- It must be easy to refer to and to comprehend;
- All other law must conform to it.
Compare that to the principle of democratic / majoritarian government:
- A majority can make and enforce whatever laws it wishes at any time.
...and to the principle of authoritarian government:
- What the Fuhrer decrees shall be the whole of the law.
The typical politician who owes his office to a democratic process, and who wants to remain in that office for as long as possible, will chafe under the constraints of the Constitution. He'll seek ways to circumvent it in matters that permit him to pander to his constituency. If pressed, he'll make excuses:
- "This is something the Founding Fathers didn't foresee."
- "The amendment process takes too long and doesn't always work."
- "The crisis is far too urgent; we have to act now, regardless of Constitutional constraints."
Those are the most popular excuses. No doubt there are others.
The republican principle, of which the Constitution is the American expression, is the only protection Americans have from tyranny, whether majoritarian or autocratic. What freedom we still retain is ours because our politicians haven't yet worked up the collective courage to defy the Constitution in certain particulars. However, they get closer to discarding it completely with every passing day.
Nwanevu prefers majoritarian government – government in which there are no recognized rights: i.e., no recognized constraints on what the government may do to you. The sole barrier against that sort of rule by the mob is the proclamation of a Supreme Law. Nothing else will serve. But power-lusters, angry about having their schemes thwarted or delayed, will always chafe under such a principle. Nor does it matter whether they’re really well-intentioned. They always think they are:
It is beyond debate that we are their moral superiors; after over two centuries of democratic experience here and of observing the democracies that have bloomed across the globe, we know infinitely more about the institutions that they built and democratic governance than they did. [Nwanevu again]
What they want is power:
Those who have seized power, even for the noblest of motives soon persuade themselves that there are good reasons for not relinquishing it. This is particularly likely to happen if they believe themselves to represent some immensely important cause. They will feel that their opponents are ignorant and perverse; before long they will come to hate them...The important thing is to keep their power, not to use it as a means to an eventual paradise. And so what were means become ends, and the original ends are forgotten except on Sundays. [Bertrand Russell]
Unbounded, unconstrained power always culminates with the slaughter of the opposition. There are no known exceptions.
As I said above, when a major opinion piece breaks in either The Nation or The New Republic, it proclaims an element of Leftist doctrine. Those periodicals are wholly owned propaganda mills for the Left and never, ever deviate from the line the Left’s kingpins have adopted. There was a time when that was not so. Indeed, I remember when no other than Michael Kinsley, as reliable a left-liberal as has ever lived, conceded in the pages of The New Republic that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, Constitutionally guaranteed right. He wasn’t happy about it...but he conceded it. However, that time is long past.
And what the chaos is intended to further.
All the masks are off. Indeed, they burned to ash in the fires that have consumed large portions of formerly great American cities. There is no longer any excuse for saying, whether to others or to yourself, that “they mean well.” That could not be further from the truth.
Prepare accordingly. And pray.
Make This Go MEGA-Viral
I’m confident you will not see a more powerful political ad in your lifetime:
Spread it around. PLEASE!
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
Education Really Is A Lifelong Process
I must say, as your Curmudgeon Emeritus and dictator verborum to the World Wide Web, I seldom encounter a pithy word or phrase I’ve never seen or heard before. However, the #MeToobin affair has been an illumination in imagery and metaphor. More specifically, it’s taught me a whole new range of phrases with which to speak of male self-abuse: i.e., manual masturbation.
I knew a few of the more indirect references to the act:
- Shining the shaft;
- Spanking the monkey;
- Frisking John Thomas;
- Polishing the family jewels;
- Giving Wee Willie a workout.
...but I had no idea there were so many more!
Here’s a contribution from Bookworm Room’s Wolf Howling:
If you haven’t heard, Toobin was caught on a Zoom call in flagrante delicto . . . playing a solo on his organ. Yes, in a Zoom conference call with, among others, the staff of the New Yorker, Toobin was caught on cam with his joy stick out as he choked the chicken, beat the bishop, celebrated Palm Sunday, played a pick-up game of five-on-one, and burped the worm.When confronted about his actions on the call, Toobin said it was a failed attempt at a joke. “I was just trying to pull a fast one.” Later Toobin stated that he had misunderstood the purpose of the Zoom call. “What do ya’ mean, election simulation? Boy did I get mishear that one.”
Not bad, eh? Have a few more from PJ Media’s Megan Fox:
How does he expect us to believe he did not check this before deciding to whip out wee Willie? And worse, why is that a good excuse for flogging the dolphin during a work call? Do we need congressional intervention to tell us that being an Army of One on a Zoom call is the wrong thing to do? Do we need a new criminal code for 2020 specifying that hoisting your own petard while attending a conference call is offensive to others? It’s sad that humans can’t just self-police....And now Toobin wants the world to accept that he made a “mistake” and “accidentally” sexually harassed everyone in a Zoom call. That’s what we’re really talking about here. If MeToo has taught me anything it’s that consent matters and if a man exposes himself to anyone without their consent it’s akin to rape. Remember that Louis C.K. was dragged for engaging in this same activity on phone calls with women. So was Harvey Weinstein, who was reported to have sprinkled his house plant in plain view of witnesses.
All very colorful. Are there any others? Perhaps we should take this opportunity to compile a definitive list. Add your favorites to the Comments.
We're Not Heading to CW 2.0, We've Been There, for Some Time
It's been a long-simmering war.
Like CW 1.0, it didn't start when the first cannon fired. That just formalized the situation.
No, it all started earlier. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 could be considered the first skirmish. At that time, neither side was happy about the agreement. The North had to agree to allow the South to have slavery in their territory, and the South had to agree to limit slavery in Northern territory.
In 1850:
- No slave trade in Washington, DC
- Slavery not banned in Washington, DC
- CA is a free state
- No limits on slavery
- Stronger Fugitive Slave Law
Will Early Voting Doom Trump?
Look, the EVs - Early Voters - are a special breed. They are not going to be the Undecided Voter; they will be quite sure of their choice. No later happenings will dislodge their conviction.
Both parties try to move the On-the-Fence Voter to make a commitment earlier that Election Day. But, particularly this year, that doesn't seem to be likely. So, I would expect that most of the wishy-washy potential voters will vote on Election Day - if then.
I think some of the Undecideds are not. I think they're temporizing, like that guy who 'just can't make up his mind on marriage', who uses that defense to avoid saying 'No, I won't marry you'.
Think what it gains the 'Undecided' voter to claim indecision:
- The Left will be nicer to him. They won't call him a Troglodyte, won't attempt to force him out of his job, will not ban him from family events or neighborhood gatherings. As long as he doesn't actually pick a side, the person can relax, secure in the fact that they will TRY to act normal around him.
- He doesn't have to listen to people impugning his lack of civic responsibility. If he tells the truth, he doesn't like EITHER of the candidates, and just wants to sit and enjoy his beer, BOTH sides will re-double their efforts to change his mind.
- He can avoid having lawn signs planted on his yard.
- He can avoid hearing from party headquarters, asking for volunteers.
- He can enjoy watching both sides pretend to care about him and his needs.
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
When in the Course of Human Events...
...Is this that time?
“What Is It You Really Like About This?”
I remember first confronting the above question in high school. I had a remarkable eleventh-grade English teacher, Edward Kelly, who refused to stop short in analyzing the works we read for his class. The title question was one of the first he proposed to us. If memory serves, it came shortly after the class read 1984.
Opinion was, as you might expect from a gaggle of unlettered teenagers, mixed. Most sixteen year old heads are filled with concerns far removed from the study of great literature. But Mr. Kelly would not relent. Most members of the class concurred about having liked the book, though one or two of the girls thought it was “too depressing.” But why they liked it seemed at first to elude them.
Style, we eventually concurred, was part of the answer. Orwell’s writing style is graceful and evocative, well focused and not at all pretentious. But that wasn’t the whole of it. As we realized after having read a couple of other novels that are equally well written but far less emotionally compelling, the story itself, the vision of ultimate oppression and the way it crushes protagonist Winston Smith was an inseparable part of the answer.
Story, as I’ve written before, is identical to characters confronting and coping with crises. Style alone doth not a story make.
Though Mr. Kelly continued to pursue the question of what you really like about this, it wasn’t until long afterward that I got a sense for what he was driving toward.
Some years later, I had occasion to reflect at length upon the core question of esthetics: What is beauty? What position does it play in metaphysically given reality and Man’s experience thereof?
I was hardly the first person on Earth to address this, of course. But there were related developments in progress as I pondered. Some of them have proved critical to the inquiry:
- Trends in the visual arts and architecture;
- Trends in music, including popular music;
- Trends in women’s clothing, shoes, hairstyles, makeup, and ornamentation;
- And of course, trends in fiction.
Those trends were often multifurcate, such that streams of thought and practice were moving in many completely divergent directions at once. Some of them appeared to have no animating idea other than to mock and defy earlier notions and norms. Others built upon those earlier norms, preserving their core ideas while evolving new variations upon them. A complete survey is obviously impossible within the confines of a reasonably compact essay.
These developments challenged us with the questions What do you like about this...if you do? Is there beauty in it? Indeed, those questions appeared to be more insistent, and to require more penetration, than ever before in Western history.
Hindsight, as always, is twenty-twenty. From today’s perspective we can see that some of the quasi-esthetic trends of the Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties were unconcerned with beauty. They were attempts to shock, to scream “I am different!” often with a subtext of “And here’s what I think of you!” Beauty mattered to their practitioners less than their ability to attract attention. In consequence, today they’re mostly matters of minor historical interest.
Yet as I wrote the above, I found myself wondering: What if it had been the other way around? What if the mockers and defiers had prevailed, and those who clove to the norms of earlier times had dwindled away? Would we have had a convulsion, an inversion in our concepts and standards of beauty?
It’s difficult for me to contemplate...yet it remains possible. A parallel consideration of standards noted by Robert A. Heinlein in his early novella “Gulf” come to mind:
"Each shape of society develops its own ethic. We are shaping this the way we are inexorably forced to, by the logic of events. We think we are shaping it toward survival."
"Are we?" mused Greene-Gilead.
"Remains to be seen. Survivors survive."
To determine what characteristics are critical to survival, one must survey survivors, note their commonalities, and note their differences from those who failed to survive. The same is true for esthetic standards – and just as with survival, it’s impossible to “run the experiment twice.”
It is possible – indeed, many have done it – to dismiss beauty and all questions of esthetics as subjective matters, resoluble only one viewer / listener / reader at a time: it’s “just what you like.” Robert M. Pirsig took a clawhammer to this in his analysis of quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
What the classical formalists meant by the objection “Quality is just what you like” was that this subjective, undefined “quality” he was teaching was just romantic surface appeal. Classroom popularity contests could determine whether a composition had immediate appeal, all right, but was this Quality? Was Quality something that you “just see” or might it be something more subtle than that, so that you wouldn’t see it at all immediately, but only after a long period of time?...
... he rejected the left horn. Quality is not objective, he said. It doesn’t reside in the material world.
Then: he rejected the right horn. Quality is not subjective, he said. It doesn’t reside merely in the mind.
And finally: Phaedrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two.
Beauty, like Pirsig’s Quality, is an event. It occurs when the mind encounters some aspect of the world distinct from itself, embraces it, and finds it good. That “goodness” cannot be separated from either the mind or the thing assessed as beautiful. Both are required to create the beauty event.
But such “goodness” is at no time universally agreed upon. There were people who genuinely liked the noisy “metal” music and the almost blatantly anti-esthetic “grunge” fashions of the Nineties. There still are, though there aren’t as many as there were, nor are there nearly as many “musicians” and “designers” promoting such things. Esthetic notions far closer to the older ones that “metal” and “grunge” sought to eclipse are the stronger ones today.
Which suggests that while “what is beauty?” may be a matter of dispute at any given time, what’s really beautiful will persist and be celebrated when its mockers and defiers have been forgotten.
I know I’ve seemed to veer a bit from the original question of “What is it you really like about this?” It’s time to return to it.
“What you like” – the constellation of characteristics that give rise to a beauty event – is inseparable from either the mind or the thing perceived, embraced, and assessed. But then, events are like that, aren’t they? No matter how long the event endures, whether it’s over in a millisecond or illuminates the mind for many decades, the essential interdependence of all the elements remains. This has strong implications for a concept of integrity as beauty, though there remain reductionist approaches to things one finds flawed yet appealing in certain parts or aspects. (See also Douglas Hofstadter’s discussion of holism and reductionism in Godel, Escher, Bach.)
A little abstruse for an early morning essay from the Curmudgeon Emeritus of Liberty’s Torch, eh what? Well, it’s been on my mind lately, in particular as I’ve struggled to review several books I’ve read recently. But the triggering event (“OMG! Fran’s been triggered! Is no one safe?”) came yesterday afternoon, when I set all my labors aside, sat back, and luxuriated in Derek and the Dominoes’ Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs. Eric Clapton never tried to bury the listener in a storm of sixty-fourth notes. He refused to set pointless demonstrations of empty virtuosity above genuine musical quality...and beauty. He knew what he liked.
As usual when I get like this, your mileage may vary. But do have a nice day.
Ultra-Quickies: Observant, Pithy, and Concise
In commenting on the timing of recent events, Bookworm exhibits great felicity of phrase:
I knew that, in 2020, it was always going to be Trump who controlled the October surprise. After all, since they subjected Trump to a daily colonoscopy for the last four years, the Democrats have no arrows left in their quiver.
I couldn’t beat that with a tennis racket. Mixed metaphors and all!
The Russians did it!
Yep. Yep. Those crafty Russians. They KNEW years ahead of time that if they placed an infiltrator in a corner computer repair shop it would draw in a coke head with lap tops festooned with sensitive national security information into the lair. Man, you gotta hand it to those crafty rooskies.Gobble D. Goop comment on "'The Emails Are Russian' Will Be The Narrative, Regardless Of Facts Or Evidence." By Caitlin Johnstone, ZeroHedge, 10/19/20.Here's to you, Vlad!
Monday, October 19, 2020
Monday Maunderings
“The news is all bad,
But it’s good for a laugh.”
[Tom Paxton, “Jimmy Newman”]
Decide for yourselves.
1. “Authorities.”
How many times can you be wrong – serially, at that – and still command attention as an authority?
Rethink big family gatherings for Thanksgiving, continue wearing your mask and keep your distance as cold weather likely ushers in more coronavirus cases. But don’t give up hope that more normal life will ever return.That’s the message delivered Friday by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top pandemic scientist, during a virtual “fireside chat” with the staff and students at Johns Hopkins University as part of a new series of discussions with Washington leaders.
Fauci, director of the National Academy of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top adviser to the Trump administration on the coronavirus, didn’t offer much new during the health policy forum. But as Ellen MacKenzie, dean of the Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said during the discussion, the pandemic has thrust Fauci, who has deep experience in dangerous outbreaks, into a new role as the nation’s and world’s “trusted source.”
For his part, Fauci said his driving force is “the realization not only of the enormity of the problem, but the fact that we can do something about it. It is not an unsolvable series of problems.”
At this point, if Fauci were to announce that the Sun had risen in the East this morning, I’d call the Naval Observatory for confirmation.
2. The Politics of the Wallet.
It’s important that open minded persons, who are willing to listen to orations about “the greater good,” have a clear understanding of what the Biden / Harris economic agenda will mean for all Americans:
Joe Biden has shrewdly kept the campaign focus on Covid-19 and President Trump, which has helped him avoid having to talk much about his own policies. That’s especially true of his economic proposals, which a new study out Sunday from the Hoover Institution shows will have a damaging impact on growth, job creation and household income.
So far, nothing newsworthy. As Ann Coulter has written, if leading Democrats were ever truly candid about their intentions for America, the public would boil them in oil. But wait: there’s more!
Overall, the authors estimate that the Biden agenda, if fully implemented, would reduce full-time equivalent employment per person by about 3%, the capital stock per person by some 15%, and real GDP per capita by more than 8%. Compared to Congressional Budget Office estimates for these variables in 2030, this means there would be 4.9 million fewer working Americans, $2.6 trillion less in GDP, and $6,500 less in median household income.
That’s quite dramatic, especially as we’re still coming out of the WuFlu Recession. But surely the Democrats have a “greater good” rationale for imposing such severe economic and financial setbacks on America and Americans! What’s that you say? They haven’t? But they must! Something about “climate change,” or fighting “structural racism,” or some such. I’m sure we’ll be hearing it any...day...now...
3. The Laptop and the Media.
FLASH! Journalist commits blatant act of journalism! Film at 11:
I asked Joe Biden: What is your response to the NYPost story about your son, sir?
He called it a “smear campaign” and then went after me. “I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.” pic.twitter.com/Eo6VD4TqxD
— Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) October 17, 2020
I was startled that a mainstream media reporter would “break ranks” from the lockstep march to elect a Democrat. However, the allegations are juicy enough to tempt even a hardened partisan, as reportage from several other mainstream types suggests. But the real story here is the reaction of a couple of other media figures:
Biden adopts Trump playbook – attacking pool reporter @BoKnowsNews for asking about Hunter Biden story which has been a focus of President Trump’s campaign over past few days. Fine to attack the story, but why personally insult Bo? https://t.co/PgOsLgu2DT — Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) October 17, 2020How are you all circling the wagons instead of being embarrassed for peddling Russian ops 18 days before the election. It's not enough that you all haven't learned from your atrocious handling of 2016 — you are doubling down. Truly incredible. https://t.co/0zvW5sZIpM
— Neera -Vote Early- Tanden (@neeratanden) October 17, 2020
Because it’s “irresponsible” to report on a stunning disclosure about criminal behavior by a member of the Ruling Elite, don’t y’know:
The media in most of Europe is so much more responsible than American media. After 2016, I thought they would behave more responsibly. It's incredibly depressing that they are doing Russia's bidding. Again.
— Neera -Vote Early- Tanden (@neeratanden) October 17, 2020
Miss Tanden is determined to squelch the story before it can gain any traction. Can’t have the Bidens’ blatant corruption in the news when there’s an election to be won for the Democrats! But it appears that she’s up against a force too large for her: the lure of a Pulitzer.
Howie Carr of the Boston Herald has a few observations, as well:
Biden — or more precisely, his keepers — haven’t disputed the veracity of the Biden Crime Family documents, or that they are from Hunter’s laptop. They were obtained legally, after an “inebriated” Hunter abandoned the computer at a repair shop, according to the New York Post.The usual alt-left suspects — the AP, NBC “News,” Rep. Adam Schiff — went through the tired motions of trying to blame it all on, who else, the Russians. But seriously, how many times can these hacks cry wolf, even to Wolf Blitzer?
And Darleen Click opines thus:
Let me digress a bit about one very risible thing I keep seeing from the it’s a hoax! crowd. Too many seem to think no one of Hunter’s background and intelligence [… sorry, a moment here as I guffaw …] would ever leave such important data behind. After working in a District Attorney office for 18 years (now retired), don’t underestimate criminally stupid people who leave enough loose ends lying about it looks like wool tapestry after being locked up with cloud of horny clothes moths. Hunter McCrackpipe losing his info to the computer shop owner because he failed to pick up and pay for repair is second only to this gal whose prize for skipping three months rent was 25 to life.Someone tell Adam we’ve moved on, eh?
It’s Not Real
It’s Russian Disinfo
It’s Real But Doesn’t Matter <– YOU ARE HERE
It Matters But Not Very Much
This is Old News
Shut Up Racist—The Plague Duck (@quackocracy) October 17, 2020
Yet there are still millions of people who will uncritically swallow the “Russia, Russia, Russia!” nonsense, and will vote for Joe Biden on November 3.
4. Science Has No Clergy...Or Does It?
At InstaPundit, Sarah Hoyt links to a scathing Robert Zimmerman piece about the politicization of the WHO:
The corruption of modern science and our intellectual class was well illustrated today by the following headline and article in the peer review journal Science: Act now, wait for perfect evidence later, says ‘high priestess’ of U.K. COVID-19 masking campaign
Please read it all. Also reflect on Sarah’s brief remarks:
I knew we were in trouble deep when I started seeing the signs on front yards “In this house we believe in science” followed by a list of dubious statements most of which are semantically deranged, let alone not scientifically proven.
Science is not a system of belief; it is a strict method for improving our confidence in our knowledge about that the world. To say “we believe in science” is to paint oneself as an ignoramus. Demagogues have made much of such ignorance:
The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others."Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"
Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.
[George Orwell, Animal Farm]
Forgive Me For This...
...but you do need to be aware of it:
Does your neighborhood have a functioning Neighborhood Watch in operation? If you don’t...well, suffice it to say that the vandals will have the initiative.
That’s all for today, I think. I have to get started on my other chores – yes, including fiction – so in closing I’ll wish you a happy (?) mask-free (!) and generally untroubled Monday.
Why Now? Why Are the Scandals/LIes Coming to Light Now?
It's not just accidental. The donors/facilitators/insiders can see the handwriting on the wall.
They know that their unfettered romp through our nation - its culture, its piggy bank, its tightly-enmeshed power circles - is nearly over.
They've been trying to hold back the fall. They've been throwing money and media at Trump and his supporters.
They've tried using their BLM/AntiFa/Feminist Shock Troops to scare the Normals into compliance and silence. They've used street violence, willing allies in the legal/judicial fields, abusive actions to deprive people of a living - either pressuring the corporate offices to fire opponents, or destroying their businesses.
Lately, they've collaborated in locking down the economy; the hardest hit were the independent business owners. The larger corporations got exempted from the rules, or were able to adjust to it by shifting to take-out and online orders.
But, it's over. I'm guessing that the Elite have access to truthful polls that show Biden/Harris haven't a prayer of winning. Worse, they will likely take down a lot of people at the state level, as well.
So, they're not fighting the release of the laptop files. Oh, sure, they're not helping it all get out - they've allowed their media stooges to clamp down on any widespread coverage of the revelations.
But, once the election is over, they'll be able to claim this as "old news", and insist that the problem was limited to Biden and his family. They'll do their best to 'move on' and not peek under the rock of the rest of the Entitled Ones.
In the end, there will be 2 'truths'. One, that correctly understands the extent of the corruption, and assigns the blame to the right people. The other, in which those Awful GOP (trademark pending) have 'ginned up' a minor scandal, involving poor Hunter Biden, who is a helpless VICTIM of addiction, and really deserves to have us all 'move on' from this wallowing in a private matter.
That'll be it, for many - just walk away, and never actually look at the extent of the monster's reach. Oh, perhaps a few people will gracefully retire, with copious praise from their fellow politicians/Deep State.
That'll be it.
The real question is: What do you plan to do WHEN, not IF, that happens?
Sunday, October 18, 2020
On the Other Side of the Election
What will we have? What if, God Forbid, the Other Side wins (doesn't matter who you are voting for - the point is the same for ALL)?
Will we be able to put aside the Feverish Speech, the Frenzied Defenses of Our Side, the Refusal to Interact with Those Awful People?
What will the holiday be like? Never mind that they will likely be different, because of this generally less-than-lethal virus. Will all sides be able to gather at the dinner table, and enjoy the family's bonding time?
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and I'm not the only one that thinks we may be - at least for now - split into two or more factions, that will NOT interact. The difference in their position on what is real and what is "Fake" is too far apart.
And, that's a shame. If the North and South could eventually come to reconciliation, after the War Between the States, I'd like to believe that it's possible for us to do so.
The Atlantic posted about this recently. It comes down to trust - and, that's what we lack. We no longer trust that the opposition will operate within agreed upon limits. We don't trust that they will not lie, or, at least, purposefully be blind to the truth.
It's what finally breaks down a marriage - it's not the financial difficulties, it's not necessarily infidelity, it's not growing into people with different interests and opinions.
It's no longer feeling that you can TRUST that person to act honestly and with integrity.
That's true of governments and institutions, as well. And, if on top of that, you add in uncertainty, and the inability to anticipate some aspects of life's changes, such as the value of money, or what the regulations and laws are, well, it's over.
It will take a dedicated effort to re-build trust. It will take stability in government, as well as a willingness to rein in the unelected judiciary and bureaucrats, to get our nation's commerce to begin to function without cash handouts.
People will not put down their guns, as long as they cannot trust their government to respect their right to be left alone and manage their own life.
So, the solution is at least two-pronged:
- Rein in the tech giants/business interests that pose a threat to Americans' rights, and have effectively set up a competing governing authority over every aspect of private life.
- Here's where executive orders can come in - FCC regulations that force the social media companies to choose - will they be publishers, censoring viewpoints, and opening themselves up to lawsuits for their actions, or neutral content providers, exempt from action?
- Banking/finance/platform providers - again, regulations or executive orders can handle this (legislation can follow later). All are in industries that are regulated; if they will not comply, anti-trust actions can be used. (Not to mention discovery would likely uncover a treasure trove of communications they would rather not have exposed).
- Reduce the budgets of agencies that have been abusive of citizens. If they have enough time to get into things that are not their job, they have too many people - aim for 20-25% reduction EACH YEAR.
- Get Congress to pass legislation that abuses of citizens' rights, or partisan action ON THE JOB, is grounds for not only dismissal, but loss of pension (they can have back any money they personally put in), AND lifetime ban from any job in any level of government, even as a contractor/advisor. Any such person working for an entity that receives government funding will trigger that company or organization to lose any government contract/money. That specifically includes schools, colleges, and universities.
- And, of course, such persons will have to surrender their law license and teachers' license.
Some Stories Speak For Themselves...
...while others must be trumpeted repeatedly and relentlessly against a storm of enraged hyperpartisan Big Tech censors:
Confirmation of what already seemed pretty close to certain, eh? But where’s the Big Tech censorship angle in this, you ask? Why, it’s right here:
Twitter has refused to unlock the New York Post's account since Wednesday unless the outlet deletes six tweets about its reporting on 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, the Post reported.Both the San Francisco-based social media platform and Facebook came under fire this week after the two blocked users from sharing a Post article showing purported communication between 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and an adviser to a Ukrainian energy company....
Twitter confirmed to FOX Business that the Post "has been informed what is necessary to unlock their account."
The company previously said the Post's Hunter Biden stories violate the website's Hacked Media Policy against displaying "hacked" information -- an allegation that the Post called "baseless."
Is anyone in America prepared to argue that this “Hacked Media Policy” is not a “Protect the Democrats At All Costs” policy? It certainly didn’t prevent Leftist Twitter users from tweeting about the debunked Steele dossier or President Trump’s leaked tax returns.
Sometimes the hard evidence of an evil is suppressible. But sometimes it isn’t, as is the case today – and that makes fevered attempts to suppress it just more hard evidence of the crime itself.
For some months now I’ve been pessimistic about the future of this country. It’s looked to me as if no matter what good Americans might do, the Left would send us down the chute to civil warfare of the worst sort. They’ve already made several major cities uninhabitable. They’ve terrorized a significant (and still increasing) number of commercial concerns. Their doings have been fan-danced aside by the mainstream media, while alternative media and citizen journalists have been harassed, threatened, and assaulted for attempting to report the facts. All this has proceeded with the tacit cooperation and gratitude of the Democrat Party, which has baldfacedly told us that only the election of Joe Biden to the presidency will bring the violence to a halt. They might as well come right out and say it: “Nice country you’ve got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
The violence has been spreading, amoeba-like, from the cities to the suburbs surrounding them. Whether it’s gaining or losing force as it moves is unclear, but the motion itself is alarming. The bloodshed to date has been horrifying, but it will be as nothing compared to what will follow should well-armed suburban and rural Americans confront these vermin.
We suburbanites are the reason for the current shortage of guns and ammo. While we’re not looking forward to the necessity, we’re ready to use it all in defense of our loved ones, homes, and communities. And we’ll fire damned few warning shots — if any. So the rioters would be best advised to stay in the Democrat-infested cities that have let them run riot to date.
But that’s not a sustainable situation. The cities are being drained of everything that makes it possible to live in them. They already lack effective law enforcement. Employers there are relocating and taking thousands of jobs with them. A dwindling number of suppliers remain willing to truck supplies into them. An even more swiftly dwindling number of retailers remain willing to do business in the cities, in the face of looters and vandals who seemingly have carte blanche to do as they please. Presently the afflicted cities will begin to starve.
All this to replace a fiercely patriotic, highly successful president with a 77-year-old, provably corrupt dementia sufferer, so the socialists, the corporatists and globalists, the Red Chinese, and Kamala Harris can have their way with him – and us.
It is to laugh...hollowly, and with many a tear.
I doubt the above was what you came to Liberty’s Torch to read this fine Sunday morning. All the same, it’s what’s on my mind, and I write about what’s on my mind. Yes, the proof of the Biden family’s corruption is now ironclad, beyond all possible refutation. Yes, the re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency is now nearly certain. Yes, he’s likely to return with a strengthened mandate that will enable him to quell the riots, to arrest the conspirators and planners behind them, and to press on with his admirably America-centered agenda. Yes, yes, yes.
But even if all that of should occur exactly in the right order and to the right effect, America has still been scarred. The guts of our political system have been riven by corruption. The magnitude of it is greater than most of us were willing to believe. Our political class has revealed itself to be composed of thugs, thieves, touts, and time-servers concerned solely with their paychecks and pensions.
It’s too weak a summation to say that we’ve “lost our innocence.” Indeed, we lost that long ago. Remember Wilson’s suppression of dissent during World War I? Remember Teapot Dome? Remember FDR’s seizure of our gold, his cartelization of the economy, his Court Reorganization Bill? Remember Lyndon Johnson’s “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years” -- ? Remember Bill Clinton’s “there is no sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinsky” -- ? Remember Barack Hussein Obama’s “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” -- ?
Should it not be we, the decent majority, who are out in the streets petitioning for a redress of grievances? Apart from isolated ceremonies like the annual March for Life, why haven’t we been doing so?
If I read the portents accurately, pretty soon fiery essays and protests will be of no further moment. I fear the arrival of that day. I don’t think I have enough ammo. I probably don’t pray enough, either. I’d bet you could say the same of yourself. Verbum sat sapienti.