Saturday, April 05, 2008
A blog worth reading
A new Canadian blogger with a fresh and deep viewpoint.
Derica Lorraine ¶ 1:59 PM
Derica Lorraine ¶ 1:59 PM
Friday, April 04, 2008
Bless E.D.
[Continuation and expansion of this entry.]
Over the last century we've 'ungrounded' both reason and faith. Both trends started in Germany around 1890, with von Harnack deconstructing the Bible and Hilbert deconstructing mathematics. Perhaps it's appropriate for Benedict XVI, a distinctly German scholar, to begin the task of reassembling faith and reason.
The current standard, enforced by peer review and peer pressure in both science and journalism, is pure formal analysis, never asking questions about connections to reality. We are not allowed to ask whether Newtonian or quantum physics works better. We are not allowed to ask whether Christ or Mohammed has led people to a better civilization. We are not even allowed to state that one form of civilization is better than another, though the data is dramatically obvious. We are only allowed to ask whether the researcher has quoted sources accurately.
*** Sidenote: in both journalism and science, this tendency may have more to do with female thinking than with political or philosophical trends. The basic job of a male brain, after all, is to generalize from facts; the basic job of a female brain is to tape-record utterances and play them back with remarkable accuracy. The present supremacy of quotation over analysis tells us which mode of thought has taken full control, in people of both genders. ***
When you remove the ground of faith and the ground of reason, you have no common sense. You must then rely on strict zero-tolerance rules, chosen arbitrarily and enforced mechanically, because your mind isn't allowed to delve into the reasons for having a rule.
But because humans can't really get along without some form of trust or ground reference, the leftist ends up trusting personal authority rather than fact and logic. No amount of fact and logic can persuade a leftist to accept a statement if an Incorrect Person has said it; and no amount of fact and logic can dislodge an axiom if the Correct Person said it.
Thus the leftist always ends up following and enforcing zero-tolerance rules with no room for common sense, and the leftist ends up following a Dear Leader with pure personal authority. When you've never gained the habit of examining nature, mind and soul for yourself; when you are not allowed to form generalizations from your observations, not allowed to discriminate or judge in any way, the only path you can follow is rigid mechanical rules promulgated by a leader with brutal personal force.
Amazingly, Fox's E.D. Hill has come to the same conclusion. In an interview with Tony Snow last week she acknowledged that the media, including Fox, has helped to ruin common sense.
You know the drill: "Today we have Jim Evans who claims that 2 + 2 = 4, and Heather Samuelson who claims that 2 + 2 = 75908. Well, Jim, why do you make this strange claim?" ... and then we hear 10 minutes of simultaneous shouting by Jim and Heather; and then the host utters the unchangeable magic formula: "All right, guys, calm down, we obviously aren't going to settle this debate today."
Settlement only happens after a Trial By Jury and 20 Years Of Appeals. When Sandra Day O'Connor has flipped her coin, the media finally takes the debate as settled. We are then allowed to say that 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 = 75908, depending on which way Sandra's coin fell. After that, Jim Evans is no longer invited on the air, and any reference to the "4" side of the debate must be couched in careful euphemisms, such as "He dropped the between 3 and 5 bomb in a controversial comment."
According to E.D. Hill, this Due Process fetish is why the media can't simply state the plain and blazingly obvious truth that Joel Hinrichs was a Mohammedan convert who intended to blow up an OU football game. To Hill's vast and eternal credit, she finally did state the obvious truth on the air in 'Jihad USA'. Perhaps this will break the barrier? No. Of course not. But it's still wonderful to have exactly one counterexample available for public viewing! ¶ 9:20 PM
Over the last century we've 'ungrounded' both reason and faith. Both trends started in Germany around 1890, with von Harnack deconstructing the Bible and Hilbert deconstructing mathematics. Perhaps it's appropriate for Benedict XVI, a distinctly German scholar, to begin the task of reassembling faith and reason.
The current standard, enforced by peer review and peer pressure in both science and journalism, is pure formal analysis, never asking questions about connections to reality. We are not allowed to ask whether Newtonian or quantum physics works better. We are not allowed to ask whether Christ or Mohammed has led people to a better civilization. We are not even allowed to state that one form of civilization is better than another, though the data is dramatically obvious. We are only allowed to ask whether the researcher has quoted sources accurately.
*** Sidenote: in both journalism and science, this tendency may have more to do with female thinking than with political or philosophical trends. The basic job of a male brain, after all, is to generalize from facts; the basic job of a female brain is to tape-record utterances and play them back with remarkable accuracy. The present supremacy of quotation over analysis tells us which mode of thought has taken full control, in people of both genders. ***
When you remove the ground of faith and the ground of reason, you have no common sense. You must then rely on strict zero-tolerance rules, chosen arbitrarily and enforced mechanically, because your mind isn't allowed to delve into the reasons for having a rule.
But because humans can't really get along without some form of trust or ground reference, the leftist ends up trusting personal authority rather than fact and logic. No amount of fact and logic can persuade a leftist to accept a statement if an Incorrect Person has said it; and no amount of fact and logic can dislodge an axiom if the Correct Person said it.
Thus the leftist always ends up following and enforcing zero-tolerance rules with no room for common sense, and the leftist ends up following a Dear Leader with pure personal authority. When you've never gained the habit of examining nature, mind and soul for yourself; when you are not allowed to form generalizations from your observations, not allowed to discriminate or judge in any way, the only path you can follow is rigid mechanical rules promulgated by a leader with brutal personal force.
Amazingly, Fox's E.D. Hill has come to the same conclusion. In an interview with Tony Snow last week she acknowledged that the media, including Fox, has helped to ruin common sense.
You know the drill: "Today we have Jim Evans who claims that 2 + 2 = 4, and Heather Samuelson who claims that 2 + 2 = 75908. Well, Jim, why do you make this strange claim?" ... and then we hear 10 minutes of simultaneous shouting by Jim and Heather; and then the host utters the unchangeable magic formula: "All right, guys, calm down, we obviously aren't going to settle this debate today."
Settlement only happens after a Trial By Jury and 20 Years Of Appeals. When Sandra Day O'Connor has flipped her coin, the media finally takes the debate as settled. We are then allowed to say that 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 = 75908, depending on which way Sandra's coin fell. After that, Jim Evans is no longer invited on the air, and any reference to the "4" side of the debate must be couched in careful euphemisms, such as "He dropped the between 3 and 5 bomb in a controversial comment."
According to E.D. Hill, this Due Process fetish is why the media can't simply state the plain and blazingly obvious truth that Joel Hinrichs was a Mohammedan convert who intended to blow up an OU football game. To Hill's vast and eternal credit, she finally did state the obvious truth on the air in 'Jihad USA'. Perhaps this will break the barrier? No. Of course not. But it's still wonderful to have exactly one counterexample available for public viewing! ¶ 9:20 PM
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Hidden price controls, part II
All economists, and most politicians, understand the ill effects of price and wage controls. No economist would recommend controlling the price of bread or gasoline; it's been obvious since 300 AD that price controls cause shortages of some products, overproduction of other products, hoarding, loss of jobs, and general distortion of supply and demand.
So why do nearly all economists, and all politicians, go along with Greenspan and Bernanke when they control the price of money? Why do economists calmly discuss whether it's better to cut the prime rate by 100 basis points or to cut the prime rate by 200 basis points?
The ill effects are classic: shortage of savings, overproduction of houses, loss of jobs .... All are exactly what you'd expect from an artificial ceiling on the price of money. And yet the economists and politicians are still hungering for an even lower ceiling.
One more profession totally corrupted by greed and fraud.
So why do nearly all economists, and all politicians, go along with Greenspan and Bernanke when they control the price of money? Why do economists calmly discuss whether it's better to cut the prime rate by 100 basis points or to cut the prime rate by 200 basis points?
The ill effects are classic: shortage of savings, overproduction of houses, loss of jobs .... All are exactly what you'd expect from an artificial ceiling on the price of money. And yet the economists and politicians are still hungering for an even lower ceiling.
One more profession totally corrupted by greed and fraud.
Labels: the broken circle
¶ 3:05 PM
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Another Self-Explanatory Sentence
AP, 4/1/08 ALEXANDRIA, VA -- This morning Sen. John McCain visited Episcopal High School here, his alma mater,
Tells you all you need to know. ¶ 2:09 PM
Tells you all you need to know. ¶ 2:09 PM
MAD wasn't mad
Scheuer has pointed out that the Bush approach to terrorism is based on a Cold War model, in which we focus mainly on trying to eliminate the weapons without asking honestly how we would eliminate the enemy's reason and will to fight. He correctly states that focusing on the tools is a stupid leftist mindset, forced by the idiotic egalitarian notion that all people are equally good. When you look at humans honestly and accurately, you can distinguish easily between the evil ones who will always find a way to destroy others, versus the normal folks who don't have a destructive compulsion. Same with nations.
Scheuer also points out that Mutually Assured Destruction worked well for 30 years in preventing any direct attacks on either US or USSR.
I'm wondering now whether Scheuer has failed to complete the syllogism.
* * * * * * * * * *
Caution: I'm not entirely convinced by my own argument here, but think it's worth recording and thinking about.
* * * * * * * * * *
Completing the syllogism: We are using a cold-war mindset, but we're not using the part of the mindset that worked. In fact, we're using the Soviet-propaganda side of the cold war, the McGovern side, the hippie side. We're advocating disarmament.
What should we do instead? Simple. Follow the data. Since MAD worked well, we shouldn't be trying to eliminate nukes in the rest of the world. We should be trying to create balances of nuclear armament in the rest of the world.
Consider the school-shooter problem for analogy. Until very recently, all reputable (i.e. Communist) commentators instantly and loudly shouted "THAT'S CRAZY" when someone suggested that shootings could be prevented by arming the rest of the students and teachers. Even though history, facts and logic showed irrefutably that armed bystanders could and would stop an armed criminal, the instinctive leftist "THAT'S CRAZY" was unbreakable. Finally in the last year or so, sanity is just beginning to emerge; the McCainstream Media are starting to ask the common-sense question. Sanity has already taken partial hold in aircraft safety as well; while TSA continues to waste money and time on demonstrably useless screening, a large number of pilots have been permitted to carry guns.
Returning to the big picture: We should allow all countries to go nuclear if they wish. Even crazy people behave better when they know their neighbors are armed, and owning a gun tends to make silly people grow up. Look at Dear Leader Kim for a good example. His propaganda still sounds the same, but under the surface he's allowing capitalism and Christian missionaries to move in.
One important reservation: We really need to demonstrate our own will beforehand. We still need to turn Mecca and Medina into lovely uninhabitable pools of ionized silicon. Otherwise, the change in policy would simply be an invitation to attack us. ¶ 11:31 AM
Scheuer also points out that Mutually Assured Destruction worked well for 30 years in preventing any direct attacks on either US or USSR.
I'm wondering now whether Scheuer has failed to complete the syllogism.
* * * * * * * * * *
Caution: I'm not entirely convinced by my own argument here, but think it's worth recording and thinking about.
* * * * * * * * * *
Completing the syllogism: We are using a cold-war mindset, but we're not using the part of the mindset that worked. In fact, we're using the Soviet-propaganda side of the cold war, the McGovern side, the hippie side. We're advocating disarmament.
What should we do instead? Simple. Follow the data. Since MAD worked well, we shouldn't be trying to eliminate nukes in the rest of the world. We should be trying to create balances of nuclear armament in the rest of the world.
Consider the school-shooter problem for analogy. Until very recently, all reputable (i.e. Communist) commentators instantly and loudly shouted "THAT'S CRAZY" when someone suggested that shootings could be prevented by arming the rest of the students and teachers. Even though history, facts and logic showed irrefutably that armed bystanders could and would stop an armed criminal, the instinctive leftist "THAT'S CRAZY" was unbreakable. Finally in the last year or so, sanity is just beginning to emerge; the McCainstream Media are starting to ask the common-sense question. Sanity has already taken partial hold in aircraft safety as well; while TSA continues to waste money and time on demonstrably useless screening, a large number of pilots have been permitted to carry guns.
Returning to the big picture: We should allow all countries to go nuclear if they wish. Even crazy people behave better when they know their neighbors are armed, and owning a gun tends to make silly people grow up. Look at Dear Leader Kim for a good example. His propaganda still sounds the same, but under the surface he's allowing capitalism and Christian missionaries to move in.
One important reservation: We really need to demonstrate our own will beforehand. We still need to turn Mecca and Medina into lovely uninhabitable pools of ionized silicon. Otherwise, the change in policy would simply be an invitation to attack us. ¶ 11:31 AM
Monday, March 31, 2008
Bye, Newt
Rush just mentioned that Newt is helping Algore with a new promotional movie for the greatest nastiest deadliest fraud in human history.
Bye, Newt. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, and don't let me hit you either. I'll try to get in a swat, though. Asshole.
More seriously, I've been worrying about the condition of Newt's mind lately. In the last few speeches on C-Span, he seems to be losing focus, listing some genuinely major problems and genuine solutions along with some strangely trivial problems. Is it really productive to focus on Detroit? Or to focus on the number of suicides on the Rosebud Reservation? Are we supposed to gasp in horror when you tell us that the population of Detroit has dropped? Those are indeed problems, but they're not top-shelf problems, and they're not convincing centerpieces for a new vision of America.
From most politicians and commentators this wouldn't be a symptom of decline; he's still better than most. But Newt used to have a supremely fine-honed talent for persuasion, an unparalleled ability to hit the sweet spot of any subject, to strike just the right nerve in the audience. He's lost that ability. ¶ 10:19 AM
Bye, Newt. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, and don't let me hit you either. I'll try to get in a swat, though. Asshole.
More seriously, I've been worrying about the condition of Newt's mind lately. In the last few speeches on C-Span, he seems to be losing focus, listing some genuinely major problems and genuine solutions along with some strangely trivial problems. Is it really productive to focus on Detroit? Or to focus on the number of suicides on the Rosebud Reservation? Are we supposed to gasp in horror when you tell us that the population of Detroit has dropped? Those are indeed problems, but they're not top-shelf problems, and they're not convincing centerpieces for a new vision of America.
From most politicians and commentators this wouldn't be a symptom of decline; he's still better than most. But Newt used to have a supremely fine-honed talent for persuasion, an unparalleled ability to hit the sweet spot of any subject, to strike just the right nerve in the audience. He's lost that ability. ¶ 10:19 AM
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Bravo Fox
Amid all the celebrity crap, every now and then Fox News gets off a good one.
Today's special "Jihad, USA" is definitely a good one ... pulling together all the publicly known small attacks and failed attacks. Gives the lie to Bush's perpetual claim that "we haven't been attacked since 9/11." It's undoubtedly true that we haven't suffered a single wholesale attack, but we've had a steady pounding of retail attacks, killing a few people at a time.
I'm especially and pleasantly surprised that Fox included, without the usual weasely FBI disclaimers, the OU attack by Joel Hinrichs in 10/05. They stated flatly and clearly that Hinrichs was a Mohammedan, and that he fully intended to bomb the entire football crowd. Because he couldn't get in, he simply bombed himself. This clear summary was never given by the media in the aftermath of the event; he was always given the FBI's idiotic standard description, the "crazy lone gunman with no apparent motive". ¶ 12:29 PM
Today's special "Jihad, USA" is definitely a good one ... pulling together all the publicly known small attacks and failed attacks. Gives the lie to Bush's perpetual claim that "we haven't been attacked since 9/11." It's undoubtedly true that we haven't suffered a single wholesale attack, but we've had a steady pounding of retail attacks, killing a few people at a time.
I'm especially and pleasantly surprised that Fox included, without the usual weasely FBI disclaimers, the OU attack by Joel Hinrichs in 10/05. They stated flatly and clearly that Hinrichs was a Mohammedan, and that he fully intended to bomb the entire football crowd. Because he couldn't get in, he simply bombed himself. This clear summary was never given by the media in the aftermath of the event; he was always given the FBI's idiotic standard description, the "crazy lone gunman with no apparent motive". ¶ 12:29 PM
Gusher!!!! But why is nobody gushing?
NRO mentioned a new oilfield in North Dakota and Montana, which has been worked for a year now, and promises to be just as good as the old Oklahoma fields. If it continues expanding at current rates, the Bakken field could serve America's oil needs for decades to come.
This is the best news of the year, and Polistra celebrates in her usual way...
But Polistra is puzzled. First, why hasn't George W. Gore stopped this development? His main job is to insure that we remain totally and abjectly dependent on the Saudi enemy. Does he know something that we don't? Will this field peter out soon? Second, why hasn't this been mentioned in any national media? Why did I first hear about it via a single sentence on NRO? Third, why aren't the oil companies proudly telling us about this field? They run lots of ads stupidly declaring their Greenness, which leads us to think they are going out of the oil bidness; and many facts also point to the latter conclusion. Several drilling and development firms, and Marathon Oil, are growing as a result of the Bakken field. If it continues to grow, it will give most oil firms a good reason to stay in their original line of work. Fourth, why does the "price" of oil remain high? This "price" represents the betting of a few elite hedgers, rather than any honest reckoning of supply and demand, but even so, I thought the whole point of the FUTURES market was to account for likely FUTURE development.
Is our entire system so completely fucked up that it can't even respond normally to a positive development? Are the major media, the government, the oil "market", and the major oil companies, so slavishly loyal to the Saudi royal family that they see a huge new oil field on American territory as a shameful piece of dirty gossip, best ignored?
= = = = =
Later: Breaking out of my sardonic and paranoid tone, here's the question in more sober form. Are all of the elites - media, oil companies, government - so totally and incestuously locked into the internationalist mindset that they can't begin to fathom the concept of "America's interests"? Are they completely unaware that people in one particular nation might want to see that particular nation succeed, might want to see that particular nation become self-sufficient? And therefore unaware that they could gain commercial and political benefits by appealing to the people's desires? ¶ 8:28 AM
This is the best news of the year, and Polistra celebrates in her usual way...
But Polistra is puzzled. First, why hasn't George W. Gore stopped this development? His main job is to insure that we remain totally and abjectly dependent on the Saudi enemy. Does he know something that we don't? Will this field peter out soon? Second, why hasn't this been mentioned in any national media? Why did I first hear about it via a single sentence on NRO? Third, why aren't the oil companies proudly telling us about this field? They run lots of ads stupidly declaring their Greenness, which leads us to think they are going out of the oil bidness; and many facts also point to the latter conclusion. Several drilling and development firms, and Marathon Oil, are growing as a result of the Bakken field. If it continues to grow, it will give most oil firms a good reason to stay in their original line of work. Fourth, why does the "price" of oil remain high? This "price" represents the betting of a few elite hedgers, rather than any honest reckoning of supply and demand, but even so, I thought the whole point of the FUTURES market was to account for likely FUTURE development.
Is our entire system so completely fucked up that it can't even respond normally to a positive development? Are the major media, the government, the oil "market", and the major oil companies, so slavishly loyal to the Saudi royal family that they see a huge new oil field on American territory as a shameful piece of dirty gossip, best ignored?
= = = = =
Later: Breaking out of my sardonic and paranoid tone, here's the question in more sober form. Are all of the elites - media, oil companies, government - so totally and incestuously locked into the internationalist mindset that they can't begin to fathom the concept of "America's interests"? Are they completely unaware that people in one particular nation might want to see that particular nation succeed, might want to see that particular nation become self-sufficient? And therefore unaware that they could gain commercial and political benefits by appealing to the people's desires? ¶ 8:28 AM
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Almost as good as French
A new old idea for medical care is spreading in this state. A company with the clumsy name of Qliance is implementing the idea, which comes pretty damn close to the French flavor of medical care. I call it 'new old' because it's based on the ancient Chinese tradition of paying the doctor when you're well, not when you're sick. (Actually I'm not sure if this was ever a real Chinese tradition, but it's often cited as such!)
Qliance works like this: you pay a standard monthly fee, which runs from $39 to $79 according to age. For this fee, you get to use the Qliance clinic and doctors as often as you need, and the doctor promises to be available when you need him. Clinical services like blood tests and X-rays are part of the package, but some services incur extra charges. These extra charges are strictly at cost, unlike the $100 aspirin you get at the hospital. Major surgery is still done elsewhere, under the existing system.
What's the key to the cheapness? Half is "French", half is "Chinese". The French half: Qliance doesn't handle insurance at all. If you can get your insurance to pay you, that's fine, but you have to do the paperwork. The Chinese half: If the Qliance doctor does the human side of his job properly ... advising, counseling, providing common sense, helping you control your diet, stress and exercise ... then you won't have to use the costly part of the service nearly as much or as often. Not precisely the same as the legendary method; but Qliance has to work harder for the same payment when you get sick, so their incentive is to keep you well.
The head of Qliance, Dr Garrison Bliss, is a great explainer. In this presentation, he describes exactly how and why the current system fails, and how Qliance breaks out of the failure. His conclusion: The current system serves nobody but the insurance companies. Doctors and hospitals spend most of their time and money doing paperwork to "confuse and confound" the insurance companies, because that's the only way they can get any payment at all. The insurance companies are "running blind", so they can't figure out how to make things better.
The Qliance model still doesn't solve the litigation problem, though I suspect patients who feel that the doc is actually listening to their needs and serving their purposes will be less likely to sue.
= = = = =
Footnote: Found the ancient Chinese tradition, and it's even closer to the Qliance idea than I thought. From here:
Qliance works like this: you pay a standard monthly fee, which runs from $39 to $79 according to age. For this fee, you get to use the Qliance clinic and doctors as often as you need, and the doctor promises to be available when you need him. Clinical services like blood tests and X-rays are part of the package, but some services incur extra charges. These extra charges are strictly at cost, unlike the $100 aspirin you get at the hospital. Major surgery is still done elsewhere, under the existing system.
What's the key to the cheapness? Half is "French", half is "Chinese". The French half: Qliance doesn't handle insurance at all. If you can get your insurance to pay you, that's fine, but you have to do the paperwork. The Chinese half: If the Qliance doctor does the human side of his job properly ... advising, counseling, providing common sense, helping you control your diet, stress and exercise ... then you won't have to use the costly part of the service nearly as much or as often. Not precisely the same as the legendary method; but Qliance has to work harder for the same payment when you get sick, so their incentive is to keep you well.
The head of Qliance, Dr Garrison Bliss, is a great explainer. In this presentation, he describes exactly how and why the current system fails, and how Qliance breaks out of the failure. His conclusion: The current system serves nobody but the insurance companies. Doctors and hospitals spend most of their time and money doing paperwork to "confuse and confound" the insurance companies, because that's the only way they can get any payment at all. The insurance companies are "running blind", so they can't figure out how to make things better.
The Qliance model still doesn't solve the litigation problem, though I suspect patients who feel that the doc is actually listening to their needs and serving their purposes will be less likely to sue.
= = = = =
Footnote: Found the ancient Chinese tradition, and it's even closer to the Qliance idea than I thought. From here:
Historically in China, each village was under the care of one doctor. In return, they took care of him (fed him, clothed him, etc.). What's so different about this from the exchange that goes on in modern healthcare? The traditional Chinese doctor's job was to keep the village from getting sick in the first place. Once people got sick, they were unable to support the doctor. It made more sense for him to keep them well than to wait until they were sick.¶ 6:53 PM
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Blank page
I couldn't leave Polistra outside amid all that dishonest warmth. She deserves to thaw out her frostbitten tootsies.
= = = = =
Update Friday: We now have three more inches of Global Warming on the ground.
= = = = =
Update Sat morning: Six inches of Global Warming. Must have been near blizzard conditions ... ooops, I mean dust storm conditions ... sometime during the night, because I can see Global Warming piled up in corners and crevices where it never reached before.
Update Sun morning: Two more inches of Global Warming. ¶ 8:40 PM
= = = = =
Update Friday: We now have three more inches of Global Warming on the ground.
= = = = =
Update Sat morning: Six inches of Global Warming. Must have been near blizzard conditions ... ooops, I mean dust storm conditions ... sometime during the night, because I can see Global Warming piled up in corners and crevices where it never reached before.
Update Sun morning: Two more inches of Global Warming. ¶ 8:40 PM
Ah! Warmth!
For the purposes of this cartoon, Polistra is being a Good Citizen. She is assuming that the Government Always Tells The Truth, that the Churches Always Tell The Truth, and above all that Responsible Scientists Always Tell The Truth. Since all of those groups fervently agree that Global Warming is Spiraling Out Of Control and that the Icecaps Are Melting and Spring Is Coming A Month Earlier Every Year and that We Will All Burn To A Crisp Tomorrow, she decided that she might as well bask in the new Summery Warmth.
Spokane is especially blessed by this Early Summer and Crispy Warmth. We've received two inches of Global Warming yesterday and another inch of Global Warming today, and the thermometer says 20 degrees Fahrenheit, which is obviously false, because it must actually be 120.
After thirty minutes of basking in these Tropical Rays, Polistra notices that her toes are turning blue. Oh No! It must be a Third Degree Sunburn!!! Too much Warming! ¶ 8:04 PM
For the purposes of this cartoon, Polistra is being a Good Citizen. She is assuming that the Government Always Tells The Truth, that the Churches Always Tell The Truth, and above all that Responsible Scientists Always Tell The Truth. Since all of those groups fervently agree that Global Warming is Spiraling Out Of Control and that the Icecaps Are Melting and Spring Is Coming A Month Earlier Every Year and that We Will All Burn To A Crisp Tomorrow, she decided that she might as well bask in the new Summery Warmth.
Spokane is especially blessed by this Early Summer and Crispy Warmth. We've received two inches of Global Warming yesterday and another inch of Global Warming today, and the thermometer says 20 degrees Fahrenheit, which is obviously false, because it must actually be 120.
After thirty minutes of basking in these Tropical Rays, Polistra notices that her toes are turning blue. Oh No! It must be a Third Degree Sunburn!!! Too much Warming! ¶ 8:04 PM
Just what we need, Comrade McGreen.
Via Derbyshire at NRO:
Yes, that's just exactly what we need to do. Create more Arabs like Sayyid Qutb, the grandfather of al-Qaeda, who acquired his hatred of the West when he studied at Colorado State in Greeley back in 1947. He was appalled at the "immodesty" of American boys and girls.
And remember, American college girls looked like this in 1947:
Shocking! Shocking! I can see an ankle!
Yessir, if 1947's immodesty turned Qutb into the founder of modern terrorism, we certainly need to expose more Arabs to Britney Spears-level immodesty, vulgarity, and idiocy. We need to create exponentially stronger hatred. That's just the right prescription, Doc McGreen!
= = = = =
Later: Polistra beat Mark Steyn to the punch on this point!! This has never happened before. Wonder if the cognitive dissonance of pretending to support Comrade McCain, the appointed and anointed brand-R candidate, is wearing down the minds of the beltway conservatives? ¶ 3:56 PM
McCain said the United States’ goal in fighting Islamic extremists should be “to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists.
“In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.”
Yes, that's just exactly what we need to do. Create more Arabs like Sayyid Qutb, the grandfather of al-Qaeda, who acquired his hatred of the West when he studied at Colorado State in Greeley back in 1947. He was appalled at the "immodesty" of American boys and girls.
And remember, American college girls looked like this in 1947:
Shocking! Shocking! I can see an ankle!
Yessir, if 1947's immodesty turned Qutb into the founder of modern terrorism, we certainly need to expose more Arabs to Britney Spears-level immodesty, vulgarity, and idiocy. We need to create exponentially stronger hatred. That's just the right prescription, Doc McGreen!
= = = = =
Later: Polistra beat Mark Steyn to the punch on this point!! This has never happened before. Wonder if the cognitive dissonance of pretending to support Comrade McCain, the appointed and anointed brand-R candidate, is wearing down the minds of the beltway conservatives? ¶ 3:56 PM
I take it back
A week ago I called Rush a "party hack" when it comes to discussing candidates.
I humbly take it back. In response to Comrade McCain's foreign policy speech this morning, Rush hit every nail on the head.
This speech was truly frightening. McCain is not only more loyal to Gaia than the other two candidates, he's more loyal to the UN. McCain criticized Bush for giving too little obedience to the United Nations. Since Bush has crafted every piece of his foreign policy to please the United Nations and plunder the United States, I can't even try to imagine more obedience. But Comrade McGreen obviously imagines it, and is eager to implement it. ¶ 12:12 PM
I humbly take it back. In response to Comrade McCain's foreign policy speech this morning, Rush hit every nail on the head.
This speech was truly frightening. McCain is not only more loyal to Gaia than the other two candidates, he's more loyal to the UN. McCain criticized Bush for giving too little obedience to the United Nations. Since Bush has crafted every piece of his foreign policy to please the United Nations and plunder the United States, I can't even try to imagine more obedience. But Comrade McGreen obviously imagines it, and is eager to implement it. ¶ 12:12 PM
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Are protesters radicals?
Listening to Laura Ingraham interviewing some WW2 vets. She does a good job of bringing out the basics.
Lots of repetition of the pat phrase "These soldiers died so today's protesters would have the right to protest."
No, they didn't.
Laura enjoys the irony or paradox of this notion, but it isn't ironic or paradoxical, it's just plain false. Our soldiers didn't die to open the streets to Code Pink. Nor was that the intention or purpose of the Framers when they laid out the Bill of Rights. Those old common-law rights were designed to allow a free flow of CIVILIZED discussion, so that problems could be fixed by the government or by others BEFORE matters could get so bad that HONEST people had to take to the streets.
Our Leninist masters, mainly since 1950, have turned this upside down. They have subverted and perverted the concept of rights, so that civilized discussion is subject to severe censorship while the "rights" of their fellow Communists to sabotage the system are fully celebrated and carefully guarded.
Sabotage, in its original and literal sense, meant to throw a wooden shoe or clog (sabot) into the workings of a mill or machine to destroy its gears and shafts.
And that's what protesters do.
Think about the verbal contents of a typical protest sign. Have you ever seen the word "START" on a protest sign? No, it's always "STOP". Protesters are never agitating for a new idea; they are attempting to STOP an existing process or idea.
Thus, by the (generally useless) dictionary definitions of Conservative and Liberal, protesters are the Conservatives or reactionaries.
They want to STOP civilization and return to savagery.
Granted, some parts of modern civilization deserve to be stopped or at least "rewound", but the protest signs never refer to the parts that really need to be stopped; they want to clog up the useful parts. ¶ 1:58 PM
Lots of repetition of the pat phrase "These soldiers died so today's protesters would have the right to protest."
No, they didn't.
Laura enjoys the irony or paradox of this notion, but it isn't ironic or paradoxical, it's just plain false. Our soldiers didn't die to open the streets to Code Pink. Nor was that the intention or purpose of the Framers when they laid out the Bill of Rights. Those old common-law rights were designed to allow a free flow of CIVILIZED discussion, so that problems could be fixed by the government or by others BEFORE matters could get so bad that HONEST people had to take to the streets.
Our Leninist masters, mainly since 1950, have turned this upside down. They have subverted and perverted the concept of rights, so that civilized discussion is subject to severe censorship while the "rights" of their fellow Communists to sabotage the system are fully celebrated and carefully guarded.
Sabotage, in its original and literal sense, meant to throw a wooden shoe or clog (sabot) into the workings of a mill or machine to destroy its gears and shafts.
And that's what protesters do.
Think about the verbal contents of a typical protest sign. Have you ever seen the word "START" on a protest sign? No, it's always "STOP". Protesters are never agitating for a new idea; they are attempting to STOP an existing process or idea.
Thus, by the (generally useless) dictionary definitions of Conservative and Liberal, protesters are the Conservatives or reactionaries.
They want to STOP civilization and return to savagery.
Granted, some parts of modern civilization deserve to be stopped or at least "rewound", but the protest signs never refer to the parts that really need to be stopped; they want to clog up the useful parts. ¶ 1:58 PM
Monday, March 24, 2008
Mirror universe
Rather astonishing admission in the latest issue of New Science-ist mag.
At the risk of sounding like the standard leftist caller to talk radio, "I have a thousand things to say about this."
And the host inevitably says "Well, pick one......"
Okay, I'll pick one.
TOLD YA SO.
Now I'll pick another.
IF YOU WERE REALLY SCIENTISTS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE LOOKED AT THE DAMN DATA BACKWARDS FOR 30 YEARS.
Now another.
WHY IS PETER COX ENTITLED TO SAY THIS WHILE FRED SINGER IS NOT?
Now another.
I WOULDN'T ***EXPECT*** CO2 TO CONTROL TEMPERATURE UNLESS I HAD ***OBSERVED*** CO2 CONTROLLING TEMPERATURE. THE ONLY THING WE CAN ***OBSERVE*** IN THE ***ACTUAL DATA*** IS THAT TEMPERATURE CONTROLS CO2.
Now another.
YOU GODDAMN SCIENCE-ISTS ARE ALWAYS SCREECHING ABOUT THE CONTRADICTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY, ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN TENDENCY TO TREAT SUFFERING AS EVIDENCE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD. NOW YOU FINALLY ADMIT REALITY, BUT YOU TREAT THE REALITY AS EVIDENCE OF YOUR FALSE THEORY.
Now another.
THOMAS KUHN OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY WAY A SCIENTIFIC THEORY EVER DIES IS WHEN ALL OF ITS ADHERENTS DIE. QUICKLY, PLEASE.
= = = = =
Meanwhile back at the ranch, our media, candidates, formerly Christian churches, and bureaucrats, are all roaring toward Kyoto with turbocharged intensity.
Perhaps this sea-change in American politics and culture is the real reason why the science-ists now feel free to start admitting a tiny piece of fact. They have accomplished their purpose; they have finished imposing Stalinism on the western world; the movement is now unstoppable, given the inertia of media, politics, and churches. So now they can afford to salve whatever microsmidgen remains of their professional pride by admitting a fact or two. ¶ 11:40 AM
Climate skeptics are right.
Temperature increases do precede rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide - the opposite of what you'd expect if changes in CO2 levels were really driving climate change. That's the verdict of leading atmospheric modeller Peter Cox, a climate expert at the University of Exeter. Yet far from dismissing the threat of global warming, Cox says this means things are worse than we thought. Events in the Little Ice Age, 400 years ago, prove the point, he says. "In climate change, we have been in denial about how temperature changes CO2. ... People on both sides want a one-way link, but the historical record shows that causality goes both ways." Embarrassingly for climate modellers, Cox added, "Actually, CO2 is more sensitive to temperature than the other way round."
At the risk of sounding like the standard leftist caller to talk radio, "I have a thousand things to say about this."
And the host inevitably says "Well, pick one......"
Okay, I'll pick one.
TOLD YA SO.
Now I'll pick another.
IF YOU WERE REALLY SCIENTISTS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE LOOKED AT THE DAMN DATA BACKWARDS FOR 30 YEARS.
Now another.
WHY IS PETER COX ENTITLED TO SAY THIS WHILE FRED SINGER IS NOT?
Now another.
I WOULDN'T ***EXPECT*** CO2 TO CONTROL TEMPERATURE UNLESS I HAD ***OBSERVED*** CO2 CONTROLLING TEMPERATURE. THE ONLY THING WE CAN ***OBSERVE*** IN THE ***ACTUAL DATA*** IS THAT TEMPERATURE CONTROLS CO2.
Now another.
YOU GODDAMN SCIENCE-ISTS ARE ALWAYS SCREECHING ABOUT THE CONTRADICTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY, ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN TENDENCY TO TREAT SUFFERING AS EVIDENCE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD. NOW YOU FINALLY ADMIT REALITY, BUT YOU TREAT THE REALITY AS EVIDENCE OF YOUR FALSE THEORY.
Now another.
THOMAS KUHN OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY WAY A SCIENTIFIC THEORY EVER DIES IS WHEN ALL OF ITS ADHERENTS DIE. QUICKLY, PLEASE.
= = = = =
Meanwhile back at the ranch, our media, candidates, formerly Christian churches, and bureaucrats, are all roaring toward Kyoto with turbocharged intensity.
Perhaps this sea-change in American politics and culture is the real reason why the science-ists now feel free to start admitting a tiny piece of fact. They have accomplished their purpose; they have finished imposing Stalinism on the western world; the movement is now unstoppable, given the inertia of media, politics, and churches. So now they can afford to salve whatever microsmidgen remains of their professional pride by admitting a fact or two. ¶ 11:40 AM
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Godsbot is not risen.
Someone has used the old "Eliza" style of question-answering technology to build a Gods Bot. It's cute, with a blinking Flash animation of Jesus, but it needs a little work, to put it mildly.
I tried a short session with the GodBot:
Human: Mormons think Satan is your half-brother.
godsbot: How do you know so much about me.
Human: Is Osama bin Laden your friend?
godsbot: I think so, but I'm not sure. Ask Jesus if it is.
Human: What do you think of Maurice Strong?
godsbot: The aspects of a thing that are most important to us are hidden to us because of their simplicity and familiarity.
Human: Is Gaia your equal?
godsbot: Signs point to yes. Ask Jesus if it is.
Human: Do you believe in the Earth Goddess Gaia?
godsbot: Knowledge is superior to belief.
Human: Did you rise from the grave?
godsbot: No I didn't rise from the grave. What's it like?
Human: Were you resurrected?
godsbot: No, I was not.
In short, it's just a fancy version of the old Magic 8-ball. ¶ 9:53 PM
I tried a short session with the GodBot:
Human: Mormons think Satan is your half-brother.
godsbot: How do you know so much about me.
Human: Is Osama bin Laden your friend?
godsbot: I think so, but I'm not sure. Ask Jesus if it is.
Human: What do you think of Maurice Strong?
godsbot: The aspects of a thing that are most important to us are hidden to us because of their simplicity and familiarity.
Human: Is Gaia your equal?
godsbot: Signs point to yes. Ask Jesus if it is.
Human: Do you believe in the Earth Goddess Gaia?
godsbot: Knowledge is superior to belief.
Human: Did you rise from the grave?
godsbot: No I didn't rise from the grave. What's it like?
Human: Were you resurrected?
godsbot: No, I was not.
In short, it's just a fancy version of the old Magic 8-ball. ¶ 9:53 PM
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Self-explanatory sentences
I've always enjoyed spotting self-explanatory sentences, short utterances that tell you all you need to know about the speaker. Such sentences aren't the same as Freudian slips (eg Comrade McCain's "I'm a liberal conservative Republican") because the words are all fully intended, but nevertheless they tell you a lot more than the speaker meant to say.
===
My favorite, overheard on a bus from a biker-type young woman:
"My fucking friends always stop me from fighting whenever I'm fucking pregnant."
Tells you all you need to know about her life.
===
A few months ago, Baba Walters on "The View" said that she had received a Christmas card from Bush. Baba said "I'm shocked that he sent a RELIGIOUS Christmas card."
Tells you all you need to know about Baba's worldview: the concept of religion is utterly and completely alien and external, and she can't begin to imagine why anyone could possibly associate "religion" with a Christmas card.
===
Recently in a PBS report about the power of 'micro-loans' in the third world:
"...she lives in a hut made of dung."
Encapsulates REAL poverty in a few words.
===
Now to the current point:
A conference on the future of journalism, shown last night on C-Span, featured a Self-Explanatory Sentence that tells you all you need to know about the establishment media, though the speaker clearly didn't have any idea of the revelation.
Near the end of the conference, a large humorless biped of indeterminate gender (possibly female by birth) stood up, announced that it represented a Finnish newspaper, and asked: "Why is the demand for quality news going down while the level of education in most places is going up?" It then continued to discuss OECD and UN education ratings for several minutes, though it didn't even realize that the moderator had stopped listening to it.
Answering the question wouldn't help, because the question is invalid. (And interestingly the moderator didn't even try to answer the question, perhaps because he comprehended the true problem!) But unraveling and deleting some of the stupid assumptions behind the question would actually help to improve both the quality and sales of newspapers.
First assumption: That the content of high-class newspapers like the NYTimes and the Guardian is actually "quality news". In fact the content of such newspapers is a weird mix of true but irrelevant celebrity gossip and criminally fraudulent lies about economics, international trade, global warming, political candidates, etc. If such papers were treated the same as other companies, they would have been shut down years ago for fraud and organized crime.
Second assumption: That educated people are the only ones who can appreciate "quality news". Polistra has specialized in knocking down this myth by offering samples of radio news and entertainment of the '30s and '40s: entertainment full of elegant humor, literary references, poetry, Shakespeare and classical music; entertainment that unquestionably appealed to mass audiences as shown by steady corporate sponsorship and high ratings.
Third assumption: That education levels as measured by OECD or UN have any connection with intelligence, or with a hunger for learning and quality. I'm thinking of my grandfather and other men of that generation I've known through the years, who quit school around 4th grade because they needed to work on the farm. Their education level wouldn't even register on the OECD ratings. But they made a point of keeping good books around the house, they enjoyed reading books and newspapers, and they liked the high-quality radio programs mentioned above. Why? Not because they already knew all that stuff; because they DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW ALL THAT STUFF AND WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR MINDS. They also wanted to be sure their children learned about the world.
Today's Well-Educated People are divided into two distinct groups. One group is the hard-working professionals who finished a PhD in order to practice their specialized talents. These folks consume "news" only to advance their professional abilities: to gather the latest research or find out what the competition is doing. You won't [and shouldn't] find this level of data in newspapers of any quality, so these type-A superachievers don't have time for papers. The other group is less-talented folks who picked up a liberal arts degree for credentials, because they didn't have anything intrinsic to offer. These people have steaming piles of self-esteem; unlike my grandfather, they are perfectly certain that they know everything in the world. Unfortunately, their liberal arts education was the exact opposite of learning. In some areas such as college history courses, the negative learning has actually been measured: students know less after graduation than they did at the start. In English, they may possess more "facts", but the "facts" are pure Derrida-style Leninism, not any sort of actual info about the history and function of literature and language.
Fourth assumption: That humorless bipeds of indeterminate gender but solidly orthodox Marxist faith are capable of determining the nature of "quality news" in a way that makes sense to normal humans. Such bipeds are certainly capable of infinite arrogance and infinitely unjustified snobbishness. Unfortunately, snobbery and arrogance do not constitute "added value" in entertainment or information. People know when they're being treated with disdain, and they run away from the source of contempt as fast as possible.
Putting those together: the falseness of Assumption 1 means that the rest of the question hasn't been fully tested. It's quite possible that even today's "educated" people would enjoy and pay for quality news and entertainment, IF it were made available. Since it's NOT available through today's newspapers, radio, and TV, we simply don't know if they would buy it.
===
My favorite, overheard on a bus from a biker-type young woman:
"My fucking friends always stop me from fighting whenever I'm fucking pregnant."
Tells you all you need to know about her life.
===
A few months ago, Baba Walters on "The View" said that she had received a Christmas card from Bush. Baba said "I'm shocked that he sent a RELIGIOUS Christmas card."
Tells you all you need to know about Baba's worldview: the concept of religion is utterly and completely alien and external, and she can't begin to imagine why anyone could possibly associate "religion" with a Christmas card.
===
Recently in a PBS report about the power of 'micro-loans' in the third world:
"...she lives in a hut made of dung."
Encapsulates REAL poverty in a few words.
===
Now to the current point:
A conference on the future of journalism, shown last night on C-Span, featured a Self-Explanatory Sentence that tells you all you need to know about the establishment media, though the speaker clearly didn't have any idea of the revelation.
Near the end of the conference, a large humorless biped of indeterminate gender (possibly female by birth) stood up, announced that it represented a Finnish newspaper, and asked: "Why is the demand for quality news going down while the level of education in most places is going up?" It then continued to discuss OECD and UN education ratings for several minutes, though it didn't even realize that the moderator had stopped listening to it.
Answering the question wouldn't help, because the question is invalid. (And interestingly the moderator didn't even try to answer the question, perhaps because he comprehended the true problem!) But unraveling and deleting some of the stupid assumptions behind the question would actually help to improve both the quality and sales of newspapers.
First assumption: That the content of high-class newspapers like the NYTimes and the Guardian is actually "quality news". In fact the content of such newspapers is a weird mix of true but irrelevant celebrity gossip and criminally fraudulent lies about economics, international trade, global warming, political candidates, etc. If such papers were treated the same as other companies, they would have been shut down years ago for fraud and organized crime.
Second assumption: That educated people are the only ones who can appreciate "quality news". Polistra has specialized in knocking down this myth by offering samples of radio news and entertainment of the '30s and '40s: entertainment full of elegant humor, literary references, poetry, Shakespeare and classical music; entertainment that unquestionably appealed to mass audiences as shown by steady corporate sponsorship and high ratings.
Third assumption: That education levels as measured by OECD or UN have any connection with intelligence, or with a hunger for learning and quality. I'm thinking of my grandfather and other men of that generation I've known through the years, who quit school around 4th grade because they needed to work on the farm. Their education level wouldn't even register on the OECD ratings. But they made a point of keeping good books around the house, they enjoyed reading books and newspapers, and they liked the high-quality radio programs mentioned above. Why? Not because they already knew all that stuff; because they DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW ALL THAT STUFF AND WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR MINDS. They also wanted to be sure their children learned about the world.
Today's Well-Educated People are divided into two distinct groups. One group is the hard-working professionals who finished a PhD in order to practice their specialized talents. These folks consume "news" only to advance their professional abilities: to gather the latest research or find out what the competition is doing. You won't [and shouldn't] find this level of data in newspapers of any quality, so these type-A superachievers don't have time for papers. The other group is less-talented folks who picked up a liberal arts degree for credentials, because they didn't have anything intrinsic to offer. These people have steaming piles of self-esteem; unlike my grandfather, they are perfectly certain that they know everything in the world. Unfortunately, their liberal arts education was the exact opposite of learning. In some areas such as college history courses, the negative learning has actually been measured: students know less after graduation than they did at the start. In English, they may possess more "facts", but the "facts" are pure Derrida-style Leninism, not any sort of actual info about the history and function of literature and language.
Fourth assumption: That humorless bipeds of indeterminate gender but solidly orthodox Marxist faith are capable of determining the nature of "quality news" in a way that makes sense to normal humans. Such bipeds are certainly capable of infinite arrogance and infinitely unjustified snobbishness. Unfortunately, snobbery and arrogance do not constitute "added value" in entertainment or information. People know when they're being treated with disdain, and they run away from the source of contempt as fast as possible.
Putting those together: the falseness of Assumption 1 means that the rest of the question hasn't been fully tested. It's quite possible that even today's "educated" people would enjoy and pay for quality news and entertainment, IF it were made available. Since it's NOT available through today's newspapers, radio, and TV, we simply don't know if they would buy it.
Labels: SES
¶ 8:43 AM
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
One scholar
Nearly all discussion of Obama, Wright, the Great Speech, etc, is done in a post-modern style. Fox is the worst with its Frank Luntz focus groups and Asshole O'Reilly doing the body language thing. But all the commentators operate in a content-free style of nonlinear textual analysis, where you never ask basic questions about facts; you only ask if the text is internally consistent.
The only exception I've found is Steve Sailer, who has been digging into Obama's biography via Obama's own memoirs. Sailer has done the basic work of good scholarship, looking up the connections and motives of the people involved.
Consider Obama's use of his grandmother, who was bothered by a bum who happened to be black. All the other commentators are happy to acknowledge the "truth" that Grandma Is A Racist Who Deserves To Be Interned, and all the other commentators congratulate Obama for his Christlike forgiveness. They understand that by all rights she should be lynched for saying the wrong words, but Barack has absolved her from the Eternal Fires.
Not Sailer. He reads the actual memoir and finds that the grandparents were solid Soviets, not just "Kansans"; that the grandmother had a good reason to feel uncomfortable around this particular bum; and that the grandfather insisted on putting ideology before marriage. A normal husband, especially of that generation, would instantly decide to drive his wife to work; but Barack's Soviet grandpa refused. He required his wife to continue taking the bus, not because the bus was more efficient, but because her unease about the bum who had persistently bothered her was Politically Incorrect in the strict narrow original sense of the term. If the bum had been white, no problem; but because the bum was black, the Correct Leninist Line required her to Celebrate His Diversity. The incident was not an opportunity to show his love for the missus; it was an obligation to Re-Educate the Deviationist-Roader Female Unit.
Since Barack is following Grandpa in refusing to protect the honor (and perhaps the life) of Grandma, we know which side he's on. Orthodox ideology comes before the basic function of marriage.
Despite the herculean efforts of the delightfully deceased Betty Fried[m]an, most people still instinctively sense that the purpose of lifelong monogamy is to protect women from the depredations of solitary men, and to protect men from becoming predatory bums. ¶ 12:53 PM
The only exception I've found is Steve Sailer, who has been digging into Obama's biography via Obama's own memoirs. Sailer has done the basic work of good scholarship, looking up the connections and motives of the people involved.
Consider Obama's use of his grandmother, who was bothered by a bum who happened to be black. All the other commentators are happy to acknowledge the "truth" that Grandma Is A Racist Who Deserves To Be Interned, and all the other commentators congratulate Obama for his Christlike forgiveness. They understand that by all rights she should be lynched for saying the wrong words, but Barack has absolved her from the Eternal Fires.
Not Sailer. He reads the actual memoir and finds that the grandparents were solid Soviets, not just "Kansans"; that the grandmother had a good reason to feel uncomfortable around this particular bum; and that the grandfather insisted on putting ideology before marriage. A normal husband, especially of that generation, would instantly decide to drive his wife to work; but Barack's Soviet grandpa refused. He required his wife to continue taking the bus, not because the bus was more efficient, but because her unease about the bum who had persistently bothered her was Politically Incorrect in the strict narrow original sense of the term. If the bum had been white, no problem; but because the bum was black, the Correct Leninist Line required her to Celebrate His Diversity. The incident was not an opportunity to show his love for the missus; it was an obligation to Re-Educate the Deviationist-Roader Female Unit.
Since Barack is following Grandpa in refusing to protect the honor (and perhaps the life) of Grandma, we know which side he's on. Orthodox ideology comes before the basic function of marriage.
Despite the herculean efforts of the delightfully deceased Betty Fried[m]an, most people still instinctively sense that the purpose of lifelong monogamy is to protect women from the depredations of solitary men, and to protect men from becoming predatory bums. ¶ 12:53 PM
Infidels allowed?
This is an interesting story! Apparently Rome is negotiating with the Saudi royals to get a Catholic church built in Arabia. Not at all clear how serious this is, or whether the Saudis really intend it to happen. Arabs are very good at taqiyya, strategic lying. If it does happen in a straightforward way, it would give Osama one more reason to dislike the Saudi royals. More likely it would give the Army of Allah one more way to penetrate and subvert the Christian world. After all, Benedict likes to use Francis of Assisi as a model. Francis, a rich playboy, joined the Crusades to kill him some Mohammedans, and ended up as a confused pro-Mohammedan.
¶ 6:11 AM
