We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, September 19. 2021
Sounds more like sociocultural fashion than anything data-based. Maybe that's the idea. Many elite institutions began as religious ones and, without the religion, other things need to fill the existential vacuum.
But where is the "veritas"?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I am much smarter than you. In fact, I am so much smarter that you lack the intelligence to understand my reasoning in proclaiming myself smarter than you. You'll just have to take it as a matter of faith that I am indeed smarter than you. Therefore, to the extent that you may disagree with my opinions, remember that you are too ignorant to understand my arguments and your disagreement with me simply proves the point. (I might add that it would behoove you to agree with me so as not to reveal your ignorance, disagreeing with me simply shows everyone how stupid you are.)
I am glad our boys are grown and not having to worry about what kind of twisted beliefs were being shoved down their throats. I would probably try and stop a high school age kid from applying to any of the Ivy League schools, but most colleges are so far left now if would be difficult to find a sane school let alone a sane professor.
I'm a prof (science) and while some of us are sane (I hope), your intuition is mostly accurate.
They are still out there, but you have to work at it. Mostly, it would be the better evangelical and conservative Catholic colleges. There are also still professors who believe as a point of honor in teaching thinking and exposing students to historical points of view, not just last Tuesday's. While it is true that even these are mostly liberal, they are not without honor.
But I do see it all slipping further and further away with each passing year. The good ones fear for their careers from an incautious word.
“The principle value of holding a Harvard degree is never again having to be being impressed by a Harvard degree”
But the "educated strata" are long known to be the most gullible.
The fading of the critical sense is a serious menace to the preservation of our civilization. It makes it easy for quacks to fool the people. It is remarkable that the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the boors. The intellectuals were never keen enough to see the manifest contradictions of their creeds. It did not in the least impair the popularity of Fascism that Mussolini in the same speech praised the Italians as the representatives of the oldest Western civilization and as the youngest among the civilized nations. No German nationalist minded it when dark-haired Hitler, corpulent Goering, and lame Goebbels were praised as the shining representatives of the tall, slim, fair-haired, heroic Aryan master race. Is it not amazing that many millions of non-Russians are firmly convinced that the Soviet regime is democratic, even more democratic than America?
--von Mises, Ludwig (1945). Bureaucracy
“Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.”
— C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
First of all the hurricanes have indeed been far worse, even in my lifetime (I'm 78). Second, fires too have been worse, BUT; we discovered how to mitigate forest fires and choose instead to manage the forests to make them less prone to massive fire. THEN came the environmentalists who rejected any form of human influence and we stopped managing them, We let them grow thick and allowed dead trees to predominate. Now it is still important to point out that even then we wouldn't have had most of the recent massive fires without direct cause by man. In the West we get wind from time to time and if you start a small fire in a windstorm you end up with massive fires. Simple as that. The big fires in Oregon last year were set on urpose by Antifa. The Media hushed it up. Why?
AGW (man caused global warming) is and always was a scam/grift. They will play the ignorant and stupid useful idiots to support this by making it sound scary and unarguable and they may well succeed in acquiring a massive shift of power and money to a small global elite.
How do you know it's a scam??
When they change historical records to show a warming trend.
When they insist that the science is settled and no one can question it.
When they claim that weather events are climate change.
When they resort to fiscal damage numbers to support the assertion that the effects of weather are worse now than in the past.
And lastly; whenever they open their mouths.
I supervised more than one possessor of a Harvard MBA and, if I spoke carefully and avoided areas beyond their comprehension, found them moderately competent.
I have a "cheap" (free from AT&T) smart phone. I want to upgrade. Specifically I want longer battery life and more storage. But beyond that I simply don't know what more expensive smart phones can do that my cheap/free phone cannot do. My wife's phone cost $600+ and it cannot do anything that mine can't except take better quality pictures. I can't afford an Apple so my question is not about that phone. My question is simple: What can a better phone do for me that my cheap phone doesn't already do? Serious question. I would like to make more use of the technology but I don't know what I don't know. Any ideas?
That's funny, at a show this weekend, the guy at the next table had a "free" phone that his wife picked up from ATT, Could never get signal in the building, Kept looking up things on my Verizon phone.
You've nailed it already, newer phones have larger screens, better Bluetooth and GPS chips that use less power. Aside from that, the Androids that I'm familiar with have a newer iteration of the the operating system (Currently Android 11 - AKA: "Red Velvet Cake") which has refinements, but little that's *NEW*.
Here's a very decent freebie I like FWIW:
So will the GPS chips allow me to get directions and maps when I don't have cell service?
Also from the link you sent the phone has triple camera. What is that and how does it work?
Cross posted at MC: "Mask mandates are not the same thing as mask usage. As with gun control - gun laws are disobeyed, but that doesn't mean gun safety isn't valuable, or condom usage - people use that reasonably good technology poorly, usually because of impatience, but that doesn't mean they are useless, we cannot conclude much about mask efficacy from mandates, only from observed usage. Observed usage indicates masks reduce all breath-contagious diseases, including covid. Really excellent usage, as in hospitals and clinics, protect people who are in highly vulnerable places exposed to lots of illness.
Yes, the smart people have not done well. The skeptics have done ten times worse. It's fun to feel superior to people who think they are better, but it doesn't get us one whit closer to answers, and conservatives have allowed themselves to become distracted by this emotional nonessential. Yes, there are lots of high-IQ people not doing very well with the covid issue at present. However, that is just as present among the high-IQ skeptics - or even more so. I can point some out pretty easily. But when I look at the ten people I know who I think are making the best arguments at present, picking their way through the battlefield, they are all high-IQ and a fair amount of education."
AVI - as it seems you don’t fall into the skeptics’ camp can
it be inferred you believe yourself to be a member of the smart group? As that seems logical is it therefore possible you demonstrate confirmation bias in your remarks?
Louis Miller, I am a congenital skeptic who has been questioning the wisdom of the educated elites, especially the Arts and Humanities Tribe, for 16 years at my own site. It's been my stock in trade, really. I worked in a field (mental health) where I had to take down supposed experts with fair frequency. And sometimes did it for fun. As for confirmation bias, I have been railing about that in particular recently. I try to be alert for that possibility on every (damn) claim I make. Might I just be playing chess against myself, hiding my biases behind subtler and subtler shields? Sure. But that's what interaction is for, to have possible bad reasoning pointed out. You have raised the possibility that what I have said is merely confirmation bias, but you have provided no evidence for that.
My main teacher over time has been the late CS Lewis, quoted appropriately above by JK Brown. (I have used that very quote myself several times.) I don't approach him, but I try.
IF cloth masks worked why do the people who have to spray insecticides have to wear expensive and quality safety equipment? Just wear a cloth mask it will "reduce" exposure. When I was in the military we were issued a gas mask which was uncomfortable and had a useful life when used measured in minutes. Imagine all that time I could have simply used a cheap cloth mask and use it again and again with no time limit. Who knew cloth masks were so effective. We had to train in An NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) suit which was bulky, hard to put on and after just a few hours it so diminished your ability to function you had to get out of it or die. We could have worn a simple cloth mask!!! Who knew!
At this point I do believe that everyone who advocates a cloth mask knows that they are worse than useless in protecting you from covid and their real purpose is something far more nefarious.
Apples and oranges. Great example of exactly what I am referring to. People who think they have this great idea that plain common-sense people can see but the experts can't. Except it's wrong, because they are overlooking at least one important detail. Medical masks work in both directions for their effectiveness, but your breath won't kill insects (I hope). The barrier for projected illness in the air is why masks are useful. Both ways. They become increasingly limited in uncirculating areas over time, because all of the air becomes saturated with whatever virus is out there. Which is what mask advocates have always claimed.
So in your professional opinion masks work and we don't need vaccine, separation or lockdowns. But...but, almost everyone who got Covid in the USA was under mask protocalls. How could that be if masks work. They don't work, from past posts I believe you aren't a troll or stupid so I can only conclude you are lying. Simple as that.
The other possibility is that you simply don't understand anything about the issue. You were the person who tried to define the word "works" as meaning 100% or nothing, so that 10% fewer people dying from Method A meant it didn't "work." That would leave out perhaps every strategy human beings have ever used to accomplish anything, from trade, to warfare, to marriage, to education, to managing people. If you can get an improvement, be it 1% or 50%, you go for that. That "works" in the only meaningful sense of the word.
A wide old man told me in my youth "If you cain't be told, you cain't be taught."
I am a hiker. I have a water filter that filters out 99.9999% of bacteria and parasites. It is the standard that all drinking water filters are held to. Why? Simple, if it were only 99% effective (which sounds damned good compared to 8% for cloth masks) then you would ingest 1% of the bacteria and parasites in the water when you drink it. This is a big deal! A 99% effective filter does not work! Read that again. A 99% water filter DOES NOT WORK. In order "to work" it must filter out enough contaminate so that you cannot get sick from drinking the water... PERIOD!!
A cloth mask DOES NOT WORK! It at best filters out 8% of the bacteria and virus in the air you breathe. This means IF you are breathing air with covid virus in it that 92% of the virus will get into your lungs. How could any sane person then say; "well, the masks "works", or "it helps" or "it will keep you safe". It doesn't work... PERIOD!! And yet you think it does.
I am entirely content to let our discussion stand as it is, for all to see. I'm sure you think you made good points, but all you have done is proven mine.
If I were feeling sick, I wouldn't go out. If I felt the urgent need to go out, and I were sick, I would wear a mask our of consideration for others, as well as medicate the coughing (pre-COVID too). I think it's been demonstrated that masks, however imperfect, do inhibit the spread of germ-contaminated spittle and micro-drops when they are expelled by coughing/sneezing/breathing. Everybody wants to argue the beneficial extent for some reason, to fault them for being imperfect, even if it means working harder than just wearing a damned mask when asked, which is infrequent now (here).
If I see someone wearing a mask nowadays, I respect their space; I don't crowd and don't judge. Their health is their business.
Recognizing that masks are imperfect, why do people assume that masks are filthy and contaminated? Is something stopping them from washing their mask, or getting a clean one? Has it been dragged through the streets or something? It's become commonplace now to see hand-sanitizing stations nearly everywhere. I notice they get used casually, fairly frequently by a lot more people than, say, 2 years ago. I notice my own family members using them more frequently for sure. And I notice that I wash my own hands with soap more frequently than I used to, especially as I track the flu and current COVID data. Is this a bad thing or a good one? I remember working in SE Asia where for decades it's been entirely normal for people to mask up during flu seasons, and for air pollution too. Maybe the mask is theater, maybe it helps. I see it as a lasting behavioral change. I can't see how it's stupidity or ignorance though, when all of these things are toward improving the odds.
"to fault them for being imperfect"
They don't work. At best they filter out 8% of the millions if virus you exhale. Do you really think that it matters that you inhale "only" 920,000 virus from a sick persons exhale of 1,000,000 virus? It is illogical.
The only reason to force wearing a mask is to make it appear that the politicians are doing something. It is pure fakery.
About 1/3rd of the adults in the U.S. have some form of venereal disease. Should they be allowed to date? Perhaps a Venereal disease passport is appropriate. How about lockdown or fired from their job?
A related example from the 80's is HIV. Once we knew that HIV was pandemic in the gay community wouldn't have been appropriate to force them to stop having sex? But the government did literally nothing to stop the spread of HIV a MUCH deadlier disease than covid. Why?
How about smoking? A lot of lawyers made millions on the cigarette lawsuits but we didn't even try to stop smoking. Why did we allow anyone to smoke after we realized how deadly it is. Fire smokers if they don't quit. Don't allow thenm to travel perhaps. Why not?
And yet nothing I said anywhere mentioned the use of force, regulation, or compliance measures. Interesting.
So, what you meant to say is let each person decide and get the government and Karens out of our personal business. How could I have misunderstood that?
'Karens' of any sex are irrelevant unless you allow them to be otherwise. Social media empowerment is not that hard to overcome.
The pandemic has been a public policy disaster from a number of perspectives, in my opinion. It would be hard to imagine a more effective campaign to methodically demolish trust in public institutions. But this is what Progressive Democrats do. They consistently confuse their emotional righteousness with being right, and proceed to arrogate their authority on bad assumptions, into outcomes worthy of interest to the Babylon Bee.
I think this pandemic highlights the strategic weakness of using behavioral goals to drive policy statements to manage public health, instead of using real education. They want everybody bleating in the same direction. A good percentage of the population see right through it - they suspect they are being manipulated, become watchful, and as soon as they see evidence of it, they become resentful and uncooperative - while some of the remainder bleat.
About 2/3 of the country is overweight, and over 1/3 is clinically obese. And this is one of the most common comorbidities associated with COVID deaths, if not #1. How is it we are not seeing relentless PSA campaigns on managing weight loss and improving nutrition, including ensuring an adequate daily intake of Vitamin C, D, and zinc? These are all accepted ways to diminish risk of dying from COVID.
In the 60's we had a plague of heart disease and high blood pressure. Cardiac arrests, strokes, and various cardio-pulmonary diseases were becoming disturbingly commonplace. Yet public health policy was able to constructively identify smoking as a root cause, get research programs like the Framingham study started, and waged a public education campaign the tackled the problem. How many people do you know that still smoke like chimneys? I haven't seen one in America since the 1980s.
I wonder, what did our Public Health experts learn from that? Looking at the pictures of gala events where 'the help' is masked and the stars go barefaced, it would seem they would rather push than lead. History is full of examples of how that's not going to work.
"'Karens' of any sex are irrelevant unless you allow them to be otherwise."
If the "Karens" are your government or influencing the government then that is NOT irrelevant. They can technically be irrelevant and can be 100% wrong BUT if government forces you to do things based on those irrelevancies THEN that becomes relevant.
We are in the 80th week of "two weeks to slow the spread" and nothing they have done is slowing the spread (except for Trump's vaccine). The Democrats used Covid to steal the election, to spend and tax more and to in general seize more power. That is what they are still doing. Our federal government is officially FUBAR and I fear that our military is close to that too. Covid was the tool to the coup and now our new leaders behind the curtains are taking everything that isn't nailed down and they are clueless to how to run the country.
You would agree that "Karen" is a slang term denoting a stereotypical meme in our modern lingo? Switching the meaning of words is a not-very-constructive tactic that I would normally expect from a Progressive. Normally its use is intended to cloud the issues and distract the discussion.
What does Karen mean?
Karen is a pejorative slang term for an obnoxious, angry, entitled, and often racist middle-aged white woman who uses her privilege to get her way or police other people’s behaviors.
As featured in memes, Karen is generally stereotyped as having a blonde bob haircut, asking to speak to retail and restaurant managers to voice complaints or make demands, and being an anti-vaxx , Generation X soccer mom.
In 2020, Karen spread as a label used to call out white women who were captured in viral videos engaging in what are widely seen as racist acts.
I've never, ever seen the 'Karen' meme conflated with anti-vaxxing, so this is just more of the progressive hogwash and dishonesty that we've come to expect. But I don't see how you can equate this to government overreach, when so-called 'Karens' are by definition individuals.
Wikipedia even includes the 2020 Central Park birdwatching incident in their definition, where a supposed 'Karen' was walking her dog off the leash and was confronted by an angry black birdwatcher who proceeded to threaten her dog. Bari Weiss has recently debunked the Progressive version of those events by detailing the ugly history of similar behavior from the birdwatcher - but in any case this particular 'Karen' has had to move out of the country as a result of the Progressive mob swarm.
I think mob swarms and government overreach are both extremely ugly things, ugly enough to merit their own definitions and plenty dangerous enough to make sure they are easily and accurately labelled once spotted.