Author: VD

A man of the people

Or not, as it happens:

On a scale from 0 to 20 points, where 20 signifies full engagement with mainstream American culture and 0 signifies deep cultural isolation within the new upper class bubble, you scored between 0 and 4. In other words, your bubble is so thick you may not even know you’re in one.

In fairness, I haven’t even lived in the United States for more than a decade. But this result illustrates why I always find it tremendously amusing when insufficiently informed critics attempt to lump this blog in with the conventional conservative Red State crowd.

Anyhow, what do you say about lunch in Davos on Friday, Bertrand?

Curie-Hultgreen Syndrome

I know I’ve mentioned this before, but have you ever noticed that female pioneers appear to have an extraordinary facility for offing themselves whilst engaged in their pioneering?

A woman who defied a driving ban on female motorists in Saudi Arabia has died in a car crash. Another was hurt in the crash in the only country in the world where females are banned from getting behind the wheel.

I have absolutely no doubt that the first woman to walk on the Moon would somehow manage to trip and break her neck. Even if her “Moon walk” was staged on the same film stage that was used for the Apollo “landings”. And the first female NFL referee will probably wind up getting crushed to death the first time she tries to sort out a fumble scrum.

I find it fascinating that female pioneers have a higher “suicide” rate than women who are actually trying to commit suicide.

Sweeping it under the table

Obama is still trying to let the big banks get away with the massive quantities of criminal activity in which they engaged during the housing boom and bust:

The Associated Press reports that a proposed deal could be announced within weeks. Five banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)—would pay the federal government $25 billion. About $17 billion would be used to reduce the principal that some struggling homeowners owe, $5 billion more would be used for future federal and state programs and $3 billion would be used to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent. Civil immunity would be granted to the banks for any role in foreclosure fraud, and there would be no investigations.

Once more, we see that there is absolutely no law whatsoever in the USA. There is barely even the pretense of it here. And looking at it from a political perspective, one would think the Republicans could easily ride this issue of tremendous bank-related corruption and abuse of the home-owning public to victory in November except for one small problem: both Romney and Gingrich are as wholly-owned by the banks as is Obama.

If only there was a candidate who wasn’t a banker’s puppet. Surely he would be the ideal presidential nominee under these circumstances!

Excursions in Alpha

I suppose I am definitionally obliged to assume that you’re all going to be fascinated by the news that I am reportedly a narcissist.

A more disputable question is whether the quantity inelasticity of female demand is a better way of explaining the inapplicability of the conventional demand curve to the supply of available men or if ALPHA and BETA men should simply be regarded as two fundamentally different markets. Color me extremely dubious about the latter; a Ferrari may be vastly more desirable than a Hyundai, but at the end of the day, they’re still both cars being sold in the automotive market.

And finally, there is a cursory examination of what some have observed to be the phenomenon of divorced mothers with limited custody losing interest in their children, and how fathers facing divorce might be able to feed and take advantage of it in order to raise their children.

That settles that

I received the following email a few minutes ago:

After around 5 years of the CoComment service we had to decide to terminate the service per 31.3.2012 due to a poor economical perspective of the service and the lack of options and opportunities.

Per 31.3.2009 due to the economical situation at that time we already had to decide to wind-down CoComment to an absolute minimal level of operation. After further 18 months of minimal operations… we now had to finally decide to fully stop also the minimal operation of the service. Unfortunately it was not possible to find any option to continue the service.

We are sorry to have to hereby formally inform you that we will stop the CoComment service according the the Terms of Use per 31.3.2012.

The Service will be switched off at 31.3.2012 at midnight 12:00 am.

We thank you for your comprehension.

I’d be a bit more sanguine about the possibilities if the other options all didn’t seem to be obsessed with forcing Blogger users to convert to the exceedingly limited templates of the “new” Blogger. Any ideas or recommendations? I already know that I don’t like Disqus, having experimented with it a few months ago.

“Israel Firster” is a factual label

A label can’t reasonably be described as a slur when it is both demonstrably true and accurately descriptive. This should suffice to explode the recent dishonest attempts of various neocons to hide blatant Jewish disloyalty to the USA under the guise of anti-semitism:

In a Jan. 13 opinion piece, Andrew Adler offered three possible options to ensure Israel’s security in the Middle East: a strike against the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, an attack against Iran, and having Israel’s U.S.-based Mossad agents assassinate Obama. Adler said “a hit” against the president would “preserve Israel’s existence.” He said Vice President Joe Biden would then be able “to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

If you’re openly advocating the murder of a head of state in order to force that state to become the subordinate military arm of another state, it is totally obvious that you are placing the interests of the second state first. Assuming that Adler is an American, this is outright treason. Emotional appeals to the Holocaust no more justify Jewish treason against America than appeals to the Mongol slaughter in China would justify treason committed by Americans of Chinese descent.

Now, I have nothing against the Israel First position when it is expressed by Israelis. They should put Israel first; no one else is going to. But likewise, Americans are expected to put American interests first. This is only one of the many reasons why the USA should return to its longtime historical policy of outlawing dual-citizenship.

It is also worth nothing that the idea of assassinating the U.S. president in order to “preserve Israel’s existence” is a monstrously stupid one. If the Israeli leaders were ever so mindlessly arrogant as to to attack their country’s foremost supporter among the nations of the world in a manner that not even National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union ever dared to attempt, most Americans would be more than willing to nuke Jerusalem.

To say nothing of the fact that Biden confuses things so often, he might accidentally order the invasion of Israel when he meant to attack Iran. Anyhow, here is exactly what Adler wrote:

“Well, here are your “Kobayahsi Maru” options. “Kobayahsi Maru” is a term used in “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan” to describe a no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem.

One, order a pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah and Hamas, knowing that military and civilian casualties will be high, but not as high as they would be in 2017.

Two, go against Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s wish that Israel take a lethal bullet in the name of preserving a healthy, worldwide economic climate, and order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities at all costs.

Three give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy include helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read” three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”

Now, I actually found the second option to be even more shocking than the third. I mean, on what planet does this “healthy, worldwide economic climate” Adler describes exist? But speaking of Israeli involvement in U.S. politics, it may be worth noting that one such Israeli citizen is presently keeping the Gingrich campaign afloat.

“A wealthy backer of Newt Gingrich will inject $5 million into a “super PAC” supporting his presidential bid, two people with knowledge of the contribution said on Monday, providing a major boost to Mr. Gingrich as he seeks to fend off aggressive attacks from Mitt Romney, his main Republican rival. The supporter, Dr. Miriam Adelson, is the wife of Sheldon Adelson, a longtime Gingrich friend and a patron who this month contributed $5 million to the super PAC, Winning Our Future. Dr. Adelson’s check will bring the couple’s total contributions to Winning Our Future to $10 million….”

Adios Amendments 4 and 5

The judicial war on the U.S. Constitution continues apace:

American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case. Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21–or face the consequences including contempt of court.

Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order. The Fifth Amendment says that nobody may be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” which has become known as the right to avoid self-incrimination.

“I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Blackburn wrote in a 10-page opinion today. He said the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789 and has been used to require telephone companies to aid in surveillance, could be invoked in forcing decryption of hard drives as well.

It’s always interesting to see the logical contortions through which America’s corrupt judges go when they are determined to reach a conclusion that flies directly in the face of the Constitution. Given that Americans have “the right to remain silent” as well as the right to be “secure in their papers and effects”, there is no way that a judge can legitimately order any American to cough up a passphrase.

This is just one more piece of evidence demonstrating that the federal government is corrupt, lawless, and unconstitutional. It is an Augean Stables that is likely beyond the ability of any one man, even a principled man like Ron Paul, to clean up. But can anyone suggest with a straight face that Mitt Romney, the $45 million man, or that fat little Freddie Mac-owned troll, Newt Gingrich, have any interest whatsoever in doing so?

Mailvox: hit me with your best shot

Agnosticon hasn’t delved deeply enough into the archives to understand why things work the way they do:

If a blog is purposed for argument and not just banal discussion, then opposing views are essential for its content. Of course, this would also depend on quality of opposition, and most regulars here will immediately begin insulting self-proclaimed atheists, so it can be concluded that this blog doesn’t really value argument. I think many here are here to socialize with like-minded others. It’s possible that true argument might not be possible due to asymmetry of opinion, although that isn’t necessarily a disqualifier. Conventionally, a “troll” is not just someone who shows up only for argument, rather a person who shows up to derail argument. It would appear that Vox means to argue, since his posts are so often provocative, yet when engaged he often seems too ready just to score a couple points, declare victory, and get out. There are other people here who seem genuinely interested in argument.

Agnosticon first fails to distinguish between legitimate and substantive arguments versus those that are obviously stupid and fallacious in considering whether the Dread Ilk are interested in arguments in general. He seems to be unaware that I have written a book in which dozens of popular atheist arguments are conclusively demolished and have addressed many more on this blog over the past four years, so when yet another clueless college kid shows up and starts spouting off half-understood atheist pablum that everyone has seen before, it is hardly a mystery that he meets with nothing but ridicule, especially when he presents his outdated arguments in an obnoxious and confrontational manner. And why would they be ever be interested in taking such interlocutors seriously, especially when over the last eight years, we have seen this sort of individual lie, move the goalposts, refuse to admit when they are conclusively proved wrong, and otherwise behave in an intellectually unserious manner?

In the very thread in which Agnosticon commented, we have the example of Dan, who cannot understand that utilitarian philosophy is not “a rational basis in fact”. Does he honestly recommend that such an individual be taken seriously? And if so, how?

The second thing that Agnosticon fails to recognize is that there is substantial proof right here on this blog that I am genuinely interested in argument of a sufficiently high quality. I have zero interest in arguing for the sake of arguing, much less wasting my time on people who are insufficiently intelligent to say anything new or interesting. It’s not a case of scoring a couple of points, declaring victory, and getting out, it is simply about qualifying potential opponents. If a person is incapable of avoiding very basic logical and factual errors, or if it is apparent that they rely upon the usual chicanery such as redefining basic terms and so forth, then there is absolutely no chance they are going to present an argument that I can’t shred with ease. But rather than refusing to give everyone a shot, I prefer to permit anyone one or two opportunities to say something interesting or effective. If they want to waste that opportunity on a trivial drive-by comment or two, that’s their choice.

If they can’t deliver a substantive argument, or if I can identify their glaring mistakes – or worse, intellectual dishonesty – at first glance, then they’re done as far as I’m concerned. I already know how the prosecution will proceed and it’s all over but for the formalities even before it has begun. And really, considering the number of comments and emails I receive, that’s the only way it is possible to allow pretty much everyone who wants one a shot.

So don’t waste it on nonsensical blather if you wish me, or anyone else, to take you seriously. I’m quite willing to give Agnosticon the opportunity to present a case for his Singulatarianism, or what I described in The Irrational Atheist as apocalyptic techno-heresy, even though he has one strike against him for having demonstrated an inability to distinguish between logical and philosophical integrity and logical and philosophical necessity. But if he can’t present one, that’s hardly reflective of my unwillingness to engage in substantive argument.

It’s pretty simple. Right now I owe Dominic my next entry in our ongoing debate on the existence of God. Once that concludes, whenever that may be, I’m sure I’ll engage someone else in a substantive and detailed debate. Debt deflation might be a good one. But I’m simply not going to focus any time or attention on commenters who publicly demonstrate that they have neither the intelligence nor the intellectual integrity to present a challenge that is both substantive and interesting. Of course, the primary purpose of this blog is for me to amuse myself. Everything else is secondary; I’m pleased that some of you find it worth reading on a regular basis, but that’s not its raison d’etre.

Throwing in the towel

Even Michael Yon has reluctantly concluded that it is time to get out of Afghanistan:

This war is going to turn out badly. We are wasting lives and resources while the United States decays and other threats emerge. We led the horse to water.

Importantly, there is no value in pretending that Pakistan is an ally. We should wish the best of luck to the Afghans, and the many peaceful Pakistanis, and accelerate our withdrawal of our main battle force. The US never has been serious about Afghanistan. Under General Petraeus we were starting to gain ground, but the current trajectory will land us in the mud.

The enemies will never beat us in Afghanistan. Force on force, the Taliban are weak by comparison. Yet this is their home. There is only so much we can do at this extreme cost for the many good Afghan people. We must reduce our main effort and concentrate on other matters. Time to come home.

Sincerely,

Michael Yon

It’s ten years late in my opinion, but nevertheless, he’s correct. Tim Lynch concurs:

There it is; Afghanistan is toast, and what the last 10 years has taught us is we cannot afford to deploy American ground forces. Two billion dollars a week (that’s billion with a B) has bought what? Every year we stay to “bring security to the people,” the security situation for the people gets worse and worse, deteriorating by orders of magnitude. Now the boy genius has announced a “new strategy”. A strategy that is identical to the “strategy” that resulted in a hollow ground force getting its ass kicked by North Korea in 1950; a mere five years after we had ascended to the most dominant military the world had ever known.

As usual, the culprit is historical ignorance and the “this time it’s different” crowd. Seriously, every time someone claims that “this time it’s different” or “today’s youth [fill-in-the-blank], they should be fitted with shock collars and zapped. Anyone who knows anything about military history or who has ever played a strategic wargame knows that it is much harder to hold onto territory than it is to grab it in the first place.

Vox’s first rule of war: if you don’t colonize, don’t occupy.

The United States has been utilizing what may prove to be the most historically inept strategy in the entire history of warfare, in which the enemy nations are occupied while allowing its own territory to be colonized.

Post-Christian nirvana awaits

You would think that the realization of what will fill the post-Christian void is significantly more intrinsically anti-atheistic religion would serve as a check on the atheist hatred for Christianity. But that would require atheists to be rational, and as I have demonstrated in some detail, that simply isn’t the case:

31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting “God does not exist” on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault….

Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal. According to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tries to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in jail for blasphemy.

Atheists point to the inevitable triumph of atheism because a few very small European countries with birth rates below the replacement level now have statistically significant atheist minorities. (None have an atheist majority). Meanwhile, Islamic nations with populations nearly equal to the entire European Union with birth rates nearly twice those of Sweden, France, and other European countries are, unlike historic Christianity, actively prosecuting atheists.

And from this evidence, the atheist somehow manages to conclude that he is not only winning, but that the triumph of atheism is inevitable. It would appear that the godless must subscribe to the Charlie Sheen school of data analysis. It is little wonder their arguments against the existence of God are so uniformly inept.