Author: VD

From New Scientist magazine, 3 December 2005:

America’s first footprints too old to be human

Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool John Moores University, UK, surprised the world media in July at a Royal Society exhibition in London by suggesting that markings found in a layer of ancient volcanic ash near Puebla were 40,000-year-old footprints. This would mean that people arrived in the Americas at least 30,000 years earlier than previously thought.

But the markings are unlikely to have been made by humans after all, because new argon dating reveals the rocks are 1.3 million years old. The first humans did not evolve in Afirca until a million years later.

At least they had the honesty to say “unlikely”. But it’s a circular argument. Anthropology and geology claim to be sciences because they are falsifiable. How would one falsify the scientific theory that people arrived in the Americas only 10,000 years ago? Presumably by finding evidence that they had, such as footprints.

But when such evidence is found, it is declared irrelevant because it testifies that the extant theory is false. (It’s entirely possible that the markings aren’t footprints, of course, but it is illogical to argue that they cannot due solely to their violation of one’s theoretical assumptions.) Therefore, this is evidence that anthropology is not a science, for precisely the same reason that it can be argued that intelligent design is not a science, namely, it is not falsifiable.

As I mentioned before, I have a short story dealing with an archeologist who finds fossiles that prove dinosaurs and humans co-existed. I postulated that there would be great temptation, perhaps even external pressure, to destroy the evidence because it would overturn so many “scientific” theories. It seems that in this, too, reality may be capable of coopting fiction.

Elena is up for some copyediting:

Would you need cross-referencing from Book 3 to the two previous? What style guide do you prefer: Chicago, Associated Press, or something else? (I notice you often don’t use the series comma.) Do you need fact checking (stats, scientific facts, dates, etc.) as well? How quickly do you need the work done?

Email me, Elena, and we can rectify your unseemly ignorance with regards to the literary crimes. In answer to your questions, No, AP is all I have, No, Not all that quickly since I’m going to add a scene first. However, her reference to the series comma reminds me of a conversation with the editor of WORLD.

VD: So, am I supposed to drop the comma before the and or not? What’s the deal.

ED: You’re grammatically okay either way, but I hate it. The proper term for it is the serial comma and I like to say it’s because whenever I see it, it makes me want to go on a serial killing spree. (loud chortles, mixed with one or two distinct snorts)

VD: (alarmed silence)

ED: I’m kind of a grammer geek, I guess.

VD: You didn’t get asked out a lot in high school, did you.

ED: Strangely, no.

Since Mary Kay LeTourneau was already making eyes at him:

A 37-year-old day care worker was arrested for allegedly raping and sexually abusing a four-year-old boy, police say.

Sources tell us in what amounts to a bizarre confession that the suspect is actually accusing the four-year-old boy of seducing her. But police are not buying that explanation as they investigate several instances of rape and sexual abuse inside the day care center over a six-week period.

Clever, clever police. Clearly, nothing gets past the men in blue. As BL, who brought this to my attention, pointed out, this has to be one of the most extreme possible examples of a woman attempting to avoid responsiblity for her actions.

Although perhaps she is innocent and we’re witnessing the second coming of Casanova. One wonders how a four-year old Don Juan goes about chatting up the ladies… hey, I don’t know if you realized this, but I’m using the big potty now. Care to see my crib?

From the ex-publisher:

Per your request, we are cancelling our contract for Book #3 and will revert rights to Books #1 and #2 back to you

In cooperation with another writer, I’m planning to arrange for the publishing of the third Eternal Warriors novel, THE WRATH OF ANGELS, most likely through a small secular publisher of my acquaintance. However, the arrangement will allow for me to sell the books directly over the Internet to those who would like them four to six months in advance of their official release in the bookstores by the publisher.

This will also allow for me to test my theory that releasing free ebooks is beneficial to book sales. However, I have a few questions:

1. I’d like to find five volunteers to help with copy-editing the third book. If anyone is interested, please fire me an email. An interest in fantasy and a prediliction, if not an obsession, with detail is desirable. Familiarity with the first two books is also a plus.

2. I’m contemplating two options. One is a fat omnibus version of all three books, either in hardcover, which would probably run 850 pages at $29.95 or thereabouts. The other is a simple trade paperback which would be similar to the previous two books, 400 pages and $12.95. Which is of more interest? Would the former feel like a ripoff if you already own the first two books? If so, perhaps doing both would be best.

3. What’s the best way to handle pre-orders? Take credit card numbers but not run them through until the books are shipped? Take checks but not cash them? Trust people to place an order if they say they will?

And yes, if this works out well, I’ll consider doing a non-fiction book this way.

Morgan forgets she came late to the party:

The funny thing is, Nate, that you do get a pass here. If you weren’t a regular here and some liberal guy came in and said he stayed at home and was supported by his wife, every yahoo in this place would call him a panty-waist, pussy-whipped Nancy Boy.

The Pan-Gargler never got any such pass, as yahoos and non-yahoos alike certainly made all of the requisite dismissals before we eventually got bored with it. Hence the occasional “don’t you have some ironing to do”, etc. But the way in which he comported himself during that time made it clear that the label didn’t stick very well; the process was, of course, classic male group dynamics. By the way, if you’ve never read the old post about Nate and Bane surviving TEOTWAWKI together, you’ve truly missed out.

If Dr. Who went down to the bank tomorrow and took your name off the bank account and refused to give you a penny or allow you to make financial decisions, the only recourse you would have would be to divorce her. She is kind to you, though, and doesn’t do that. However, she has the power. You don’t. Ergo, she is the leader.

Morgan commits three errors here. First, she conflates leadership with earned income. This very sloppy thinking can be easily disproven in the broad sense either by comparing the dictionary definitions of the two concepts or by the various examples already provided. Indeed, in the case of the corporate CEO, he is hired to provide leadership by those who are in authority over him, the owners. They have the power, he is the leader and the question of income is irrelevant because it can flow to the advantage of one or the other, or even be negative for the owners, depending on the financial circumstances.

Her second error can be seen in the narrow sense of power, leadership and income within the married relationship. Morgan implicitly accepts core feminist ideology here, which states that an unemployed married woman is under the power of her husband due to his income-earning. This is why many women believe they must have careers, in order to maintain their independence even within the context of a married relationship. This is a poisonous and destructive belief; it is also false.

As Camille Paglia points out, when one party labors and the other party spends the greater part of the fruit of that labor, the power clearly rests with the latter party. Is it the employer or the employee who is considered to hold the power? Morgan and the feminists have the matter precisely backward,

Her third error is, in light of the other two, relatively minor, but it is a howler and reveals her fundamentally feminine outlook. If Dr. Who were to cease providing funds to the Pan-Galactic one, divorce is far from his only recourse. Being a man, and therefore oriented towards problem-solving, it would be the simplest of matters to get up, ignore the household chores and go out to work, thereby obtaining the means to buy the truck, motorcycle or whatever else Dr. Who might wish to deny him. In fact, I daresay that divorce would not even enter into his mind, because most men do not consider it their inherent right to be provided for, even those men who are sufficiently provided for. Even if we accepted the feminist notion of income=power, it would be clear that Dr. Who holds that unique power only as long as Nate is willing to sit in his hot tub playing X-Box.

Now, as to a proper practical definition of leadership. The leader, in any household, is the one with two votes in the event of disagreement. If a woman wishes to homeschool her children and her husband wants them in the public schools, the probable leader of that household is easily determined by how the children are schooled. In fact, women are the heads of many households; I believe this is a common reason for female marital dissatisfaction as the natural desire to be in control conflicts with the natural desire to not be responsible.

The good leader takes into account everyone’s wishes, makes the best decision he can and accepts responsibility for the consequences. While it is not impossible for women to be leaders, in general they are much happier to be influencers as a distaste for decision-making and an absolute hatred for being held accountable by others are very common traits among the female sex.

And no, there can never be two leaders, especially not in a relationship. One need only survey the ignominious history of matrix management or organizations with two heads to understand this. If there are two “leaders”, then there is not a leader, there is only the inevitable power struggle until a leader is settled upon.

WND has the latest on the mercury-autism link:

A new study shows a direct relationship between mercury in children’s vaccines and autism, contradicting government claims there is no proven relationship between the two.

Published in the March 10 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the data show since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the increase in reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders in children not only stopped, but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35 percent.

Using the government’s own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood neurological disorders, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives.

According to a statement from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, or AAPS, the numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have risen to more than 1,000 by the beginning of 2006. But the number actually went down to 620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a decrease from the projection of 35 percent.

Stated the AAPS: “This analysis directly contradicts 2004 recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, which examined vaccine safety data from the National Immunization Program of the CDC. While not willing to either rule out or to corroborate a relationship between mercury and autism, the IOM soft-pedaled its findings and decided no more studies were needed.”

Of course, the proper scientific thing to do would be to conduct a large-scale blind study and shoot 10,000 kids full of mercury-laden vaccines, shoot another 10,000 full of non-mercury vaccines and leave a third group of 10,000 alone. Why would this be unethical, considering that all three options either have been done or are being done now without anything being considered except doctors’ opinions based on the information they are provided by the vaccine makers?

Occam’s Razor suggests that both the vaccine makers and the doctors know that vaccines, especially the mercury-laden ones, have been causing harm, so they are desperate to keep the waters muddied and avoid any conclusive proof from being established once and for all. Otherwise, why object to allowing the proven methodology of science to settle the matter?

I suppose they will argue that there were too many false diagnoses of autism taking place, which coincidentally happened to stop at precisely the time that thimerosal was removed from many of the vaccines. It’s possible, of course, but color me, as always, skeptical.

Dear Leader’s support continues to fall away:

John Derbyshire: Well, I’m with Bill Buckley and George Will. This pig’s ear is never going to be made into a silk purse, not by any methods or expenditures the American people are willing to countenance. The only questions worth asking about Iraq at this point are: How does GWB get out of this with the least damage to US interests, and to his party’s future prospects?

So, Kristol and Shapiro are starting to blame the insufficiently bloodthirsty, Buckley, Will and Derbyshire are outright proclaiming failure and Ledeen has fallen suprisingly silent with regards to the freedom-loving people of Iran who are just waiting to rise up against their Islamofascist – a dumb word if I’ve ever seen one, as anyone who knows anything about fascism can tell you that the mullahs are less fascistic than the neocons – oppressors.

Either we’re about to declare victory and leave, or this is the calm before the storm. I truly hope for the former, but I’m afraid the latter is more likely.

I’m pretty sure he died laughing when he read Carrie’s comment:

No, I’m perfectly willing to believe you are a typical male, with a typical male ego that needs typical male crutches. You need to feel superior to women and you need to “prove” yourself to the world at large.

I’m fairly sure that crutches, stroking or any other form of assistance for my oversized ego is close to the absolute last thing that any of my friends, family and acquaintances believe I need. The fact that there are no shortage of arrogant posers out there does not mean that the real thing does not exist.

Big Chilly’s wife just called, apparently they had to call the paramedics for him. They’ve got him on sedatives and are reading from Bill Clinton’s MY LIFE in order to stabilize the chortling; fortunately he built up a partial resistance to attacks of lethal amusement by attending a performance of Wodehouse’s THE PLAY’S THE THING at the Guthrie few years back.

If it were not for the knowledge that pride goes before a fall and that God hates it, I have no doubt that I’d be entirely insufferable. Indeed, I am told that prior to learning, as Bono says so well, how to kneel, I was entirely insufferable. But I don’t believe that God values false modesty, nor do I believe there is anything to be gained from such deceit.

An Aussiesums up the answer to an oft-heard question:

You women might be disgusted by our reasoning and try brow beating us or shaming us into thinking that we are doing something wrong but it won’t work. Commitment for men in Australia is like playing Russian Roulette with three bullets in a six round revolver. Would any woman be willing to play that game?

Don’t waste your time attacking us guys, we can’t change the way women are behaving. If women want us guys to commit then you women need to change your own behaviour, government policy and laws so that commitment is not longer so dangerous. Your feminist sisters have created the problem so stop blaming men and tell the women who have made commitment a life threatening condition for men to BACK OFF.

By the way, the Federal Government is concerned about the drop in the number of children us Australians are having. Hmmm, do you think the reason behind the drop in children might have something to do with men not taking the risk of losing everything to a woman he gets pregnant??? Is it because every young man in Australia has a close friend or relative who has lost everything to a woman who took his children from him???

I found the overall discussion to be both funny and telling. As usual, it follows the typical format:

WOMAN: Why are men so afraid of commitment?
MAN #1: Because we’re not crazy. Look at how the deck is stacked against us.
WOMAN: Well, that’s only because we’ve been oppressed for 10,000 years. It’s payback time.
MAN #1: I never oppressed anyone.
WOMAN: Well, someone did. And who? Men! And you’re a man, so obviously you’re an immature, controlling would-be rapist at heart, so you’ll oppress me and my sisters again unless we make sure the government keeps you chained down. We have to protect ourselves, you know.
MAN #1: Ooookay… gotta go.
WOMAN: Hey, where are you going? Look, I’ve got a diploma! What’s the matter with you? Yeah, well, no one wants you anyway! You just can’t handle a smart, sexy, successful woman.
MAN #2: What’s going on? I heard some shouting.
WOMAN: Oh, nothing. (deep sigh) Why are men so afraid of commitment?

In this, as in all things, if you don’t know the answer and are asking the question, then don’t argue when the answer is provided. If you understood what was happening, then you wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place.

Feminists are wedded to an irrational unreality. They have to believe that I’m a bitter little man, sexually and socially unsuccessful, in order to write what I write, because the alternative is that their worldview is unaligned with objective reality. They must cling to this notion, even in the face of the copious evidence to the contrary, or face the fact that they must change their ways.

Why do I continue to hammer on this boring topic? Perhaps because it is one that so many people care about so deeply, (as the massive number of comments on that Sydney blog indicates), but also because winning the battle is about the social culture, not changing the law. Feminists are now learning how the law is impotent in the face of male self-interest, men are learning that there are a plethora of options available to them.

People need to learn to live life. Women need to stop thinking of the government as a protector against her potential husband and see it for the devil’s tool of marital destruction that it is. They need to stop looking for external reasons for their own failures and begin asking why anyone would want to be with them.

American men, on the other hand, need to remember their heritage. Our forefathers were explorers, adventurers and pioneers, remember? Don’t whine about indoctrinated, maleducated American women, go out and find others more to your liking in the Ukraine or the Phillipines. Why sit around being hateful, bitter and impoverished when there is a wide world before you? Go work in Brazil or Slovakia. Find a job in England or Morocco. Have a margarita with Fred… I doubt the Mexican authorities care much about what the Family Court in Cleveland said you had to pay for the rest of your ex-wife’s life.

Four new blogs and a new location for an old one:

Echo Zoe

The Token Hippie

Brain Sex

The Screeching Skraeling

The Lazy Half S Ranch

Check them out. Pretty Lady also has an amusing Date From Hell story well worth the read. I have to disagree with her on her assertion of inappropriate attire, however, as there are few things more beautiful than an ice-blonde in black sable, especially if that is all she is wearing.