Category: Uncategorized

Europe is SERIOUSLY bankrupt

This award by the Nobel committee strikes me as the equivalent of desperately rooting through the couch, searching for change to pay the repo man:

The European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, providing a feel-good moment for the economically distressed bloc at a time when its post-national vision is losing traction at home and abroad.  The accolade comes as the financial crisis threatens the EU’s signal achievement, the euro, and the rise of powers such as China, India and Brazil challenges the European model of rules-based cooperation with nation-states handing sovereign rights to a central authority.

“This is in a way a message to Europe that we should do everything we can to secure what has been achieved and move forward,” Thorbjoern Jagland, head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told reporters in Oslo after awarding the 8 million- krona ($1.2 million) prize. “We have to keep in mind what has been achieved on this continent and not let the continent go into disintegration again. We know what it means: the emergence of extremism and nationalism once again.”

The Peace Prize has always been about mindless optimism.  But it used to concern itself with actual deeds and accomplishments.  Now, with the recent awards to President Barack “Seven Wars” Obama and the Euzis of the European Union, it looks more like the triumph of deranged wishful thinking than anything else.  And it does tend to confirm the opinion of long-time EU skeptics who always believed the purpose of the Union was to leash the German military rather than build a common market.

I found this to be the most cogent take on the absurdity: 

“Giving the EU a peace prize is at best premature, like knighting Sir
Fred Goodwin in the middle of the mad boom. We have no idea how the
experiment to create an anti-democratic federation will end. Hopefully
the answer is very peacefully, but when Greek protesters are wearing
Nazi uniforms, and Spanish youth unemployment is running at 50 per cent,
a look at history suggests there is always the possibility of a bumpy
landing.

Daftest of all is the notion that the EU itself has kept the peace.
It was the Allies led by the Americans, the Russians and the British who
defeated and disarmed the Germans in 1945. The German people then
underwent the most extraordinary reckoning, transforming their country
into an essentially pacifist society. The EU had very little to do with
it. Throughout that period it was Nato, led by the Americans and
British, which kept the peace in Western Europe.”

On the radio

I’m on the Brian Greenberg show at 5 EST again.  WNJC 1360 AM in Philadelphia.  Here is the download link to the MP3.  If anyone is up for transcribing it, please say so here in the comments in order to prevent any duplicate efforts.  I’ll post it here once it’s been sent to me.

Requesting reviewers

I will be announcing two new works of fiction on Monday, both set in the world of Summa Elvetica.  I’d like to get some reviews of the first one up on Amazon over the weekend, so I’m giving away 30 electronic review copies of the forthcoming 50-page(1) novella to those who are a) interested in my fiction, b) willing and able to post reviews on Amazon, and, c) not the Anklebiter of Many Names.

I’m not asking for mindless puffery or anything like that, just your honest perspective on the novella.  So, if you’re interested, please fire off an email to me and I’ll send you the same epub that will be available Monday from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Kobo.  If you don’t have an eReader, that’s not a problem, you can use Calibre to read it on your computer.

UPDATE: Okay, the thirty review copies are all spoken for.  Thanks very much to everyone who responded so readily.

(1)  Page count isn’t really meaningful for an ebook, but the novella is 20,000 words.  At the standard 400-word page of a trade paperback, that’s about 50 pages.

Evolution and a potential rabbit

About five years ago, I publicly predicted that genetic science will eventually rule out the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and the Theorum of Evolution by Natural Selection.  Now, it would appear that we have a potential mechanism for doing precisely that without needing to discover J.S. Haldane’s hypothetical rabbits in the Precambrian:

Few researchers have given credence to claims that samples of
dinosaur DNA have survived to the present day, but no one knew just how
long it would take for genetic material to fall apart. Now, a study of
fossils found in New Zealand is laying the matter to rest — and putting
paid to hopes of cloning a Tyrannosaurus rex.

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds
between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and
micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions
with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation.
Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should,
in theory, degrade at a set rate.

By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the
researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means
that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the
backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of
the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal
preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be
destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to
be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when
the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful
information.

Now, cloning a dinosaur or other ancient species from theoretically nonexistent DNA would not be a directly conclusive debunking of evolution, but would be a sufficiently devastating blow to the evolutionary timelines as to render it every bit as temporally dubious as it appeared when its earliest advocates were worrying about how the time-consuming process could have taken place in only 6,000 years.

I would be interested to hear from those who seriously subscribe to the theory of evolution and learn if, given this announcement of a 521-year DNA half-life, the successful cloning of a dinosaur known to be from a historical epoch well before the 2-million year readability limit would be enough to cause them to abandon their belief in the theory.  And if not, would the discovery of rabbit fossils in the Precambrian be enough to do it?

Don’t Like, don’t Want

Rather like politicians, the very last companies one should trust with one’s data are those who go to the most trouble to gather it:

When Facebook Inc. (FB) filed its proposal Feb. 1 to go public, it touted the effectiveness of ads linked to customers’ friends, citing research from Nielsen, the audience-counting company.  Barbara Jacobs, an assistant director for corporation finance at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was skeptical, as she and her staff vetted the filing to ensure Facebook had disclosed all material information to investors. The claim appeared to be drawn from marketing materials, not a Nielsen study, she wrote to Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman, 42.

She gave him an ultimatum: Produce the study and provide Nielsen’s consent for use of the data — or don’t use it, she wrote to Ebersman on Feb. 28. Facebook dropped the reference after initial resistance.

Facebook isn’t the most evil company in the world, but they were birthed in iniquity and things have only gone downhill from there.

The distaste for debate

It is interesting, is it not, how fear and loathing of debate pervades the Left:

Not to put too fine a point on it, professor McKenzie looked
terrified. When this distinguished economics prof had invited me to give
a lecture entitled “Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective?” at Southeastern
Louisiana University, the provost had called him in to ask why
professors worldwide had written demanding that I be disinvited.

Disinvitation is a favorite debate-stifling technique of the left. A
couple of years ago, when Prince Philip invited professor Ian Plimer to
give the annual Duke of Edinburgh’s Lecture at Buckingham Palace
explaining why global warming is a scam, the Children’s Coalition went
into conniptions. Within weeks and without explanation, Ian was rudely
disinvited.

Regardless of whether it is Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or the vast and corpulent mass of feminists, the Left has an observable tendency to shun debate.  They assert many different reasons for doing so, but the truth is always revealed by their seemingly contradictory willingness to debate the incompetent and the overmatched.

Contrast with this the readiness of those on the right, even the most hapless, to publicly engage with those with whom they disagree.  I don’t think much of Gary North and his homoerotic arguments – no one actually wants to poke a “gun” in his rotund “belly” – but I do give him credit for being willing to at least attempt to engage my ideas concerning the intrinsically inimical nature of free trade.

One of the things that has been interesting to observe over time is the way that the heated attacks on me, both in public and via email, have all but disappeared even though my overall readership has never been larger.  Why is this?  My theory is this is because most of my critics, be they atheists, feminists, evolutionists, or free traders, have learned they simply cannot win in a direct confrontation.  They can’t openly criticize my ideas because they have learned, much to their surprise, that they cannot adequately defend their own.

As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, even at the rhetorical level, the side more closely approximates the truth will tend to win out, because it is easier to argue when your arguments are based on truth rather than falsehood.  Events will always ultimately prove the arguments of the global warmers, the godless, the female supremacists, the socialists, the Keynesians, and the monetarists to be false because their ideas are false.  This is why a good memory is one of the most lethal weapons against them and why it is so easy to win debates against them, as given enough time, they are going to contradict themselves. 

Why?  Because they have no choice.  Being false, their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency.  This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions.

People have occasionally asked me how I so readily identify the weak points in an opponent’s arguments.  It’s actually very simple.  Look for the spin.  No matter what form it takes, the spin is only there to obfuscate the falsehood.  Expose that, and you not only expose the falsity of the argument, but also strike a blow against the credibility of the individual presenting it.  If longtime readers have learned anything here, I hope it is the ability to see through the incessant spin and strike to the heart of the deceit.

Democratic panic

Andrew Sullivan’s desperation is palpable:

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall? Over in one night….  Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.

So, the media has noticed that the narcissist-in-chief is running a lazy, disinterested re-election campaign and appears to be throwing the election.  Who could possibly have imagined that would ever happen?  Who could have seen such a dramatic reversal coming?  Anyhow, we’ll know that Romney has the election in hand if he comes out strong on in the second debate and crucifies Obama on Libya and the murders of the American diplomats there.

Mailvox: continuing education

Robwbright, Esq. continues to discover that the lawyer’s approach of attempting to poison the well isn’t the wisest tactic when dealing with a superintelligence:

 Is human superintelligence armed with facts & logic a legitimate source of authority?

Before
you answer, allow me to appeal to another authority – higher than
either of us… Note that God answers the above question “No”:  He
catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The LORD knows
the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” and “Therefore let no
one boast in men.”

A wise (and pretty intelligent) man once said:  “But
may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus,
the Messiah, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the
world!

It is interesting that you always call out someone when
they appeal to their own authority, but you CONSTANTLY appeal to and
boast about your own superintelligence and consider that acceptable
behavior.

Will you directly answer the question “Yes” or “No”. It should be a simple question for a superintelligence to answer.

It most certainly is a simple question.  Is “human superintelligence armed with facts and logic” a legitimate source of authority?  No, of course not.  Neither are royal bloodlines, academic credentials, or guild licenses.  None of these things are conclusively determinative of the truth.  But what robwbright quite amusingly reveals in his attempt to impugn my credibility here is that he doesn’t even know what an appeal to authority is.

This is readily apparent due to his claim that I “CONSTANTLY” appeal to the authority of my own superintelligence.  This is absolutely and totally false.  I will go so far as to assert that I have never once appealed to the authority of my intelligence in the 11-year history of my WND column or the 9-year history of this blog.  I should welcome the citation of any evidence that purports to prove otherwise.

Now, it is certainly true that I rub the oft-demonstrated fact of my superior intelligence in the face of my critics, for the reason I have often explained.  Both the political Left and the militant atheists regularly resort to the logical fallacy of appealing to the authority of intelligence; in fact, atheists even utilize it in a bizarre and illogical argument against the existence of God.  My overt assertion and subsequent demonstration of an even higher degree of intelligence than most of them can muster thereby removes one of their favorite intellectual weapons from their arsenal and tends to make them look foolish when they attempt to use it to dismiss me in the manner that they dismiss so many others they attack.

This is why you will often see them theorizing that I must be crazy, because they are so attached to their logical fallacy that they literally cannot grasp that someone can be more intelligent than they are and nevertheless reject their left-liberal ideology or their godless scientism… even though it has been statistically demonstrated that there are more high IQ theists than atheists.  IQ-flaunting is a useful rhetorical device that trumps a common rhetorical argument, nothing more.  And it is obviously an effective one, as most of my critics eventually get around to complaining about it sooner or later.

What robwbright tried to do here is the clever legal tactic known as “I know you are but what am I?”.  This is the second time he has unsuccessfully tried to attack my intellectual credibility in defending the legal system against my charges of corruption, while repeatedly engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to his own experience.  Because lawyers are hierarchical credentialists prone to thinking they are more intelligent than everyone else, they are particularly susceptible to the same rhetorical baiting that so easily discombobulates the leftists and the atheists.

No one who is truly intelligent ever appeals to that intelligence because he knows that there is always someone smarter out there, and because he is confident that he can make his logical case based on the relevant facts.  I’ve already shown how  logic dictates robwbright’s claim that legislative law always trumps interpretive rulings MUST be incorrect, given that a) there is a long and sordid history of interpretive rulings trumping legislative law, and, b) the obvious distinction between “an interpretive ruling based on legislative law” and “an interpretive ruling that the judge pretends to have been based on legislative law”.

Finally, I have two return questions for robwbright.  First, are you an Officer of the Court?  Second, when you are in the courtroom, is the law what the presiding judge declares it to be?

Nate Silver starts the spin

For someone whose vaunted statistical model was forecasting an 85 percent chance of an Obama victory next month, Nate Silver is really beginning to sound as if he’s attempting to retreat from his current predictions:

I feel as though it’s my duty to tell you when my subjective estimate of the odds differs by a material amount from the ones that our model produces. On Friday and Saturday, I wrote that I thought the model was underestimating Mr. Romney’s chances.

The model is designed to distinguish essentially random changes in the polls from more permanent reversals in the state of play. But it takes a one-size-fits-all approach to do this. Had there been no major developments in the news cycle over the past several days, there would be reason to be skeptical that the shift toward Mr. Romney had been quite as clear as the polls had seemed to imply. There have been other points in the election cycle when the polls appeared to show a shift in the race but without much news to drive it; the model has been fairly “smart” about avoiding being taken by these false alarms.

The trade-off, however, is that the model may be too conservative about accounting for a shift when there is real news behind it. The model is able to account for changes caused by some types of economic reports, since those are incorporated directly into the forecast; we also have special procedures to handle polling around the party conventions. Other types of news events, however — like the debates, major foreign-policy developments, or the vice presidential selections — may not be handled very adroitly by the model.

Those who like to get on my case about Obama defeating Hillary for the Democratic nomination tend to forget that I make a single prediction about the election long before the nominees are even known.  In 2008, I predicted that the Republicans would serve up a sacrificial lamb and the Democrats would win nearly 18 months before the election.  I was wrong about the specific individuals, but the general theme was correct.  In 2010, I predicted that the Republicans would win in a landslide.  In 2012, I predicted that the Republican candidate would win easily unless it was Mitt Romney, in which case I still expected him to win.

Meanwhile, the “professionals” like Silver are not only making new model-based predictions on a weekly or even daily basis, but are attempting to separate themselves from their predictions.  I leave it to you to determine which process is more useful, even if the success rate of those predictions made months in advance is lower than those “predictions” made in real time.

Yes, I was wrong about Clinton winning the nomination, about Pataki being the sacrificial lamb, and about Obama actually dropping out, but based on all the articles that have suddenly begun appearing about whether he is even interested in seriously contesting the election – and articles written by some of his most fervent supporters – it is clear that in the case of the latter, I was on the right track even though events did not turn out exactly as I thought they would.

It may be worth noting that despite what Silver and the mainstream polls say, I’m not the only one anticipating a Romney victory in November:

An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.  According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes — down five votes from their initial prediction — and short of the 270 needed to win.