Jackie oughtn’t watch. Yet she waited, heart in wild rhythm, for The Kennedy Conspiracy Theories to begin. Anniversaries of the incident were hard, the ten years intervening barely helped. She would finally watch. Jackie set aside the stack of papers from her latest volunteer committee. She made her way across the plush aquamarine carpet and pushed the intercom button.
“I’ll have lunch now. In my sitting room…The usual Thursday diet plate will be fine. What’s on Ari’s calender?… In Paris until Monday. Okay, then. Consuela? Bring a pitcher of dacquiris, too.”
Jackie opened the drapes. The cold steel and concrete of Fifth Avenue below looked nothing like Dallas in March. That unpleasantness belongs to a different time and place. It doesn’t matter anymore. She lit a cigarette with the big ceramic table lighter, inhaling deeply.
When the maid left, Jackie turned the television’s volume knob up. Words and images veered in and out of her focus. The Warren Commission. Lee Harvey Oswald. The KGB. Castro… Did someone else show up as well, with an agenda of his own? Everything afterwards was a blur. She only remembered her silly hat.
Humans today are a puffed-up and overconfident species. We know everything, we believe, or shortly will. We have a sense of near-omniscience equaled only by that of teen-agers. For do we not have have smart phones and Mars landers and PET scans, and do we not all speak wisely of DNA? We are, if not gods, at least godlings on the way up. If you don’t believe this, just ask us.
It was not always so. A thousand years ago, mankind cast a small shadow on the earth and lived in a dark and mysterious world. Little was known, about anything. Gods of countless sorts walked the earth. Spirits inhabited sacred groves. Lightning, the moon, the stars were…what? We had no idea. This brought humility.
We now believe that that nothing is or can be beyond our powers. A contemplative skeptic might advert to a few remaining details: We don´t know where we came from, why we are here, where “here” is, where we are going, or what we ought to do. These are minor questions. We only think about them when we wake up at three a.m. and remember that we are not permanent. We are kidding ourselves.
When people become accustomed to things that make no sense, they begin to seem to. Though we no longer notice it as we peck at tablet computers and listen to droning lowbrow shows about the conquest of nature, we still live in a weird and inexplicable universe, an apparently unending emptiness speckled with sparks of hydrogen fire. It is wicked mysterious. More things in heaven and earth, indeed.
We are not as wise as we think. I reiterate Fred´s Principle: The smartest of a large number of hamsters is still a hamster.
It’s a long one. Read the whole thing. It encapsulates why Darwinism, even in its neo-synthesized form, is caught up in crisis and is being increasingly rejected as unconvincing pseudo-science by the secular and the religious alike.
Like the mistaking of kindness for weakness that plagues today’s nice guys, there is some element of the human mind that frames lengthy and incessant counter-argument as a position of weakness and insecurity. He who masters pithy, concise (and indirect and ambiguous, I might add) communication commands a stronger image of rhetorical confidence and state control than the bloviating firebrand whose logical appeals may indeed be without equal.
It is extremely rare the wordsmith who can write (or speak) at length without the perceptible loss of audience attention, credibility and alpha points. While there are publically-known exceptions, the fact that they are known and notable underlies the exception.
I suspect this is why what I think of as the “high-low” approach is unusually effective. It helps anchor one’s more intellectually flighty sallies and secures them against rhetorical dismissal by those who can’t follow them.
There is a massive difference in perception between being the recipient of a breathless, circuitous infodump and being the recipient of a long lecture after the lecturer first coldly informs you that this is going to be a long, detailed, and painful experience because you are so woefully ignorant that there is simply no other choice if you are not to be left drowning in the swamp of your stupidity.
Another factor here is that simple binary thinkers tend to view multiple reasons as being somehow contradictory even when they reinforce each other. After all, if reason X is correct, then reason Y is at best unnecessary, and therefore to mention it must be indicative of a weakness in X. This is, of course, profoundly stupid, but has a rational foundation in that people who have no case do tend to take the spaghetti approach and throw out everything they can in the hope that something will stick.
However, when each reason is not perceived as an alternative, but rather a hammer blow driving home the previous point, the perception of weakness disappears. Granted, fair or not, this tends to be viewed as cruelty, but the sad reality is that in a fallen world, a man often benefits more greatly from being viewed as cruel, and therefore strong, than as kind, and therefore weak. Kindness is not weakness, but far too many people, women in particular, perceive it to be so.
The Greatest and Most Important Living Economist is reduced to wild conjecture in a vain attempt to explain away the fact that no amount of stimulus is working as expected anywhere in the world.
[I]f Mr. Summers is right, everything respectable people have been saying about economic policy is wrong, and will keep being wrong for a long time. Mr. Summers began with a point that should be obvious but is often missed: The financial crisis that started the Great Recession is now far behind us. Indeed, by most measures it ended more than four years ago. Yet our economy remains depressed.
He then made a related point: Before the crisis we had a huge housing and debt bubble. Yet even with this huge bubble boosting spending, the overall economy was only so-so — the job market was O.K. but not great, and the boom was never powerful enough to produce significant inflationary pressure. Mr. Summers went on to draw a remarkable moral: We have, he suggested, an economy whose normal condition is one of inadequate demand — of at least mild depression — and which only gets anywhere close to full employment when it is being buoyed by bubbles.
I’d weigh in with some further evidence. Look at household debt relative to income. That ratio was roughly stable from 1960 to 1985, but rose rapidly and inexorably from 1985 to 2007, when crisis struck. Yet even with households going ever deeper into debt, the economy’s performance over the period as a whole was mediocre at best, and demand showed no sign of running ahead of supply. Looking forward, we obviously can’t go back to the days of ever-rising debt. Yet that means weaker consumer demand — and without that demand, how are we supposed to return to full employment?
Again, the evidence suggests that we have become an economy whose normal state is one of mild depression, whose brief episodes of prosperity occur only thanks to bubbles and unsustainable borrowing.
It’s really quite remarkable what lengths reasonably intelligent people will go to in order to hold onto their conceptual models while ignoring the obvious. The idea that “population growth” is responsible is obviously ridiculous in light of the vast number of people out of work; older people consume considerably more than younger people with no money do anyhow.
The mainstream economists are flailing around with no answers, completely ignoring the fact that this is the very problem of excess credit that was predicted for decades by those whose models take it into account. We’re not mysteriously trapped into a normal state of mild depression, we’re simply choked with debt, government interference, and debt-based malinvestment.
The debt has to be cleared from the system. There are two ways out. Hyperinflation or debt-default. The latter is the better, wiser, and safer choice.
A capitalist betrays class unconsciousness in writing to Zerohedge on behalf of his employees about the way Obamacare is transforming the working class into the subservient class:
My company, based in California, employs 600. We used to insure about 250 of our employees. The rest opted out. The company paid 50% of their premiums for about $750,000/yr. Under obamacare, none can opt out without penalty, and the rates are double or triple, depending upon the plan. Our 750k for 250 employees is going to $2 million per year for 600 employees.
By mandate, we have to pay 91.5% of the premium or more up from the 50% we used to pay. Our employees share of the premium goes from $7/week for the cheapest plan to $30/week. 95% of my employees were on that plan. Remember, we used to pay 50% now we pay 91.5% and the premiums still go up that much!!
The cheapest plan now has a deductible of $6350! Before it was $150. Employees making $9 to $10/hr, have to pay $30/wk and have a $6350 deductible!!! What!!!! They can’t afford that to be sure. Obamacare will kill their propensity to seek medical care. More money for less care? How does that help them?
Here is the craziest part. Employees who qualify for mediCAL (the California version of Medicare), which is most of my employees, will automatically be enrolled in the Federal SNAP program. They cannot opt out. They cannot decline. They will be automatically enrolled in the Federal food stamp program based upon their level of Obamacare qualification. Remember, these people work full time, living in a small town in California. They are not seeking assistance.
People constantly seem to be surprised to learn that politicians lie. I’m a little surprised to have to so often remind grown men and women that sometimes people say things that are not true. And they say things that are not true on a regular basis.
The American people were told that they had to bail out the banks to prevent the economy from collapsing. That wasn’t true. They were told that the various measures to stabilize the housing market were to help mortgaged homeowners. That wasn’t true. They were told that the Affordable Care Act was to help the uninsured and make insurance more affordable. That wasn’t true.
Are you starting to notice a pattern here? The reason provided by politicians to justify their actions are seldom related to the real motivations. This is particularly true when the reason given is “helping people”. While it is true certain people are being helped, it is almost never the people who are identified as the official reason.
LC asks for reading recommendations to learn more about Christianity:
I read your book, The Irrational Atheist, and I have been reading your blog for a few months now because I find most of what you say interesting and some of it comforting. I was raised by Christian parents. I am young, 21, and have recently gone through a questioning of my faith. I have re-committed myself to my beliefs and living in a way that has resulted in a good life. I have realized that I still have the faith of my childhood and my understanding of Christianity and the world in general is very limited. I always have respect for your arguments because you know what you’re talking about and back up your assertions. Can you please give me some direction on texts to study other than the Bible to increase my understanding of Christianity and religion in general?
First of all, remember not to get too caught up in the theological extrapolations. No matter what you end up reading, it is always worthwhile to periodically circle back to the original source. Don’t neglect reading the Bible in favor of various men’s interpretations of what the Bible says. In the end, theology is nothing more than philosophy derived from the Bible and it is no more intrinsically reliable than any other logical derivation.
I would start at the beginning. If your understanding is limited, begin with The Chronicles of Narnia. As we saw in the debate with Luke of Common Sense Atheism, the average grasp of Christian concepts don’t even rise to the level of Narnia. Then read The Tower of Geburah by John White. Once you’ve read the children’s fiction, move onto simple theology like Mere Christianity by CS Lewis and Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. As a general rule, it’s hard to go too far afield on a foundation of Lewis and Chesterton. I would also recommend the very short, very simple, but intriguing A Defense of the Revelation by Leonhard Euler, who happens to be one of the most legendary mathematicians in history. And my friend Greg Boyd’s Letters to a Skeptic is also recommended.
Once you have a grasp of the theological basics, you may be ready to read up on the actual history of Christianity and some of its leading thinkers. The first volume of the Cambridge Medieval History series, The Christian Empire, is tremendously informative and the epub is freely available for download online. St. Augustine’s Confessions are worth reading for their influence on Western thinking and a good summary of Thomas Aquinas is a necessity as well. I haven’t read it yet, but I have heard very good things about Edward Feser’s Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide and I intend to review it as soon as I finish the Cantillon.
Any other reasonable recommendations would be welcome. Please note that this is not the right sort of post to either indulge your particular theological peculiarities or exhibit how esoteric your reading happens to have been. We’re talking Christianity 101, not 503.
It would appear that the jury-packing was more successful on the second go-round, as CJ Grisham was found guilty after only a single juror voted guilty the previous time:
The jury in the gun rights trial of Fort Hood Msg. Christopher Grisham has found him guilty of his misdemeanor charge. After just two hours of deliberating, the jury ultimately found Grisham guilty of interfering with police duties when he refused to turn over his AR-15 rifle to Temple police officer Steve Ermis this past March.
In the hours leading up to the verdict, dozens of Grisham’s supporters and pro gun rights activists stood vigilent outside the courtroom awaiting a verdict in the case, and shortly after the decision was announced, Grisham spoke out giving his reaction to the jury’s ruling and where he goes from here.
“What this jury just told the people of Bell County is that the police officers around here can walk up to you and take your personal property,” Grisham said. “They can take your firearms, and they don’t have to have a reason for it. They don’t have to tell you the reason for it.”
Throughout the trial, supporters of the Temple Police Department and the officers involved in the incident were also present in the courthouse, and many have taken to officer Steve Ermis’ Facebook page to post their supportive messages backing the Temple Police Department and its officer.
If the police in Bell County think this inexcusably stupid verdict is going to give them carte blanche to seize weapons at will, well, expect a lot of dead police officers. And their moronic supporters will be surprised at how fast the cowardly bullies with badges are going to be fleeing in a panic the first time someone stands up for his rights the way the Americans at Lexington and Concord did.
Never forget that the police are total pussies. They strut around and talk a brave game, but the moment they realize that the other side views them as fair game and that they neither outnumber nor outgun the opposition, they often show less courage than the average unarmed citizen. I don’t say this on the basis of my imagination or even the poor performance of police units in military history, but based on the recent observation of their behavior under fire. Or not actually under fire, as the case may be.
An Associated Press report published Friday says help was delayed for more than 30 minutes for the Transportation Security Administration agent who was fatally shot at Los Angeles International Airport earlier this month. Gerardo Hernandez, 39, was working at a lower-level passenger check-in station on the morning of Nov. 1 when a gunman pulled a semi-automatic weapon out of a duffel bag and opened fire.
Two law enforcement officials cited in the AP reports said paramedics waited 150 yards away because police had not declared the terminal safe to enter. It would be 33 minutes before airport police would put Hernandez, who was about 20 feet from an exit, in a wheelchair and take him to an ambulance, said the officials, who were briefed on the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe was still ongoing.
For all but five of those minutes, there was no threat from the suspected gunman, 23-year-old Paul Anthony Ciancia; he had been shot and was in custody, officials said.
Molon labe, motherfuckers. As Tom Kratman wrote: come and take them.
Does the Rule of Law survive in America circa 2013? What happens when no one is watching the watchers? We’re about to find out, as House Republicans are reportedly getting serious about trying to hold Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder accountable for some of his many alleged crimes.
From Reuters: “Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, in the hopes of removing a cabinet member they say has lied to Congress as well as failed to uphold federal law…. According to an outline, the first article is based on “Operation Fast and Furious” a bungled attempt to build cases against major gun traffickers who supplied firearms to Mexican drug cartels, while electing not to immediately prosecute low-level traffickers even as they bought 2,000 potentially illegal guns.”
Obama is not backing down. In fact, Republicans would have been much wiser to force Americans to live with the law imposed upon them by the incompetent Obama administration; a year of complete chaos in the health care system, complete with millions of policy cancellations, would have likely led to a Republican takeover of the Senate and a powerful majority in the House.
Instead, they have bought Obama another year to work the media and sell its lies to the American people. By staving off the collapse of Obamacare, Republicans are helping ensure that they will have to refight the battle in a year’s time against an enemy who will presumably have learned a few lessons from the initial failure.
RW provides the third review of Come and Take Them by Tom Kratman:
Tom Kratman’s Come and Take Them is the fifth book in his Carrera series. This review of C&TT is based on this particular work alone since I have not read any of the previous four books in the Carrera series, which obviously influences my perception of key elements such as major characters and ideas, since many of these were most likely developed thoroughly in the thousands of pages that precede C&TT but only touched upon here. With that caveat in place, I conditionally give a high recommendation for C&TT. There are tradeoffs that the author made that weaken particular elements of the work when analyzed individually; but these decisions were made to forcefully drive the story forward, and the overall effect is that the work holds together very strongly. Personally I enjoyed the book and plan to read the others in the series, but it is not hard to see where some people would not like Kratman’s style or opinions. Characters (4/10) Character development is sparse in C&TT. One reason is that many among this “cast of thousands” (think Spartacus) serve little purpose other than to catch bullets (recommendation: wait until a character has been mentioned in at least three chapters before becoming emotionally invested). Kratman portrays these minor characters just enough so that the reader senses their humanity, then he shows them dying either heroically or cowardly, and usually gruesomely, very reminiscent of the realism found in Homer’s battle scenes. For the major characters who were introduced earlier in the series, there is just enough description within either the introduction or from the context of their actions and thoughts to be able to reasonably infer what motivates them. Occasionally the author will spend a brief moment elaborating on a character, particularly if it helps explain the actions that the he will take shortly, and less frequently as a bridge to other works in the series. A third group, important characters who first appear in C&TT, lead to the rather poor review, as their introduction is little more than the author filling in a basic template. Males are introduced with name, country of origin, and military rank or organizational position. Females get the same introduction, but also with the vital statistics of hair color, eye color, breast size, and sexual orientation (somewhat comically, a woman’s first thought when meeting someone in this world is about sex). Granted, these descriptions are more than adequate if the target audience is male, but this is one of the tradeoffs that Kratman makes: providing the bare minimum character development necessary for the story to proceed.
Prose (6/10) Kratman’s perspective as narrator is very masculine, very militaristic. This is not a criticism; it is very clean and direct and perfectly complements the tone of a book primarily about war. A couple of notes about the structure of the book that I began to appreciate: the chapters are almost uniformly ten pages in length, and chapters do not end with the forced contrivance of cliff-hangers. In other words, Kratman allows the reader to reach a good stopping point in short order, and also he has enough confidence in his storytelling that he doesn’t need to string you along to keep you interested. The scoring for this element is mid-range for three reasons. First, it is a warning to readers who prefer a more florid tome – I recall seeing only one metaphor in the entire 563 pages. Second, and probably more important to readers of science fiction, is the description of the landscape of Terra Nova, which is essentially Earth’s geography physically and politically, except where the author says it’s different. If you are looking for new worlds to explore, then move along. Likewise, Kratman gives sufficient yet concise descriptions of the military technology employed, so readers will not confuse him with Clancy when it comes to details. Similar to the final assessment of character development, each of these three criticisms represent tradeoffs that the author made to keep the story on track.
Plot (8/10) The briefest of summaries is that Balboa defends itself against an attack by the elitist Tauran Union (change the names to Panama and European Union and you’ll be up to speed). Carrera is the main protagonist, who makes most of the military decisions for Balboa, rightfully so, seeing how it apparently is his money that purchases the military equipment and supports most of the economy. Over half of the book is about the preparations that he engages the country in to make it ready for the imminent battle. An interesting, though not fully developed, parallel thread is Carrera preparing his son Hamilcar for adulthood. This appears to be an arc that plays out over the series, with some issues brought up in C&TT that will probably be instrumental in later volumes. Similar arcs are passed through while potential new storylines are introduced, but primarily the story takes place within the boundaries of Balboa and is mainly contained to the time around the preparation for and execution of the battle. Even though a substantial portion of the book is about preparing for battle, Kratman keeps the story flowing by building tension as events escalate. He efficiently provides enough detail of the military equipment along with strategies and tactics to keep the story interesting but not overburdened. When the battle finally commences, Kratman switches gears to short blurbs, very briefly describing battlefields all across the countryside. Who is winning individual battles is fairly clear, but who is winning the overall war, not so much. Overall the storyline was thoroughly engaging. Ideas (8/10) There appear to be continuously developing themes over the series regarding national identity and political structures which are continued in C&TT. Other ideas briefly discussed include whether measurements of intelligence correspond to leadership aptitude and whether it is ethically acceptable to include physically and mentally handicapped and also children in the military. Though apparently discussed more thoroughly in the fourth book of the series, the Amazon Legion, there is a discussion of how military units comprised exclusively of women, or homosexuals, would function in battle. But the overarching idea of this book goes back to the title: “Come and Take Them” (if there were any doubt as to the reference, “Molon Labe” on the front cover should dispel it). There are essential elements that must be true for that quote to have any backbone. First is whether you should possess “them.” Kratman addresses this by contrasting militarized Balboans to their pacifist neighbors to the east, the residents of Santa Josefina, who rely on the goodwill and peaceful intentions of the rest of the world. They are overrun by the Taurans and don’t even recognize it. Second, you must possess “them” prior to the time you need them. Balboa procures various weapons, from heavy artillery and armaments to their own navy and small air force, while recognizing that there are opportunity costs. Third, you must know how to use “them.” Carrera sets up a three-tier military of highly trained regular, reserve, and militia units, along with establishing multiple military academies across the country. Finally, you must be willing to use “them.” After the Balboans decide to go all in, now the Taurans must determine how committed they are to victory – is it worth the cost to them as much as it is to Balboa? These questions are pertinent to both the preparedness of a country as well as to individuals and families.
Confession: I am a control freak. You can ask anyone, especially my wife and co-workers. If a project is to be done right and done on time, I want to do it solo and want it done my way. In the past few years I’ve been learning, albeit slowly, to give up some control when necessary. I took part in a collaborative writing effort with my fellow authors from Marcher Lord Press. We started up a fantasy story that took a couple months to write, with each of us contributing approximately a short to medium length chapter. While I did do the intro and set up the characters, it was freeing to adapt to other writers’ imagination as they took the plot in directions I hadn’t considered.
Also, having five books edited for publication makes one give up control incrementally. It’s either that or you get really pissed off every time the boss-man tells you this is how it’s going to be in your book. Which I sometimes still do. In early February I approached Vox about writing stories for the game he had in development for the world of Selenoth. After exchanging a few emails, Vox phoned me with a different idea: a co-writing project in which we would create a sci-fi murder mystery.
I was intrigued. Never done something like that before, which meant I was excited about the challenge. Vox already had the politics, planets and religions of a story universe sketched out. That appealed to me because it meant less work. It took me a week to brainstorm ideas and whip up a first chapter.
I had no idea how he’d receive the idea. In a phone conversation prior to emailing him that first chapter, I found out that our visions for the overall story had about 75 percent in common, without even consulting each other on details. That’s when the lightbulb lit and I told myself, “I can work with this guy.”
So I hunkered down and wrote long segments, and sent them to Vox on occasion. He would change it as he saw fit, and we often overlapped, with him sending revised sections as I closed in on the finale. I don’t think I argued with any of his changes because when he told me them I went, “Well, that’s way cool!”
My only pet peeve was that Vox preferred phone contact, and I’m an email guy. It’s a minor thing and I got over it, about halfway through the process, because most of our calls ended with clear direction for the story and characters.Took me six months to pound out Quantum Mortis, and Vox another month and a half to write his portions and put on the finishing touches. Not too shabby.
I still shake my head and wonder, “How on Earth did I write a novel and let someone else change it into a finished product that was still part mine, yet not the same thing I came up with?” The trick was not being wholly wedded to the characters and plot from the get go. Told myself, “Relax. Have fun with the people, the places and especially the action . That way if things get rewritten or cut, it’s no big deal.”
And you know what? It wasn’t. The control freak had loosened his grip. Well, somewhat. Vox wasn’t too scary. I liked that our brains were on the same wavelength when it came to character development and blowing things up. We put together a great story, a hell of a fun thing to write, and hope you enjoy the result of our collaboration.
And yes, the second installment of Chief Graven Tower’s explosive investigations is well underway. – Steve Rzasa
QUANTUM MORTIS A Man Disrupted will be published on 2 December 2013 and will retail for $22.99 in hardcover and $4.99 in ebook. You can preorder the hardcover and receive a free copy of the ebook for $14.99 if you do so before December 1st.
UPDATE: If you’re thinking of preordering, here is a little more incentive. The page count turned out to be higher than estimated, at 326 pages, so the retail price of the hardcover will be $22.99, not $19.99. The preorder price is still $14.99 and the ebook price will be $4.99.
