Massive Concurrence

     Every now and then, an artist in some medium will come along to remind us about what really matters. Today, AoSHQ co-blogger “The James Madison” highlights one such artist:

     Listening to [Australian film director Peter] Weir in interviews, I find it hard not to really like the guy. He’s soft-spoken, unassuming, and very intelligent, and he makes the assertion that he’s really just out to tell “a good tale”. Well, bollocks, I say. William Wyler was out to just tell a good tale. Weir, though, has a very strong theme and series of motifs running through his work to the point where you think it’s intentional. As a writer, I can say that I recognize my own themes in my books, but they just end up being stories I’m interested in telling that I unconsciously mold into stories that speak to what I want to say about the world. I don’t think Weir was intentionally bending stories to his own worldview, just that it was a natural effect of most creatives.
     Anyway, I’d distill his work into a phrase: “human connections in systems that discourage it.” That seems generic and a bit glib because I have to generalize to a certain point because the “human connections” end up being of such variety, and the “systems” end up being of such variety, that you have to step a bit back at that level.

     Exactly. Weir grasped the essence of fiction. Fiction is about people and the ways they interact:

  1. With other people;
  2. With their own pasts, presents, and emotions;
  3. With events and challenges from the world around them.

     Peter Weir isn’t widely known despite his excellent films. Probably Master and Commander is his best-known work…and despite its brilliance, financially it wasn’t very successful. It was based on terrific prose storytelling from Patrick O’Brien. It featured wonderful performances, including Russell Crowe’s career-capping best as Captain Jack Aubrey. It was set in a thrilling milieu, as picturesque as cinematography can be…but it hardly made any money. There’s a moral in there, somewhere. But I digress.

     To tell stories that touch the human heart, you must focus on the human heart. What could be more obvious? Yet far too many would-be storytellers in our time think the way to great fiction is through bombast and titanic events: superheroes, world-shaking conspiracies, alien invasions, hordes of zombies, the opening of the gates to Hell, and likewise. Such matters can only be useful as a backdrop for far smaller things: love and hatred, commitment to an ideal, self-discovery, and personal growth.

     Just a few early-morning thoughts from yet another storyteller. I’ll be back to this later. Just now it’s time for Mass.

Can Everything Be Digitized?

     From a recent essay by Leo Hohmann:

     Technocracy is much different than Marxism or communism. In a Marxist state you have government ownership of the means of production. But in a technocracy, which is the preferred model of self-appointed globalist elites at the World Economic Forum, the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, Club of Rome, United Nations, et al, you have government working in public-private partnerships (PPPs) with large corporations to create, staff and enforce an all-encompassing digital surveillance state. Think of it as Naziism on a global scale with access to modern digital tracking technology.

     We might condense that paragraph thus:

     Technocracy is fascist-style totalitarian rule with extensive technological support.

     Hohmann isn’t the first to capture the idea in this fashion. From a not-quite-as-recent novel by George Orwell:

     He took a twenty-five cent piece out of his pocket. There, too, in tiny clear lettering, the same slogans were inscribed, and on the other face of the coin the head of Big Brother. Even from the coin the eyes pursued you. On coins, on stamps, on the covers of books, on banners, on posters, and on the wrappings of a cigarette Packet — everywhere. Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed — no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.

     It looks like we have the answer.

     Orwell wrote well before computers became ubiquitous. He may never have heard the word “digitization.” He didn’t need it.

The Tour of Honor

For those who don’t know me as well as some, I’m what people might call a motorcycle “enthusiast”. Although perhaps that word is not quite right as I’m less enthusiastic about the machine and more enthusiastic about where it can take me.

I like to ride. A lot. I purchased my currant iron horse in 2020, and I’ve put over 38,000 miles on it since then. Had this summer not sucked so badly, I would have had at least ten thousand more.

One of the rides that I was introduced to some years back is called the Tour of Honor. It’s a military fundraiser combined with long-distance riding. I was determined to get at least one state under my belt this year, and so this last Sunday and Monday I took off and completed Washington. Thanks to the wildfires in Canada there was a blanket of smoke over the entire state. It cleared up a bit near the Puget Sound, but once I got off the ferry the smoke came back. After I had hit my last stop, I rode through a thunderstorm. Apparently the storm and I were going in the same direction because it was two hours of rain, on mountain pass roads, in the dark. By the time I got home almost every muscle in my upper body was locked and frozen into position, not due to the cold but due to the stress of riding dark mountain roads in the rain. I had to unscrew myself from my seat when I got to a dry location. It took me a couple days to recover from that.

That was followed by family showing up for a vacation, and so I’ve spent the past couple of days drinking beer, eating lots of good food, going to the county fair and generally trying to have a good time. That’s not always been successful. I can’t ever remember being an introvert in my youth, but these days if I don’t get some measure of alone time I end up rather grumpy. So there’s been some time where it’s been me, a cigar and a book out in the woods.

All this to simply say I’m not dead, and I’ll be back soon. And if you ride motorcycles, check out the Tour of Honor link up above. I promise that it will take you to parts of your state that you haven’t seen. I’m still hoping to finish Idaho and Oregon this year before the weather gets too cold and snowy.

The Downside Of Deceit

     “A thousand truths do not mark a man as a truth-teller, but a single lie marks him as a damned liar….Lying to other people is your business, but I tell you this: once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind.” — Robert A. Heinlein

     The pervasive loss of trust in large American institutions, whether public or private, is now beyond dispute. Approximately no one reflexively trusts anything from the federal government, the news media or any so-called “expert.” Too many items of propaganda have been labeled as fact. Too many liars stand before us unrepentant.

     That decline in trust would be bad enough all by itself. But it has a secondary consequence that few reckon with: the dismissal of the statements of institutions even when they’re correct.

***

     I happened upon the following at Gab a little earlier this morning:

     I hadn’t known about this fellow before. I have no idea what claims he actually made to entice customers for his apricot-pit formula. I do know that he’s no longer with us. Apparently kidney cancer got him eventually, though further specifics are unavailable.

     Apricot pits contain significant amounts of amygdalin, which is toxic. Amygdalin is the chief reagent used to make Laetrile, an “alternative medicine” promoted not long ago as a cancer cure and preventative. The FDA has condemned both Jason Vale’s merchandise and Laetrile as both ineffective against cancer and harmful to the human body.

     Say what you will about the Food and Drug Administration – I certainly do – but in the cases of Laetrile and amygdalin, it appears to have been correct. Yes, it’s an untrustworthy institution. Yes, it’s been caught in a number of deceptions aimed at achieving particular effects. But now and then it will be correct; it will provide useful, accurate information. The destruction of its reputation as a reliable consumer-protection agency will cause some persons to disregard those instances along with all the rest: Hey, it’s the FDA. You know how much they lie. Anything to keep the bucks coming in from Big Pharma.

     There’s no gain to anyone from dismissing accurate, useful information. Indeed, there’s a loss that could extend all the way to losses of lives. Yet what are we to do with the emissions of untrustworthy institutions?

     The casualties of Big, Deceitful Government include the losses that occur from this phenomenon. Yet analysts and public-policy commentators seldom address them.

***

     If you’re a regular Gentle Reader, you know I’ve got a bee in my bonnet about the loss of our former, high-trust society. This is just one of consequences that largely goes undiscussed. Yet it matters, perhaps more than many other, more obvious deceits and betrayals. We can’t know how much it matters because its effects cannot be measured – and that may be the most poignant aspect of all.

     The late Marshall Fritz, in speaking of an important rhetorical technique he called “the Randsberger Pivot,” made note of the perversity of simply attacking an institution like the FDA as untrustworthy. Done baldly, that doesn’t get your listeners thinking along with you. It gets them thinking about trichinosis, salmonella, and botulism. The FDA purports to protect us from those things…and on net balance, it does a pretty good job. What’s tragic is how the FDA’s revealed errors and deceits have caused so many to dismiss everything it says or does. The question we should be asking is how to separate the good work and the reliable results from the deceits and rent-seeking which have tarnished the FDA’s reputation.

     The answer is, of course, competition: the flowering of many food-and-drug-soundness organizations, all private, all competing with one another for the public’s trust. But that subject is too large for the tail end of a tirade.

     The argument for competition rests on the belief that people are likely to be wrong…. In the end, the case against an authoritarian system of resource allocation rests on the same principle as the case against an authoritarian structure in any discipline: part of the case…is that no person or body of persons is fit to be trusted with such power; the (other) part…is that no one person or group of persons can say for sure what new knowledge tomorrow will bring. Competition is a proper response to ignorance. – Brian Loasby

Crime And The Individual Perspective

     John Hinderaker asks in a plaintive tone: Is Crime Still Illegal?

     All of these descriptions are somewhat sanitized. We have seen the videos: gangs of twenty or more criminals will descend on a store, often blocking the street in front of the store with their vehicles, and rampage through the establishment stealing whatever relatively high-volume items they can get their hands on.
     Sometimes, of course, theft is carried out by smaller groups of shoplifters or by individuals, who simply load up a shopping cart and walk out of the store without paying. Very few of these stolen goods are intended for consumption by the thief. Rather, they are sold online. Organized crime is a highly profitable business.
     Of course, theft has always been with us. See the 8th Commandment. But why is organized theft at the present level suddenly a problem? I think it is mostly due to post-George Floyd cowardice. Criminals of all sorts have been emboldened by irrational attacks on law enforcement and a perverse sense that crime constitutes a sort of retributive justice. When elected district attorneys proudly announce that they do not intend to prosecute criminals, and when the State of California essentially legalizes shoplifting, what do they think is going to happen? Obviously, theft will skyrocket.

     The problem goes beyond the loss of effective enforcement and any sense of “retributive justice.” Time was, any individual American could easily have told you that theft and many other illegal acts are simply wrong. They’re evil. They violate the rights that inhere in individuals and legitimate businesses. We don’t need to ask the opinion of the law; God has already given us The Law on those things.

     But that once-common moral grounding is getting to be ever less common. Many parents never bother to impress it on their children. The schools have no room for it; it’s “exclusionary” if not “racist.” The entertainment media’s glorification of antiheroes and bad-boy protagonists continues the moral numbing process.

     If you sense the hand of the transnational-progressive Left behind this, you’re not alone.

     Today, J. B. Shurk speaks to the ongoing paradigmatic change in perspectives. Concerning the good-versus-evil dichotomy, he says this:

     Not long ago, it was common for conservatives to see the Marxist left as foolishly mistaken — a collection of young and inexperienced troublemakers who would eventually “snap out” of their common delusions once forced to confront reality.
     Now people understand that the left’s real mission is to reject reality. Castrating boys so that they can pretend to be girls is not “healthy.” Perpetuating racism as social policy is not “justice.” Imposing a “woke” State religion over personal conscience is not “moral.” Aiding and abetting child sex–trafficking and drug-smuggling at our borders is not “compassionate.” Stealing property is not “equitable.” Just as with Leninism and Maoism before, today’s leftism is evil.

     The destruction of the moral norms upon which Christian-Enlightenment civilization was built is a systematic undertaking. The disappearance of those norms will mean the disappearance of the civilization founded upon them. Soon, individual decisions on matters of right and wrong will be unpredictable by disinterested parties.

     Regard the following cartoon:

     Ponder the message behind the obvious one. In ten or twenty years’ time, would the therapist ask for the prescription slip back…or grope for his “samples” and jam a a few down his patient’s throat?

     Resist. And pray.

The Last Stand

     Apparently, what’s been widely rumored is true:

     I listened to Sid Rosenberg on WOR radio [CBS NY], and he said he’s hearing that the masks, lockdowns, and other restrictions are returning. They are coming back. You must resist. They are changing America, and that includes taking your freedoms away.
     […]
     This past week, Hollywood studio Lionsgate announced it was reinstating a COVID mask mandate for its employees. As we reported, Morris Brown College in Atlanta is reinstating its mandates for staff and students. Other colleges are following suit. Rutgers and Georgetown require indoor masking despite the evidence masks had no effect. Over 100 schools still require vaccination despite the myocarditis/pericarditis side effect.

     The Usurpers were so buoyed by their success the first time around that they’re betting they can get away with doing it again. Should they succeed, it will mean the end of all remaining individual freedom in these United States, including the freedom to assemble and the freedom to travel. Would anyone care to argue the point? Do you sincerely believe that a government that requires that you get its permission to leave your own home will respect any of your other rights?

     Convince me if you can. I stand with Scott Adams:

     Remember that your oppressors are willing to kill you for daring to defy them. If they’re willing to do that, how could they possibly be sincerely concerned about your health?

Things To Think About (UPDATED)

     First, an old commercial:

     Getty made more than one such commercial. (I think I have the full set.) They embedded the same premises. Whether they stimulated much thought is unclear. But the message is not.

     Now a picture:

     Reflect on that for a moment. Freedom must perforce include the freedom to choose one’s associates for oneself, regardless of the reasons or the context. Most of us would choose not to employ lawbreakers, for example. But apparently that’s forbidden by law as a form of “discrimination:”

     Biden’s Department Of Justice is now suing Elon Musk’s SpaceX for daring to require an employee to be a citizen or legal permanent resident in the United States of America in order to be employed by the company. In their press release, the DOJ explains that they’re suing because “SpaceX hired only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents” while they “refused to hire qualified asylees and refugee applicants and repeatedly rejected asylee and refugee applicants because of their citizenship status,” and even “discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for open positions.”
     I mean, it stands to reason that if one of the qualifications for employment is that the employee be a citizen or legal permanent resident, then non-citizen asylees and refugees aren’t actually “qualified applicants,” are they. They lack a major qualification for the job. And perhaps SpaceX discouraged them from applying because they knew they weren’t qualified for the position based on them not being citizens or lawful permanent residents.

     UPDATE: If you don’t believe it, here’s the DOJ’s press release.

     So try your best to stay on the right side of the law. You don’t want to be indicted for “attacking democracy,” do you? And of course, try to avoid “hate speech” like this:

     I need more coffee. Back in a bit.

When The World Is Too Much With Me

     I’m old: 71. The older I get, the less patience I have for a great many irritating and inconveniencing things. A barrage of those things will send me to one of my “escape hatches:” fiction; music; yard work; chess; weapons (this is a big one lately); cooking; or some other. Each of them possesses the power to divert me from my cares and restore me to calm. That’s a very good thing (cf. “weapons”).

     Music is an especially valued retreat. I can hide in the memories associated with it. It’s almost as good as a chronoscope that way. But as with all good things, there’s a price to be paid: I can remember too much.

     Memories of bad things, things that hurt badly or cost heavily, extract one sort of price. Yet most of those things have been more instructive than destructive. I unlearned many mistakes through the simple mechanism of suffering for having made them. I still wince at recalling them, of course, but I value the lessons they imparted.

     Remembering the good things can hurt a lot worse.

     I shan’t go into details. Rather, if you’re of a comparable age and feeling brave, listen to the song embedded below. I first heard and loved it in 1972. What memories does it bring back? Wince-able ones that remind you what a careless, thoughtless sort you were…and possibly still are from time to time? Or glorious ones that make you wish you could have frozen time right then and there, when you knew all the joy life could offer you…and hadn’t yet realized that the greater your joys, the worse it would hurt to have them slip away, as all joys must with the passage of time?

     Old friends: listen and remember. Young friends: if your time hasn’t come yet, consider dragging your feet a bit.

The Chronicle of The DC, 24 Aug 23: Fomenting Toxicities [Updated]

The same city that tolerates homelessness and welcomes illegals who add to it, could not be clueless as to the public health degradation that had to come with it.

The city of Los Angeles will issue a citation for washing one’s car in one’s driveway. The object was to penalize addition of untreated soap which will travel by sewers to the ocean. They based this on studies that considered all the complicated nutrients and by-products that contribute to algae growth — then concluded the run-off to be too environmentally unfriendly. Yet far worse additions to the open sewers they somehow never considered would be a consequence of their “liberal” open outdoor policies? What else is needed to recognize how nasty the enemy is? Dysentery brought to the first world is equitable — right? Or would you rather pass?

For a short synopsis of the report use this link. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TqTjjh4bUKE?feature=share (I’m sorry, but I could not get WordPress to embed it.) The full report is below.

This is only Los Angeles. But this agenda is coming to cities all across the Western world. Such policies are incrementally leading to our ill health, starvation, terrorism and death. Yet only a few major commentators forthrightly dare tell you that the powers that be (TPTB) are at war with each of you.

TPTB are determined to be ruthless in following their agenda. So expect no mercy from them. They are strict adherents to a religion, Survivabllity, that they do not openly profess, but their relentless progress to which they are enthralled is missed by only those too stupid, ignorant, naive, or cowed to speak of it. One might be labeled a conspiracy nut. Ooh. Self-censoring is self-denial of your most basic human rights.

Here’s a clue. Their belief is so strong that if you want to survive, if you want your loved ones to survive, it would be best that you adopt a belief system that is far stronger.

Here it is: Even if you have caused death, be it by accident or even by intent, you are not nearly as disgusting a human being as these death cultists. They are seeking victims on a scale that will swamp the death toll of the last century.

Simply repent of your past ill deeds, no matter how large or small, and join with the rest of decent humanity. We all turn to our Creator for help. He will listen to those who sincerely repent of past ill deeds. In that faith we will find a way to turn the tables. One individual at a time.

We outnumber them. They can’t operate their death machines without an army of competents for long. Everything they are doing is destroying the font of competence. Lack of people solid in mathematics is key, but it’s only part of it.

Faith in a Higher Power, and the courage that is fed by it, will supply our victory as it has so often in the past. The advancements of the modern age would have never happened without it. It will defeat the deranged, postmodernist Progs.

UPDATED to include a grace note queued up to where Bill Whittle almost says what I long to hear him say about L.A.: 

https://youtu.be/-e9cq2KrBfQ?t=876

“You can no longer explain this by stupidity. You just can’t….” He just fails to take it the rest of the way.

Targets And Guards

     If you’re a longtime Gentle Reader, you’ve surely seen this Clarence Carson quote before:

     [W]e are told that there is no need to fear the concentration of power in government so long as that power is checked by the electoral process. We are urged to believe that so long as we can express our disagreement in words, we have our full rights to disagree. Now both freedom of speech and the electoral process are important to liberty, but alone they are only the desiccated remains of liberty. However vigorously we may argue against foreign aid, our substance is still drained away in never-to-be-repaid loans. Quite often, there is not even a candidate to vote for who holds views remotely like my own. To vent one’s spleen against the graduated income tax may be healthy for the psyche, but one must still yield up his freedom of choice as to how his money will be spent when he pays it to the government. The voice of electors in government is not even proportioned to the tax contribution of individuals; thus, those who contribute more lose rather than gain by the “democratic process.” A majority of voters may decide that property cannot be used in such and such ways, but the liberty of the individual is diminished just as much as in that regard as if a dictator had decreed it. Those who believe in the redistribution of wealth should be free to redistribute their own, but they are undoubtedly limiting the freedom of others when they vote to redistribute theirs.

     I use it frequently because it’s important for several reasons. Most Americans are unaware of the amount of freedom that’s been taken from them. The above, which was written in 1964, sketches in the bare outline. The substance they delineate goes to every aspect of American life. Yet even then there was a semblance of opposition to ever-expanding government / ever-shrinking liberty. Now and then those who held freedom to be the highest political value would win a victory or two. The advocates of the Total State disliked that and sought ways to prevent it.

     What the statists found was that the “desiccated remains” they’d left to us were capable of mustering sufficient resistance to them, on occasion, to set them back for a while. To quench that possibility:

  • Freedom of expression had to be curtailed;
  • The electoral process had to be prevented from thwarting them.

     They hadn’t realized at the outset that free speech plus the franchise could seriously impede them. Yet now and then it did so, notably with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The emergence of the two-way World Wide Web threatened to make communications among freedom advocates too fluid and convenient to be withstood. If it were permitted to flower indefinitely, the game would be up for good. So freedom of expression had to go.

     The emergence of the “communications concentrators” – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – was vitally important to the statists. Those conveniences fatally weakened the “blogging culture” that was the bastion of freedom advocates. There were nearly 60 million blogs operated at its peak. Nearly all had comments sections, many of which were very lively. Owing to Facebook and twitter, the great majority of those blogs are either gone or idle. The concentrators had herded opinionated Americans into a small number of controllable pens, where their ability to be speak and be heard could be limited or suppressed completely.

     Then there was all that pesky voting. In a way it served the statists’ purposes, for they could point to vote totals – if they were sufficiently large, at least – as evidence of “support for the system.” But that turned sour when the voting went against them, so they decided that on balance elections were unfavorable to their aims…at least, if their opponents had a chance of winning them.

     Capturing the electoral processes involved advances on several fronts:

  • The Secretary of State project;
  • The multiplication of methods for committing vote fraud;
  • The reduction or elimination of mechanisms that promote election integrity.

     No Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch needs to be told how that turned out.

     If free expression could be completely squelched and elections corrupted nationwide, the statists would have dismantled the last guards against their complete and permanent hegemony. They’re very close to victory, as the 2020 and 2022 elections have demonstrated. If that victory occurs, it will be because statist strategists understood that the guards that protect a target must be taken down first. That’s the core principle in the study of systems vulnerability.

     Free expression and (relatively) honest electoral processes weren’t all-powerful guards for freedom. The history of the century past should suffice to establish that. But they were potent enough to allow freedom lovers the occasional triumph. Once the statists eliminate their vestiges, there will be nothing left but armed revolt.

     Just a few gloomy thoughts about the popular slogan acronymized as TINVOWOOT.

Skirting The Laws 101

     If you’re determined to break a law, the one thing you must not do is say so plainly. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down racial preferences in higher education, those “institutions of higher learning” that want to favor one race over the others must exercise some subtlety:

     The Biden administration is openly encouraging colleges and universities to ignore a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that forbade discrimination on the basis of race.
     Among the high court’s most anticipated rulings of its 2022-23 term was a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions that ended the practice of “affirmative action” — race-based admission practices.
     Or at least the high court purported to end affirmative action. But President Joe Biden is having none of it.
     […]
     It’s just a matter of replacing direct questions of an applicant’s race with something more subtle, according to Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
     He said that they would have tried to skirt the Supreme Court even without the White House’s blessing.
     “Colleges will continue using admission essays to give special treatment to favored identity groups,” he told Newsmax. “Several colleges have already added or altered essay questions in ways that will make it easier to identify an applicant’s race.”

     Antidiscrimination law is unenforceable as written, but it’s very useful as a political bludgeon. It will be enforced solely when it suits the ruling power – i.e., when it can be used against that power’s opponents. For elite universities to practice racial preferences “on the q.t.” is quite all right with the political elite. But don’t imagine that you could get away with preferential hiring in your little business. The crosshairs will be on your chest before you can recite Maxwell’s equations (integral form only, please).

     Any law that is not enforced and can’t be enforced weakens all other laws. — Robert A. Heinlein

     Thanks, Bob. They don’t listen when I say it. — Me

Interesting Contrasts Dept.

     Does anyone else remember how the mainstream media treated President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001? When Dubya received notice of the attack on the World Trade Center, he was reading a story to a classroom full of kids. He continued to do so for a few minutes before attending to the horrifying news from Manhattan. Media flacks screamed and shrieked and poured oceans of vitriol on him for not instantly dropping everything and flying to New York.

     The media’s treatment of “Sleepless Joe” Biden for his two-weeks-late reactions to recent events in Maui has been a bit different:

     LAHAINA, Hawaii — President Biden and first lady Jill Biden arrived in this grief-stricken community Monday afternoon, touring damage from one of the deadliest wildfires in American history and attempting to channel one of the president’s signature traits: comforting those who have lost loved ones.

     Read the rest, if you have a strong stomach for fawning and hypocrisy. Oh, and don’t you dare, you shameless right-winger, claim that Biden fell asleep at the memorial service:

     Conservative pundits used low-quality video on social media platforms Tuesday to spread a false claim that President Joe Biden fell asleep during a memorial for Maui wildfire victims.
     Fox News host Sean Hannity was among those who shared low-resolution video on X, the social media app formerly known as Twitter. Hannity’s post was viewed more than 425,000 times within a few hours, and similar videos posted by others received thousands more views on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

     Biden’s eyes were closed and his chin was practically resting on his upper chest…but he wasn’t asleep. He was just resting his eyes. How could you defame the man by saying otherwise?

     “Trust the mainstream media!!” — the mainstream media.

Newsworthy But Underreported

     Animal lovers pay attention to stories that feature animals in important roles. And no, it’s not all about skateboarding dogs or cats playing table tennis; we look for incidents in which animals have been important in people’s lives in unusual ways. We’re especially alert for incidents in which domesticated animals – pets – come to harm at the hands of humans, for that is a violation of the bond that unites us to our furry friends.

     Thus I was surprised to learn about the following incident, which took place three months ago:

     Employees and pets at a Maryland dog retreat narrowly escaped an SUV when the vehicle ran through Sniffers Doggie Retreat earlier this month.
     Video shows a typical day at the Rockville, Maryland facility, with a customer having a discussion at the front desk when a white SUV appears outside the front doors.
     The SUV appears to come to a stop at the curb and then moments later, it bursts through the glass doors and entry way at the dog retreat.
     Then it keeps going.
     The SUV plows into an office space where a trio of employees are shown running out of the room to avoid getting crushed.
     Then video shows the SUV continuing through the building before it comes to rest in the back room where the dog retreat has dozens of crates lined up for canine customers.

     Apparently neither humans nor dogs were harmed, though two dogs were briefly missing.

     Please watch the embedded video. The “authorities” have said repeatedly that “this was an accident.” But there was a driver at the wheel of that car. What kind of “accident” causes an SUV to power thirty feet into and through a building, plowing into doors, walls, furniture, and fixtures in three rooms, and then come to a stop? What was the driver doing? Was he unconscious or malevolent? And what will be his role in making Sniffers whole again?

     Applause to Mike Miles at 90 Miles from Tyranny for alerting me to this.

The Stories That American News Workers Won’t Do

The ‘revised’ stats for the first quarter of the report on the labor market are being – uh, MODIFIED.

Sharply downward.

I know, I know. That will come as SUCH a surprise to all of you.

Particularly the World Economic Forum (WEF), the reporters at CNN, and others.

Mark Judge has a nice piece in the Washington Examiner about American’s trust in the media, and the part he had to play in that change.

Why?

Well, the economy has been propped up by crony capitalism, government subsidies, and – uh, MISTATEMENTS/ERRONEOUS PROJECTIONS on financial reports (and, since ALL of those have to go before rigorous accounting oversight, let’s just say there’s a lot of accountants who are dupes and/or crooks).

Regular Americans – The Normals, as they have been called (or less nicely, The Deplorables) – have seen the handwriting on the wall. And, like their balance sheets, it is RED.

The nice – or not – thing about growing older is that we who do so have lived through multiple ups and downs in the economy. We’ve seen what politicians, bankers, and companies can do to our assets.

I’m old. I’m 72. And, my grandparents were born in 1895 and 1896. They lived long enough to pass on the stories about WWI, the Booming 20’s, The Depression, and WWII. My parents were adults during the post-WWII boom economy, the more sedate 50s, the Inflationary 60s and 70s (the inflation was whipped along by out of control government spending on entitlements, military purchases, and favored businesses). By the time Nixon came along, he caved in, and took us off the gold standard, thereby taking the lid off inflation – which burst forth like a pressurized gas.

I remember Stagflation – BOTH inflation, and heavy unemployment, with a dusting of OMZ-crazy rising interest rates.

Kids won’t know – it’s one of those outdated concepts in the Bible – but usury, which raises the interests to Mafia-level loan rates – used to be frowned upon. In Biblical days through much of the era of the Holy Roman Empire, it was both a sin, and a crime to charge more than state-permitted interest. It was made a crime because Jews didn’t follow the Christian prohibition on usury. It’s the practice that led to Jews being considered by many Christians as ‘money-grubbing’.

Now, that’s not really fair. The Jewish lenders would provide access to loans for those with poor credit/few assets. Naturally, as they were less likely to pay back the loan in full, the lenders set their rates high enough to offset the defaulters.

That’s not how the nations regarded it – they made it a crime, and were ruthless about exacting punishment for it.

In America, there were limits in every state to keep the interest rate from exceeding a certain level. Anything above that level could be CRIMINALLY prosecuted.

Now, the result of that is that getting a loan from a bank required assets, good credit, and the bankers reasoned assessment that, yes, you were likely to pay the loan back. Those new in town had difficulty getting credit, those without a lengthy job history in town, and those without any property (house or paid for car). Women, as few of them had regular access to money of their own, were generally denied credit. Contrary to what is said about the credit situation back then, if a woman had money of her own, under her control, she could get access to credit. Married women couldn’t count on it, particularly if their husband were feckless with finances.

MOST people rented their houses in the early years of their career, and often beyond. It was only the introduction of the GI Bill that permitted most of the vets to buy a STARTER home (a starter home was one that was TINY – often only 2 bedrooms and ONE bath, with a dinky yard). It was expected that such a home would accumulate equity, and provide the basis for moving to a larger house, or, if possible, adding onto the the house’s space (usually remodeling the attic or basement space for more bedrooms or family rooms). I was in my teens before I had a friend whose family had more than 1 bathroom.

As a result of frugal living, and with that boon of access to a starter home, many of the Boomer’s parents retired with a nice set of assets. That skyrocketed during the inflationary 70s, and again during the 80s, when home prices appreciated beyond all previous experience. My parents’ family home quadrupled in value, leaving them sufficient money to have a lengthy retirement.

I just checked on Zillow – the current value for my family’s former home is SEVENTEEN times what my parents paid for it!

And, they bought it at 4% interest, with $0 money down. Today’s interest rates are 7.5% and above, with a substantial down payment required.

It’s not that older people were financial geniuses, the system was one in which the average person pretty much had to be an idiot to NOT accumulate wealth. (I do realize that some categories of people – minorities, the disabled, and agriculture workers – did not have many of these opportunities).

It’s a toss of the dice. Sometimes, you get a good outcome.

Sometimes, it’s snake eyes.

My grandparents started out their marriage very well situated. My grandfather was a highly skilled welder, who owned his own profitable business. My grandmother came from a wealthy family. They employed a maid in their home, vacationed along the nicer beach resorts, and my grandmother had SEVERAL mink coats.

Then came the depression. My grandfather trusted a friend in trouble, and ended up going bankrupt when his friend defaulted on that loan. They were forced to sell nearly everything.

My grandmother pawned her very large diamond ring for $500, which she used for a down payment on a house with a garage in back. My grandfather picked up welding jobs, and she started a restaurant in her home.

They managed. They were frugal, and eventually were able to move on to a better home. They paid off that home, and used savings to buy a Florida home in Orlando.

When 3 bedroom homes with 1/2 acre of land were $2000.

Yeah, they hit the jackpot, purely from Walt Disney’s plan to build Disney World there. Most of the rest of the family relocated there, and profited from Orlando’s growth.

My husband and I bought our first home at 10% interest. We basically broke even when we had to move for work. Didn’t make that much over cost with our next two homes, either.

We did, however, manage to – FINALLY – do MUCH better than break even with the last home sale. How did we do that? Some of it was luck and timing. But, more importantly, WE BOUGHT A HOME THAT WAS CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN WE WERE PRE-QUALIFIED TO BUY.

Too many people are in far more debt than they can afford. It only works if EVERYTHING goes perfectly.

Which it never does.

And, when the house of cards is hit by a light breeze, it collapses.

So, the FIRST rule is:

Reduce your debt – use the Dave Ramsey method to pay off ALL consumer debt. If your home is too expensive to manage, should you hit a crisis, sell it. Even if you have to take a bit of a loss. Better to lose a little money now, then make it up in lower housing costs, than to frantically attempt to stave off bankruptcy after the crisis.

I know I’m speaking to the choir here. Most of you already are prepping, hunkering down, stashing away money in assorted places, and living the life of someone who KNOWS the rain is coming. Don’t forget to pass along these warnings to your kids, your neighbors, and your colleagues at work.

After that, you can rest easy, knowing that you – like Noah – gave them fair warning.

I Should Speak Like This Guy

The following would be more effective had the ranter not singled out the Democratic Party for their continued twisted support for Brandon. The GOP is little better in that I’ve heard none of them come close to the justifiable outrage this man exhibits.

This rant is worth watching more than once. Let this serve as an example of how to overcome our socially engineered outrage suppression. We’ve been indoctrinated into silence, leaving the stage entirely in the hands of the radical Left. Although the Progs still have low modulated voices (Senator Palpatine types), they welcome and encourage not only loud voices, but rioting, arson, mayhem and murder and are allowed to get away with it. It is long past time that the social forces for decency started getting loud.

Be more like this man so that the voices of decency truly penetrate the thick heads of the indecent ones at the top.

I promise to expand on the immense value of raising your voice. One voice encourages so many others who think like you, but they, like you, have been convinced it is always the civilized thing to do to swallow one’s outrage or anger.

Moral Decisions

     One of the philosophers vitally important to the development of Western thought, Immanuel Kant, propounded some theses that have gotten him lambasted by…let us say…persons with another agenda. The Randians dislike Kant for having criticized “pure reason:” i.e., reason divorced from longstanding postulates, empirical data, and the yearnings of the soul. Many Christian polemicists find fault with Kant for daring to assert the importance of conscience in matters of right and wrong. And of course, authoritarians reject Kant for refusing to award the palm of sanctity to the State and its decrees. The old boy has quite a number of detractors.

     Kant wasn’t always right, of course. There has never been and probably will never be a mortal thinker who never makes a mistake or follows a false premise into the logical weeds. His style of argument, incredibly convoluted even for a metaphysician, doesn’t help his cause. Nevertheless, his thinking on metaphysics, particularly the methods of metaphysical reasoning he articulated, constitute one of the foundation stones for Western conceptions, especially our approach to the question beneath all other questions: What do we mean by ‘real?’

     One of Kant’s assertions that drew heavy fire from opponents is his claim that Man’s intuition provides items of knowledge that stand apart from other kinds. Indeed, he argued that the intuitive faculty is itself an epistemological primary: the way we apprehend space and time themselves. We don’t reason our way to them; we intuit them as realities prior to whatever our reason tells us about events within them. In Kantian metaphysics, without the aspects of reality we grasp intuitively, reason itself is impotent.

     But that wasn’t the area of thought that got Kant into serious trouble.

***

     Anyone who argues for the absolute moral authority of some institution (or group thereof) will have trouble with Kant’s argument for the primacy of reason as a moral authority. He was a particularly strong proponent of the conscience as a moral guide, though his defense of its soundness has been challenged by other thinkers as incompatible with his emphasis on reason. Still, in moral matters Kant’s prescriptions and proscriptions were all but indistinguishable from those of conventional Christianity. It prompted some of his critics to label him a theologian in philosopher’s clothing.

     Yet Christian thinkers were unsatisfied with Kant. He had proposed that intuition, conscience, and reason were the guides a man should trust – a clear departure from the Church’s assertion of its supreme authority over such things. That dissatisfaction with Kant continues to animate Christian thinkers even today. One of these is the highly articulate and multiply accomplished Dr. Anthony Esolen:

     No one can be relieved of the duty of forming his conscience,” said my interlocutor, who was a bit surprised when I said that no one can do that on his own, and no one should attempt it, since man’s capacity for self-deception is boundless.

     “Other people and institutions can be deceived, too.” He seemed to be well-read, so it was not entirely impossible that he had gotten the dictum from Kant, who says that it is all too comfortable for men to remain in a perpetual nonage, to have a spiritual advisor be their conscience, and governors to remind them all the time of the terrible dangers they run if they think for themselves.

     In one of the most ironic turns of human folly, that axiom, that in moral matters you must decide for yourself what kinds of things are good and evil.

     Dr. Esolen is a staunch defender of the authority of the Church. Naturally he’d be vexed by the assertion that there are other sources of moral authority that might differ with the Church and might be correct in doing so. Yet the Church has taught error on occasion, and continues to do so to this day. An institution made up of men will always be fallible. Its first error is always to claim otherwise, for that weakens its effective authority in the minds of those aware of the fallibility of Man…which is just about anyone and everyone who’s ever lived.

     In his pamphlet for inquirers, What It Means To Be Catholic, Father Joseph M. Champlin, whether intentionally or otherwise, underscores the problem:

     Catholics believe that an individual’s conscience is the ultimate determinant of what is wrong or right for that individual. Moreover, God will judge us according to the fidelity with which we have followed our conscience. Nevertheless, this conscience needs to be formed by objective standards of moral conduct. The Church provides us with just that — moral norms based on Jesus’s teachings, the inspired scriptures, centuries of tradition, and the laws of nature.
     These moral standards may seem at times to be inhibiting or restrictive. The fact is, that quite to the contrary, they release or liberate us. These norms both make us free, and lead us to the deep happiness that comes from following God’s plan. Jesus underscored that point when he said: If you live according to my teachings, you are truly my disciples; then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

     The “objective standards of moral conduct” cited above are available from the Gospels, which must be the core of all valid Church teaching. Jesus of Nazareth was a very clear speaker. (Would you have expected otherwise from the Son of God?) He never left His audience in any doubt about moral or ethical requirements. When asked “Which is the great commandment in the law?” He provided the supreme keys to all moral and ethical reasoning:

     But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
     Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

     [Matthew 22:34-40]

     God provides each of us with a conscience to illuminate questions that arise under those strictures:

     Fountain, who had been silent practically from the start of the session, spoke up at last.
     “Is that why we are told to listen to our consciences, Father?”
     Ray chuckled. “Thank you, Fountain. It is. The word ‘conscience’ means ‘knowing with.’ But knowing with whom? As we can’t read one another’s consciences, or transmit into them, it can only be God. Conscience is the channel God uses to help us make our judgment calls—which does not mean that if you and I make a particular one differently, then one of us is ‘wrong.’ You can never know what another person’s conscience has told him…or whether he’s really paid attention to it as he should.”
     “‘Judge not, that ye be not judged,’” Larry said.
     “Exactly,” Ray said. He pointed upward. “Do what you can with yourself, and leave the rest to Him.”
     “Glory be to God,” Domenico Monti whispered.

     [From In Vino]

     I promise to return to this, but right now it’s time for Mass. Have a nice day.

An Ugly Open Secret

     We know from interminable experience that the overwhelming majority of men who go into politics are utterly vile. The professional politician – and these days, for all practical purposes there is no other kind – is the lowest sort of man allowed to walk the streets today. Persons we wouldn’t be willing to have at our dinner table infest the halls of power so thickly that men of character are unable to endure the stench. Note in this connection that the “J6” protestors didn’t need to be expelled from the Capitol Building by force. They lingered there briefly. When they’d had all they could stand of the place, they left of their own wills.

     But this is the dynamic of politics. In The Road To Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek included a chapter titled “Why the Worst Get On Top,” in which he laid out the dynamic in the starkest possible terms. I’ve written about it sufficiently often that I see no need to explain it afresh.

     But if “the worst get on top,” that implies that should we seek to find the very worst, we must look at the very top. And so we must. Today, the worst man in public life occupies the White House: habitual liar, peculator, and fondler of children Joseph Robinette Biden.

     Biden’s dementia is on public display these days. While many commentators see that as his biggest demerit, I’ve begun to think that his handlers will soon use it for his exculpation from the worst of his gaffes and misdeeds. What else could they put into service to excuse these two incidents?

     Can you think of any rationalization that would serve a man claimed to be in full possession of his mental faculties?

     I’m powerfully tempted to call Biden soulless, but the teaching of the Church is that we are our souls, each and all. (Anyway, my pastor would pout at me.) If one cannot excise one’s soul, it might be possible to ignore it, or silence its voice. That voice is called the conscience. In a mentally and emotionally healthy person, it speaks of right and wrong. It poses questions whenever one ponders a course of action:

  • Is it righteous?
  • Is it prudent?
  • Is it possible?

     (C. S. Lewis had some harsh things to say about our propensity for evading those questions, but his thoughts concern the mental state of a fully aware, rational human being. That excludes the subject of this tirade.)

     Joe Biden dismisses those questions. It’s possible he’s no longer sufficiently aware to do so, but my money’s on his never having regarded them seriously.

     If he were sufficiently aware to be fully answerable for his deeds, I’d call him a sociopath.

***

     The distinguishing characteristic of the sociopath is his inability to see others as moral agents with rights of their own. To him, others are merely pieces to be moved about the gameboard of life. A few moments’ thought will suffice to see how that characteristic dovetails with the mindset of the contemporary politician.

     He who is willing to manipulate others for his own benefit without regard for their rights or priorities may nevertheless not be able to do so. The top-tier politician must possess an array of skills in the deceptive and manipulative arts. He must also be adroit at evading the negative consequences of his actions, for there will certainly be some. However, evasion won’t always be possible; the prime movers in some villainies are impossible to conceal. What he cannot evade, he must deflect.

     Biden has exhibited those skills, though not at the highest levels. He’s needed a lot of help to escape being called to account for his trail of lies. As a Democrat, he’s had the assistance of the media. Yet they are not all-powerful. Biden’s inner guard of handlers and enforcers have had a lot to do these past few decades.

     Biden’s record is now too long. There is no possibility of evasion, and deflection, always a problem for the man at the top, has become implausible. How can you blame others for what it’s perfectly plain that you and only you have done? The past three years have provided conclusive evidence; the public won’t accept any more exculpations.

     So Biden’s handlers, who are probably all but unanimous that he cannot be permitted another term in the Oval Office, face a stark choice: dementia or sociopathy. Athwart that choice and its implications stands another figure they know cannot serve their interests adequately: Kamala Harris. Biden must continue as president in nomine until January 20, 2025, or the walls of their stolen edifice will come tumbling down on them.

     They deserve no sympathy. As for Biden: after what’s been done to us by him and through his purloined powers of office, what sympathy does he deserve?

PolSpeak For The Masses

     If you’ve been a regular Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch for any length of time, you’re surely aware of two things about my crap:

  1. It’s long, wordy, and circuitous;
  2. There’s a lot of it.

     Well, that’s your humble Curmudgeon. I’ve had that sort of writing style all my life, though I struggle against it when writing fiction. But I do eventually get to the point…when I have one. And in the majority of cases the thousand words or so before I get to the point have something approximating a relevance thereto.

     That’s not how politicians speak. Politicians only get to the point when they’re absolutely certain they can advance one of the following aims:

  • Getting your money;
  • Getting your vote;
  • Badmouthing a political adversary.

     The best example of this practice that I recall from recent years was when Bret Baier interviewed Barack Obama on Fox News. Baier strove with herculean intensity to get Obama to answer the questions he asked. He even interrupted The Won several times – shock! horror! – in a vain attempt to force Obama to get to the point. But Obama resisted to the very last, never, ever providing a clear answer to any of Baier’s questions. It was a perfect demonstration of PolSpeak as practiced at the very highest levels of politics.

     One of the things that endeared Donald Trump to millions of Americans is that he eschewed politicians’ sort of blather. He answered questions. He made definite statements. He said openly and unimpeachably that he had done or would do specific things. Some of the things he promised to do, such as the wall on the southern border, never came off, but no one could claim he hadn’t promised them.

     And so, I found the following, which I stole from Irish, both highly educational and exceptionally funny:

     Pass it around. Note the reactions of your victims. And try it yourself! Who knows? If you have the gift for it, you might have a career in politics.

Reinhold Niebuhr Was A Cockeyed Optimist

     Why are you here, Gentle Reader? I don’t ask that question in the metaphysical sense that demands a discussion of theistic cosmogony and the alternatives to it, but rather in the immediate and supremely practical sense. Why are you here, at Liberty’s Torch? What has brought you here, and – should you decide to bookmark us for further enjoyment – what have you found here that makes us worth the precious seconds of your ever-dwindling life?

     Some questions are best confronted by excluding impossible and absurd answers. This may be one such. Let’s try it out:

  1. You’re not here for the recipes;
  2. You’re not here for the free money;
  3. You’re not here for the celebrity nudes;
  4. You’re not here for the scandal-mongering;
  5. You’re not here for the comforting platitudes.

     Shout that last one. Platitudes definitely aren’t “our thing.” We prefer the essential if uncomfortable truths. For many, their greatest need, even if unacknowledged or deliberately suppressed, is to hear plain and unambiguous statements about what is rather than dreamy fantasies about what might be. I and my Co-Conspirators labor here for that reason above all others.

     And we make no apologies for “harshing your mellow.”

***

     “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” – Reinhold Niebuhr

     There are a lot of people who know no prayers but that one. Contemplate it for a moment. Does it stand apart from all other considerations, irrefutable and immutable? Or might there be some aspects to it that deserve intelligent exploration and discussion?

     The “Serenity Prayer” is so named for the first of the emotional attitudes it cites. Yet it’s not about serenity in the extended sense. The full text of the prayer clarifies Niebuhr’s intention:

     God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.
     Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.

     If we leave aside the embedded assertions, it’s about discerning God’s will and learning to conform to it without resistance. But discerning God’s will is a rather difficult endeavor. He seldom deigns to explain Himself in layman’s terms. Moreover, there are innumerable theologians and pretenders who’d like to persuade you that: 1) they’ve “cracked the code;” and 2) you really ought to stop asking questions and accept their interpretation. The guru business has room for a lot of contenders.

***

     It’s time to ask some critical questions – critical in the bifurcated sense. First, they’re critical because the answers to them are fundamental to making objective progress of any sort. Second, they’re critical because they compel us to be critical of our own thinking and our own actions. However, I don’t mean to suggest here that the questions I’m about to pose are the only critical questions. These are important, especially considering how seldom they’re addressed, but they’re not alone in their importance.

     Those questions are the reality that lies beneath the platitudinous sentiments of the Serenity Prayer:

  1. What can be changed by men’s decisions and actions;
  2. How can we tell?

     A mighty mind once gave forth a mighty statement whose truth has never been much liked by persons in politics:

     Nevertheless, in the inexplicable universal votings and debatings of these Ages, an idea or rather a dumb presumption to the contrary has gone idly abroad, and at this day, over extensive tracts of the world, poor human beings are to be found, whose practical belief it is that if we “vote” this or that, so this or that will thenceforth be…. Practically men have come to imagine that the Laws of this Universe, like the laws of constitutional countries, are decided by voting…. It is an idle fancy. The Laws of this Universe, of which if the Laws of England are not an exact transcript, they should passionately study to become, are fixed by the everlasting congruity of things, and are not fixable or changeable by voting! — Thomas Carlyle

     We might call this the Anti-Political Theorem. It refutes the overwhelmingly greater part of what governments attempt. It demands respect for what cannot be changed. It requires that we concede that there are limits to our power…and if there’s anything politicians and their hangers-on absolutely hate to admit, it’s the limits to their power.

     Some of what cannot be changed is essentially self-evident: the nature of Man; the laws of physics; the requirements for the perpetuation of life; and so on. However, some things that cannot be changed only reveal that characteristic through repeated unsuccessful attempts to change them.

     Admitting to inherent incapacity has never been favored by governments. Thomas Sowell, in talking about the War on Drugs, cited a quote from W. C. Fields: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.” Governments, which possess the privilege of doing to us things that would be illegal, often horrifyingly so, if they were done by private parties, seldom respect reality’s negative verdicts on their power. But on the personal level, what each of us can change involves another debate.

     One thing only is clear about the limits of personal change: Smith cannot change Jones, for any and all values of Smith and Jones.

***

     If you’ve been wondering what the hell I’m circling around this morning, these thoughts were kicked off by this story at the Independent Sentinel:

     The Boston Globe reported that advanced math students were primarily White and Asian, while lower-level courses mostly had Black and Hispanic students. Cambridge Public Schools noticed this trend before, but things only worsened due to the pandemic. This led to all four middle schools in the district axing Algebra I.
     Instead of providing extra help to the minority children and their families so they can do the work, the WOKE schools decided to drag down all the children based on the color of their skin.

     Those two paragraphs are packed with import. The intent of the schools’ decision is plain: We can’t raise black and Hispanic students’ math performance, but we don’t want to admit that, so we’ll conceal the evidence. But the conclusion of the school boards is at odds with the prevailing assumption that what it takes to raise black and Hispanic students’ performance is knowable and doable. Writer Maura Dowling, whom I admire and respect, appears to share that assumption. What evidence is there for its soundness? Are other, similar stories relevant? Are there enough of them to reach a conclusion? If not, why not?

     Decide for yourselves. You know my opinion already.

***

     Reflect on the above, please. Don’t think yourself immune to its import. Stop imagining that you, or “we,” can change what cannot be changed. There’s enough evidence to that effect as regards several quasi-Utopian propositions:

  • Socialism;
  • Human equality;
  • Innate sexual properties;
  • The elimination of vice by law;
  • The corrupting influence of power over others.

     There are surely others, but the margins of this Website are too small to include them. Therefore, allow me to close with a quote from one of Orson Scott Card’s best novels:

     “Reality is the most perfect vision of God’s will. It’s discovering God’s will in advance that causes all the trouble.”

     …and a quote from one of the most neglected, least well understood lay philosophers of the Twentieth Century:

     “There’s only one way to improve society: present it with a single improved unit: yourself.” – Albert Jay Nock.

     And with that, I’m off to Mass. Have a nice day.

An Unmet Need

     These days, I am perpetually weary. I know I’m not alone in that. A great many Americans feel more beleaguered than they’ll openly admit. We’re supposed to be the “Can Do” nation, ready for anything and fully prepared to cope with the worst. (“We walk around with hardons and guns blazing all the time.” – Richard Hoyt) But “the worst” isn’t, pardon the phrasing, the worst of it.

     “The worst” is the noise. The perpetual din. The endless screaming, wailing, moaning, hectoring, begging, and cursing. The ceaseless demands from politicians. The carping from the unsatisfied. The orations of the world-savers. The unending gimme gimme gimme of those who want something they can’t get for themselves and will never realize that no amount of free stuff will make them happy. And of course, the “media” of all varieties, every one of which insists that we must all stay right-up-to-the-minute on What’s Happening Now. Yes, including the bloody Internet.

     The great need of our time is silence. We’re starved for it. The din is making us crazy. We’re unable to cope with its relentlessness. And the greatest of all ironies is that in nearly every case, we collaborate in our own deprivation.

***

     As is usual for me early on a Sunday, I’m getting ready for Mass. My parish holds three Masses per Sunday. Two are, as is apparently customary today, “sung” Masses where the congregation is expected to sing responses and selected hymns at many points. But the earliest one, which I prefer, is essentially silent.

     It strikes me as more appropriate to the Mass than all the singing. The Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, the night before Christ’s Passion was to begin. I find insane the notion that He and the Twelve Apostles celebrated that seder with a lot of peppy songs.

     In case it hasn’t come through clearly, I despise modern “liturgical” music. It strikes me as offensive to the solemnity of the Mass. But my pastor, in all other regards a worthy priest of Christ, is trying to force that music into the 7:30 Sunday Mass, destroying its blessed silence. I have no idea what to say to him…and that’s probably a good thing.

***

     I saw something inexpressibly beautiful a moment ago, over at Gab:

     That is the sort of person America needs today. Someone who will help you resist the din. Someone with whom you can keep company without being obliged to blather. Someone who’ll “keep his mouth shut in a pleasant tone of voice” (Edgar Pangborn) Someone who wants nothing but to share peace in company. Where such people are to be found, I have no idea.

     Dear Gentle Reader, I wish you a day of silence. A day free from the din. A day, whatever its demands on your labor, that makes no demand that you listen. A day when your interior voices are audible, unobstructed by the clamor the world seeks to impose on us.

     That’s all from me for today. May God bless and keep you all.

Load more