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Kids won’t know – it’s one of those outdated concepts in the Bible – but usury, which raises the interests to Mafia-level loan rates – used to be frowned upon.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.

WHY Trump is Being Charged with Conspiracy in GA

I’ve posted on the Trump indictment before. One charge, in particular, made very little sense.

It’s the first charge in the indictment – Violation of the GA RICO Act. The government seems to be simultaneously insisting that Trump is a ‘Lone Wolf’, whose actions are off the cuff and, for that reason, both unpredictable and highly dangerous. Not a cool-headed mob boss.

So, why RICO?

Money. RICO enables the government to take ALL of his money, business, and property, without a trial verdict of guilty. It’s asset forfeiture, a practice that forces the person so targeted to – separately – PROVE that the wealth wasn’t illegally gained.

The above link is to The Burning Platform, where many of the usual methods government uses to grab ordinary citizens’ money and possessions is detailed. RICO is just one of those methods.

Now, Trump has money in many places. Likely, the government cannot completely tied up his assets. However, under the guise of RICO, they can install “asset managers” who can veto spending his money for discretionary activities, such as campaigning, criminal defense, and support of his social media site, Truth Social.

That whole process is not meant to do much more than provide a minor aggravation to Trump; what it IS designed to do is to send a message to people with assets.

Back off, or you will be next.

It’s intended to financially cripple the opposition.

The Chronicle of the DC: 19Aug23 Maui 2

Goal of the Progs: seat in authority ideologues who care not one whit about preserving human lives. Useful idiots will get added support when they are fully aware of what they are empowered to do: commit mass murder by appearing to be inept while being perfectly protected from criminal charges.

Hawaii official concerned with ‘equity’ delayed releasing water for more than 5 hours as wildfires raged: report

Rest assured, that if he is more than just a useful idiot, he has no conscience about what he did. Sustainability belief provides him with the “morals” that human life is the one thing the planet has too much of.

Please note: “Kaleo Manuel, former deputy director of the Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management was a former Obama Foundation Leader who said water was an important tool of social justice.” So, consider this creep as a case example of the product of social justice education that Fran wrote about earlier today.

Right, Wrong, Or Socially Unjust?

     In analyzing the phrase “social justice,” we see how prefixing the word justice with any modifier inverts its meaning. It turns something easily understood – inherently unambiguous, in fact – into something for noisy groups to argue and negotiate. But then, attempts to redefine “justice” to accommodate some trendy Cause are as old as Mankind itself. What’s newsworthy is the noisy groups’ attempt to redefine mathematics:

     The California State Board of Education issued on July 12 a new framework for teaching math based on what it calls “updated principles of focus, coherence, and rigor.” The word “updated” is certainly accurate. Not so much “principles,” “focus,” “coherence” or “rigor.” California’s new approach to math is as unfair as it is unserious.

     The framework is voluntary, but it will heavily influence school districts and teachers around the Golden State. Developed over the past four years, it runs nearly 1,000 pages. Among the titles of its 14 chapters are “Teaching for Equity and Engagement,” “Structuring School Experiences for Equity and Engagement” and “Supporting Educators in Offering Equitable and Engaging Mathematics Instruction.” The guidelines demand that math teachers be “committed to social justice work” to “equip students with a toolkit and mindset to identify and combat inequities with mathematics”—not with the ability to do math. Far more important is teaching students that “mathematics plays a role in the power structures and privileges that exist within our society.”

     California’s education bureaucrats are seeking to reinvent math as a grievance study. “Big ideas are central to the learning of mathematics,” the framework insists, but the only big idea the document promotes is that unequal outcomes in math performance are proof of a racist society.

     This is not a perfectly new phenomenon. I remember, from the early nineties, some aggrieved bitch on WCBS-AM ranting that the idea of a “right answer” to a math problem is inherently faulty. “There are good answers, and there are answers that are less good,” she said. She condemned the teaching of arithmetic and any higher use of mathematics for that reason. I suspected immediately that she, or perhaps one of her children, had failed a math test and she was determined to get back at someone. Why the program directors at WCBS radio gave her airtime, I cannot know.

     Tell me, Gentle Reader: Once we omit the possibility of a “right answer,” what remains. BRRRING! Got it one, didn’t you, you clever fellow! What remains is opinion. And as we know from what the world has come to call Porretto’s Anatomical Axiom:


Opinions Are Like Assholes:
Everyone’s Gotta Have One.

     “Social justice” is always someone’s opinion, no matter the subject, time, place, or circumstances. It is never a fixed, objectively correct thing. Indeed, in a realm that demands fixed rules and absolute adherence to them, “social justice” has no place. Mathematics is such a realm. Moreover, the statistical superiority at math of men over women, whites over blacks, and the careful over the casual reveals that some groups just aren’t as good at math as others. Ergo, as we mathematical types like to say, the Left must destroy traditional mathematics education as “socially unjust.” (Have a quod erat demonstrandum for lagniappe.)

     One of my stepdaughters gravitated to mathematics early in life. She found that she loved it because for once there were right answers to the problems she was set. There was no room for opinion – including that of her math teacher. It led her to an enduring love of the sciences, of which mathematics is the foundation. Today she teaches the sciences in a nearby school district.

     The educational goal of the Left is to establish as dogma that there are no right answers in any realm of thought. The destruction of mathematics education is central to that aim. Imagine what would happen to the more powerful, more inquisitive minds among our young were they to be convinced of that proposition. If all things are a matter of opinion, and no one’s opinion is better than anyone else’s, where is knowledge? What happens to the concept of truth? Would there be any hope for the continuation of scientific inquiry? And what about engineering? Would things designed and built by our posterity work?

     Feel free to shudder.

     If it cannot be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. – Robert A. Heinlein

News Tokenism

     Tokenism usually refers to the inclusion of a member of some group perceived as “victimized” or “a dispreferred minority.” But there are varieties of tokenism that are unconcerned with such things. Tokenism in the news media can mean grudgingly mentioning something unfavorable to the Left. Here’s an example from CNN:

     TAPPER: Yes. And Kristen, Glenn Kessler from “The Washington Post” had a fact check about Joe Biden from earlier this month noting that Hunter Biden admitted in court in July that he was, in fact, paid substantial sums from Chinese companies. Kessler wrote, Hunter Biden reported nearly 2.4 million income in 2017 and 2.2 million income in 2018, most of which came from Chinese or Ukrainian interests. But this — and this directly goes against what Joe Biden said in the debate in 2020 with Donald Trump. Take a listen.

     (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

     [17:35:32]

     JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My son has not made money in terms of this thing about what are you talking about, what are you talking about, China.

     (CROSSTALK)

     DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He made a fortune in Ukraine, in China, in Moscow —

     BIDEN: That is simply not true.

     TRUMP: — and various other places.

     (END VIDEO CLIP)

     TAPPER: So this is from two different debates. But I mean, Trump was right. I mean, he did make a fortune from China, and Joe Biden was wrong. I don’t know that he was lying about it. He might not have been told by Hunter. But this blind spot is a problem.

     ANDERSON: It’s a problem, one, because Republicans aren’t going to let it go, that’s for sure. But also these problems are continuing through the legal system. It’s not as though this is something that’s been settled in other jurisdictions, and Republicans are just harping on it. It is an ongoing thing in our courts. It’s not going anywhere.

     TAPPER: This is a blind spot. Does it concern you as a Democrat?

     LEVIN: Well, I think dads sometimes and parents sometimes have blind spots about their kids, for sure, and the President may be no exception. But nothing has tied the President to any of Hunter Biden’s dealings. There’s no whiff of him being involved or him being implicated in it. And it’s, you know, I think it’s not something the voters care a lot about.

     TAPPER: All right, my thanks to the panel. Thanks once again.

     Joe Biden is allergic to truth. His entire political career has been founded on lies. He lies by preference. But no Democrat partisan will admit this, nor even hint at Biden’s adversary relationship with the truth, despite mountains of evidence reaching back fifty years. And, for completeness, note the mandatory “Republicans pounce” motif near the end.

     That gallon jug of Carlo Rossi Chablis has been looking better and better, hasn’t it?

Attitude Adjuster

     You say your country’s been stolen from you? That the man in the big chair is a vegetable, his administration is filled with lunatics, and his son is a degenerate? That the “woke” military you pay a trillion a year for couldn’t beat Equatorial Guinea? That your throat is hoarse from hollering, your ballot has become a joke, and your money wouldn’t even make good toilet paper? Is that your problem, Bunkie?

     Well, not everything is darkness and despair:

     Always try to look on the bright side.

What Is Seen And What Is Not Seen

     If memory serves, Frederic Bastiat was first to use that phrase. He employed it in a discussion of what’s usually called the “broken window fallacy,” an important example of how choosing not to look at some of the consequences of an event or a decision can fatally warp one’s perception of economic reality. Henry Hazlitt made it the core of his treatise Economics in One Lesson, which remains the most important and accessible book ever written on economic thinking. Here is Hazlitt’s “one lesson” in full:

     The art of economics consists in not merely looking at the immediate but also the longer-term effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

     This is a perfect statement of how economic analysis “should” be performed. Indeed, it applies more broadly than that. It’s a commandment to which all politicians, policy wonks, and opinion-mongers must be held, regardless of the specific topics about which they prattle.

***

     When a private citizen chooses a course of action from among the alternatives available to him, he’s best advised not to include certain propositions:

  • Use magic;
  • Have your adversaries abducted by aliens;
  • Persuade the Vatican to declare you the fourth Member of the Trinity.

     …and others of similar character. When governments choose a course of action, their “thinking” is less restrained. Oftentimes their policy analysts do some very unwise things:

     Governments get away with such foolhardy “thinking” because they can’t be held to account or compelled to give refunds. Private citizens are obviously more constrained than that. Our shortsightedness or excessive optimism normally comes down upon our own heads.

     The “what is seen and what is not seen” principle, combined with the “alternatives” principle and the inherent arrogance of those who rule, give rise to my pessimism about the possibility of a “good government.” I wrote three novels to explore this subject in a fictional context, and I’m not done with it yet.

***

     These things are on my mind this morning owing to the well-aged controversy over recreational drugs and whether producing, selling, buying, and using them should be legal.

     Over at AoSHQ, Weird Dave has stated the matter with admirable concision:

     Legalizing drugs. Where should the line be? I generally define my political leanings as “conservatarian”. Conservative, but with libertarian leanings. The more libertarian the solution to a problem is, the more likely it is to be the correct one. Doesn’t mean it’s the right one, but I think that generally speaking solutions with less government involvement are better than the opposite. So, legalize drugs then, right? Problem solved.
     Not so fast.
     The libertarian argument that resonates the most with me is “Hey, drugs were basically legal for the first 150 years of America, and caused far fewer problems that the war of drugs does for us now” (CatGirl Kulak makes this argument here) . And I’ll concede the argument, but there are a few big problems with the it:
     #1. The moral character of the country in the 19th century was vastly different than the moral character of the country today. A work hard, seize opportunity, delayed gratification, personal responsibility society based upon Judaeo-Christian principles is very different from a me first, instant gratification, I deserve anything I want because I want it society whose “moral” foundations are hedonistic. The two will react to the availability of drugs in vastly different ways.
     #2. Social services. In the past they were provided by private, voluntary organizations. There was no 911, no Narcan, no ambulance ride to a million dollars worth of medial machinery to keep you alive, all of it funded by the government from the pockets of the productive citizens to the benefit of the non-productive ones. Sure you could buy laudanum from the pharmacist, but if you OD in an alley or checked out of life and wasted away, well, you did, that’s all. Legalizing drugs with that level of safety net in place is an invitation for people to abuse it.
     #3. Drug strength. As I said, you could [buy] laudanum easily. But nobody was selling fentanyl. Smoking pot with a natural THC level of 5-8% is a far cry from the 40-50% that we have today. LSD wasn’t invented until the 1940. Meth goes back to the very end of the 19th century, but it wasn’t widely used recreationally until much later. We’re not talking about the same drugs.
     So what are your thoughts on this? Where’s the line?

     Despite what I’m about to say, this is as elegant and modest a statement about the problem as I’ve seen in many a year. But the questions that surround the problem are terribly wide. They involve much that most people don’t include in their reasoning. When we confront the problem – and it is a problem; drugs do destroy many lives each year – are we committing any of these errors:

  1. Are we groping for unavailable resources?
  2. Are we tendentiously neglecting foreseeable impacts?
  3. What unintended consequences have arisen from the War on Drugs?

     The failure of the War on Drugs to date is a datum of importance. Ron Paul once said to me that every known illegal drug is available to virtually every prisoner in any American prison. By implication, if you can’t keep ‘em out of the prisons, you’re beaten before you start. But does that neglect to consider alternative approaches…that is, alternatives that are actually available? Would a “bigger commitment” – i.e., more people and more money – make a difference? If so, what foreseeable impacts on other phenomena would diverting those resources to drug interdiction have? And always: what other consequences are we failing to take into account?

     It’s flip to say that there will always be people who’ll ruin their lives somehow; if not with drugs, then with something else. But it’s equally flip to say that eradicating the use of illegal drugs is worth any cost, no matter how high. It’s shortsighted, potentially fatally so, to neglect to consider the side effects of the War on Drugs. Those extend all the way from petty crimes by junkies and the deterioration of public order, to the corruption of police departments and the enrichment of criminal gangs, to the economies of a considerable number of nations and the consequences for American foreign policy.

     A good case could be made that we have too much squalor and suffering, and not nearly enough insight into the future, to make rational decisions about this matter. We can only be sure of a few propositions:

  • We can’t use magic;
  • We can’t count on help from Antares or Betelgeuse;
  • And God Almighty, whatever opinion He may hold, is indisposed to decree a solution.

     And so this screed is revealed as a brief for humility and caution: characteristics notably absent from those who presume to rule over us. Bet you never guessed.

If it’s tourist season, why can’t we shoot them?

Kalifornians discovered Idaho back in the 80’s, and they haven’t stopped showing up. This isn’t a new phenomenon. The common attitude from Kalifornians back then was “Oh, we’ll show you unenlightened hicks how things are supposed to work!” As if the reason they left their pathetic shithole state and moved up here was because somehow the way they did things in their pathetic shithole state was somehow better. A popular bumper sticker back in those days were “Dear Californians: Welcome to Idaho. Now go home.”

I should point out that most of these Kalifornians were from Los Angeles County and the Bay Area. You never saw a conservative leave the Central Valley and move up, or at least you didn’t see it very much.

Many of the Kalifornians were stereotypically ignorant and arrogant. They knew how to run things, and we backwards sister-humping Jesus-freaks were too stupid to be listened to. When we said outrageous things like “Hey, the snowplow throws snow for a good ten to twelve feet, you might not want to put your fence that close to the road” we were sneered at and ignored. The broken fenceposts that appeared from under the melting snow in the spring somehow never seemed to effect their thinking the next time around. “Hey, the curve in the road right there is graded wrong, you might want to slow down as you approach it.” Once again, we gun-fondling flyover country bumpkins couldn’t possibly know what we were talking about, as proven by the way all four tires were spinning in the air as their fancy SUV was overturned on the curve during a cool fall morning, where frost on a curve in the road lasted a little bit longer due to shade.

That continued into the 90’s. In 2005, Forbes magazine listed Coeur d’Alene, ID as one of the top five towns in America were people could retire.

The words uttered by my family are not fit even for a sailor’s ears.

Now not only were we flooded with Kalifornians, but people from Portlandia and the People’s Democratic Republic of Seattle (aka the Putrid Sound). Housing prices shot through the roof. The land that I purchased back in 2003 is now worth quite a bit more than I paid, to the point where I couldn’t afford to buy it today if I tried. Myself back in 2003, pinching pennies so hard that I was re-inventing copper wire, could afford to purchase land, but myself now, far wealthier and better off, couldn’t afford that same patch of land if it was available.

Housing prices never came down. But one thing that I’ve noticed changing is the people coming up from Kalifornia. Rather than the typical Kalifornians, we’re getting Californians who have had enough of the commie bullshit and decided that they weren’t going to get steamrolled by the Marxist anti-American godless heathens. They got out while they could, and headed to the mountains. A couple of them are my neighbors out in the hills. One of them has a flock of sheep that they raise, shear, and then they card and spin the wool themselves. Another is a couple retirees who have a shooting range in their backyard, and happily note that Idaho has a law saying a suppressor that is made in Idaho, of Idaho materials, sold to an Idaho resident, doesn’t fall under FEDERAL laws. So long as it stays in Idaho and doesn’t travel over a state border, you don’t need a tax stamp for it.

He has two. And they’re stamped “MADE IN IDAHO” rather prominently.

Ask them about their prior homes, and they might express some longing for the beautiful parts that made them live there in the first place, but then the conversation turns to why they left. And they express quite a bit of anger. Anger at the Marxists, anger at the low-information sheeple who keep voting for the Marxists. Anger at the Left for destroying what was a beautiful state. Instead of the stereotypical “We know how to run things!” we now have people saying “They screwed shit up so bad I couldn’t stay, and I won’t let them do that here.”

We still have the arrogant, ignorant Marxist shitlibs around. Far too many. But they are the minority and they’re getting outgrown by the based, red-pilled people moving in.

All of that was brought to mind by the cartoon above. Yesterday at the farmer’s market, several of the people who I know came from California recently were walking around with a gun on their hip. And if any Kalifornian had tried to say something, I have no doubt the result would have been a most unpleasant discussion for the Marxist.

Just some food for thought.

The Chronicle of the DC: 17Aug23 Maui

Not mentioned here, but elsewhere: direct energy weapons are suspected as having been used in the mass arson. You think that is too far fetched?

As Fran pointed out a couple days ago, there once was a too-radical-to-consider pile of causes for extraordinary events. That heap hasn’t had too many additions lately, and numerous ones once consigned there (e.g., scamdemic items) have since been retrieved.

Please point out — to anyone who will listen — the Sustainability agenda of every major Western institution. It’s a religion with them. Their moral code is not that of decent human beings. To these neo-pagan Sustainability worshippers, sacrificed human life is what is sacred to them.

The Progressive Movement — with its Sustainability priests providing them a moral framework that overrides conscience — are at war with 95% of the world. Expect no mercy.

Traditionally, in the West, an agenda like that would be seen as the essence of evil. But so many of us have gotten in the habit of discarding that very thought. If you value life, if you value your own life, that habit must end.

If you are one who believes in God, the Progs are especially determined to destroy you. If you permit injustices such as this to go on hoping it claims you last, do you really have faith in Him?

Even those who are atheist but behave decently for the most part are not safe. All men of decency would be a potential threat to them. It may be true that there are no atheists in fox holes, but by then it may too late to find the strength needed to fight the forces of evil.

I fear I am making a hash out of the plea accompanying this latest attempt at illuminating the threat.

Please risk scorn and try to awaken anyone you care about who you sense has not gone too far over to the other side. The Progs have built themselves a ruthless moral code diametrically opposite that of the Judeo-Christian faiths. The morale you can gain from reacquainting yourself with the faith you grew up with (or are at least most familiar) almost certainly will be needed to fight this war you did not start. The Progs certainly have theirs. That’s why I expect no mercy from them.

Draw on your faith in what is right and fight the injustices and those who perpetuate them. Human beings who still hear their conscience have the numbers. What they lack is being aware that the evil has advanced well beyond mere threats, and renewing their faith that He is on their side. The potential strength to be gained from those two alone has always been known to be very useful in war.

I pray that this message works, or at least encourages others to do a better job at getting the message out. Amen.

Scattered Thoughts, Late Morning Edition

     I allowed myself to sleep a little later than usual this morning, so my spleen and bile levels are a bit depressed: ergo, I have insufficient agita for a “traditional” tirade. However, I have a couple of tidbits for general amusement.

***

1. The War On Catholics Continues.

     The FBI classifying us as a variety of terrorist was bad enough. Apparently, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts thinks we might breed more of our kind from children we foster-parent:

     Beliefs in traditional marriage and the reality of biological sex have led to a Roman Catholic couple in America being rejected as suitable foster parents.
     Mike and Kitty Burke’s application to foster was denied by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) because they “would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA”….
     According to court papers, during the application process the Burkes shared their beliefs “that marriage is between a woman and a man and that sexual relations are to be kept within the bounds of such a marriage”.
     They also told the assessor representing the DCF, who interviewed them in their own home, that due to their “religious beliefs, they would not assist a medical gender transition for a hypothetical future child”.
     In a report of the interviews, the assessor expressed concern about the Burkes’ beliefs on gender and sex and believed that neither they, nor “their faith”, would be “supportive of LGBTQIA+ youth”.
     Their application was subsequently rejected by the DCF, “based on the couple’s statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA”.

     (Note the URL of the cited story. Odd that we’re hearing about it from a UK source, isn’t it?)

     This assessor is demonstrably less interested in the welfare of children in state care than in the promulgation and reinforcement of the transgender ideology. As that has been established as a social contamination – a communicable mental illness, if you will – the clash is really between the assessor’s politics and the teachings of the Burkes’ faith.

     The Burkes have initiated a lawsuit against Massachusetts for religious discrimination. We can hope they prevail in court, but lately the odds against doing so have been formidable.

***

2. “Homeschool is no school!”

     Parental rights are fighting a multi-front war, and the educrats are determined to see parents lose:

     A Coffee County [Tennessee] Judge with a reputation for being biased against homeschooling trampled on parental rights on Tuesday by ordering a homeschooled student back to public school.
     General Sessions and Juvenile Court Judge Gerald Ewell, Jr. told the student that he could send her away and that “homeschool is no school.”
     In a recording from the Patriot Punk Network, the judge can be heard saying, “When there’s a truancy charge pending, state law says that I have to approve homeschool.”
     Ewell Jr. then says, “And I don’t do it. You’ve got to go to a public school. Homeschool is no school.”
     Ewell, Jr. then directed the student to be present at her former school the next day. “If you’re not there tomorrow, I’m going to send you… send you off is exactly what we’re going to do.”
     He then told the parents that they could be found guilty of violating the Compulsory School Attendance Law.

     Read that carefully. This supposed judge is plainly biased. More than that, he’s in violation of a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. And looky here:

     The parents enrolled their child in Chestnut Ridge Academy, a Category IV non-public school, one of the legally recognized methods of homeschooling in the state. Under this category, students are technically considered to be privately schooled under state law.

     If this judge presided over a normal court, his ruling would be grounds for being removed from the bench. Indeed, if he holds a law license – not all judges do – he could be disbarred as well. But Judge Ewell is a Juvenile Court judge…and such courts often make up their own laws. Worse, they usually get away with it.

***

3. Mask Slippages Dept.

     You can tell that this Leftist feels invulnerable: she “lets it all hang out:”

     The President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, explains Central Bank Digital Currencies are all about control. She has said it before, and she means it….
     She said the digital euro would be a control mechanism for EU citizens. As the EU, we depend on gas supplies from a very unfriendly country, she said, and we need the digital euro to help us with that. And then she said that we have a threshold. The EU has a threshold of €1000 in Europe. If you cross it, you will find yourselves in the grey market. You risk being caught, fined, or sent to jail. But the digital euro will have limited control.
     “Limited control with the digital euro. I don’t think so. In this interview, Lagarde talked about 3 to 400 euros being some sort of a threshold, and anything above that, anything spent above that will be monitored. And it’ll be monitored very, very easily with the digital euro.”

     For those with shorter memories than mine, this isn’t Christine Lagarde’s first foray into arrant idiocy:

     The recent World Economic Forum in Davos, a yearly gathering of would-be dictators whose self-awareness has been chemically suppressed if not surgically removed, is a fertile source for the emissions of such persons. These can be priceless – especially when they’re standing before a microphone straining to say something profound. Let the following serve as an example:

     Someone should be trying to keep this woman out of the public eye. Happy for us that apparently no one is doing so.

***

4. Brevity Is A Leading Cause Of Bafflement.

     As a person of a certain age, I’m more conscious than I once was of the sand trickling through the hourglass. And so I’ve become terse. (No, not here. I feel my obligation to you, Gentle Reader, far too keenly. Besides, a septuagenarian crank is still a crank.) In consequence, when I’m asked a question to which a short reply is possible, that’s what I give. Some people aren’t quite prepared to cope. Brevity is such an infrequent visitor to their conversations that its appearance is off-putting to them.

     Yesterday evening, Beth (a.k.a. the CSO) and I had our friends Tom and Jane over for dinner. As is usual, Beth did the cooking and I did the cleaning-up. I start the cleanup as soon as everyone has finished eating, as you would not believe the mountain of pots, pans, dishes, serving pieces, and utensils Beth can employ to make dinner…especially dinner for guests.

     And so I was at the sink for some time while Beth did the host duties. As usual with these two friends, the talk was largely about the yoga classes Jane and Beth have in common. That didn’t bother me; I was under no obligation to participate. But when I returned to the table, Jane realized that I’d been out of the whirl of things. It seemed to embarrass her. At the next convenient pause in her chat with Beth about some not-to-be-named yoga teacher, Jane turned to me and said, “Would you like to join us at yoga, Fran?”

     I smiled. “No.”

     I didn’t think I’d be halting all conversation with one syllable, but I did. It seems Jane expected a parade of excuses, rationales, and circumlocutions. And in truth, such a soliloquy usually accompanies a demurral of that sort. My disinclination to provide any any derailed her train of thought.

     There’s a moral in there, though I’m not sure it would be politic to make it explicit.

***

     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. I’ve finally been making progress on my long-stalled novel-in-progress, and I’d like to get back to it before Beth finds something absolutely imperative for me to do, like washing and waxing our garden hoses. So until whenever, be well.

Just Wrote a Long and Exhausting Post on the Charges Against Trump

Here it is.

Sexual Disjunctions

     Sarah Dawn Moore, with whose oeuvre I’m largely unfamiliar, has posited five major reasons for the trend of “men going their own way:”

  • Marriage: An Unattractive Proposition for Men
         Men are questioning the value of traditional marriage, given the increasing divorce rates and financial risks they face. With no guarantee of stability and custody issues, many men are opting for alternatives to marriage.
  • Lack of Traditional Women
         There seems to be a disconnect between what women expect from men and what they are willing to bring to the table. The desire for traditional men clashes with the decline of traditional roles in modern society.
  • Dating Based on Potential
         The emphasis on material wealth and status has skewed dating preferences, leading to unrealistic expectations from men. Potential and character are often overshadowed by income and financial metrics.
  • Fear of Rejection and Social Backlash
         Men feel torn between the desire to approach women and the fear of public humiliation or being labeled negatively. The Me Too movement and instances of public shaming have left men cautious about initiating contact.
  • Dating Expenses and Financial Strain
         The cost of dating can be burdensome for both men and women, impacting their financial stability and affecting their dating choices. A shift towards more affordable and realistic dating options is necessary.

     Miss Moore discusses these influences sympathetically to the position of unmated men in this 17-minute video. She’s largely correct, but those five bullet points omit some of the less-discussed problems in today’s increasingly awkward and anxiety-filled mating dance:

  • The mechanisms that bring single people together today are few and weak.
  • Working women have little time, energy, and incentive to make themselves available.
  • Today’s legal environment disincentivizes marriage, fatherhood even more so.
  • Today’s social environment is highly tolerant of perpetual singlehood.
  • Feminists’ insistent preaching to women that “men are the enemy” has had terrible effects.

     All that having been said – and it takes a brave woman to say all of it boldly – Miss Moore is on target. Is hers an example of a rising trend? May we expect other sensible and eloquent women to echo her sentiments? We can hope. But for now, the dating-and-mating minefield remains one to navigate with great caution – and young single men know it. For an unfortunate number, the appeal is insufficient.

     One of the consequences is an accumulation of women in their thirties and forties who are unmated and have despaired of doing so. Some are divorced, or have had extended relationships that lapsed unpleasantly. Some have children by men no longer in their lives. And many are bitter. That’s additional grist for the mill of male-female distrust.

     Some years ago a well-known commentator said, candidly and publicly, that he’d elected to “go gay” because women didn’t seem to him to be worth the trouble. They wanted too much, were willing to give too little, and most had too much baggage. That’s not something you’ll hear from many homosexuals, of course. The overwhelming majority insist that their homosexuality is innate; they can’t flip it by sheer willpower. But that one voice was a breath of fresh air, albeit unpleasantly scented.

     The sexes currently appear to have incompatible goals. Some feminist opinion-mongers think that’s as it should be, and are exhorting young women to render themselves essentially independent of men. But we have Sarah Dawn Moore, and perhaps a few other commentators, to speak good sense. I hope they prove enough to reverse the tides of the moment.

Dead Giveaways Dept.

     Consider this tweet:

     …in the light of this revelation:

     And contemplate this observation by Chris Rock:

     To quote Chris Rock when he hears a black person proudly say, “I take care of my kids!” – YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR KIDS!!!!

     Time was, we didn’t give merit badges to blacks for doing things that whites are expected to do – and to do without being rewarded or praised for it. American Negroes have faced a left-wing cultivation strategy that has made them expect such rewards. Indeed, they expect to be rewarded for not breaking the law. When they don’t get such rewards, this can happen:

     …and this:

     …but this is “hate speech:”

     …as is this:

     I became unwilling to hear further racial hectoring quite some time ago, at which point I started to react against it, largely as follows:

     Sanctimonious Leftist: You’re a racist!
     Fran Porretto: And damned proud of it, baby. But do you know why I’m a racist?
     SL: (sneering) I can hardly wait to hear it.
     FWP: Because you made me one.

     This is sometimes followed by dumbfounded silence, though now and then the conversation will continue along these lines:

     SL: (shocked) How can you say such a thing?
     FWP: Because it’s true. You’re my stand-in for everyone on your side of the political fence, while I represent my own. I wanted nothing but to be left in peace, to get along with my neighbors as best I can regardless of the color of their skins. You refused to permit it. You’ve emphasized race at every opportunity. You’ve harped on racial injustices in the distant past as if they were the doing of contemporary whites. You’ve taught American blacks and Hispanics to think of themselves as helpless victims of “Whitey.” You’ve agitated ceaselessly for racial preferences in the law, and you’ve usually gotten them. You’ve excused non-white criminals, traitors, and other miscreants on the grounds that “they couldn’t do otherwise in this oppressive society.” You’ve granted a wholly undeserved degree of respect to racialist hucksters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Toure, Melissa Harris-Perry, and hundreds of others. You’ve used ordinary words and idioms as justifications for destroying decent men’s lives and careers. You’ve used cries of “racism!” to silence anyone who disagrees with you about anything. Worst of all, you’ve got everyone in the whole damned country seeing race everywhere, and afraid to speak his mind if it might somehow touch on that subject. But now that whites are showing some racial consciousness, voting and relocating and arming to protect our own from the groups you’ve sheltered and coddled, you find that you dislike what you’ve wrought? Choke on it!

At that point the conversation usually trails off, though it might continue one exchange longer:

     SL: I…didn’t mean to do any of that.
     FWP: If I accept your claim of good intentions, it makes you an idiot who shouldn’t be allowed out of the house alone, much less permitted to have a voice in national discourse. But if you did intend this outcome, you’re one of the worst villains in American history and deserve nothing but my contempt. In either case, get away from me.

     I find that a rising number of whites – especially older whites – are reaching the same conclusions and state of mind as have I. We’ve simply had our noses rubbed in the facts too many times, and in too many ways.

     People are waking up to the realities of our “multiracial society.” They can’t be hidden when respected researchers and scholars are willing to compile the evidence for us. Eventually, racial segregation will return. The only question remaining is how much violence will be required to get there.

     See also this Baseline Essay.

Window Of Credibility

     “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.” – Attributed to Hassan-I Sabbah, founder of the Hashshashin

     When contradictions, deceits, and miscellaneous frauds have multiplied past a certain point, the very existence of truth is called into question. This has a curious, anti-intuitive consequence: propositions previously on the borderline of credibility become much more credible. The most curious aspect of this phenomenon is that those borderline propositions all become equally credible.

How long has it been since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? It’ll be sixty years come this November 22, right? If you were alive and paying attention back then, you probably recall that there were an awful lot of what are commonly called “conspiracy theories” about that event. Some of them involved the Castro regime in Cuba. Others involved the Cosa Nostra or the CIA. And the mainstream media did its best to consign them to the wastelands beyond the realm of credibility. We were told, repeatedly and relentlessly, that the killing was accomplished by a lone, somewhat crazy gunman with four shots from his rifle. And the great majority of us chose to accept that explanation.

     But there was a lawyer-writer who didn’t accept it. His book, a critique of the Warren Commission investigation of and report on the assassination, stirred a furor that was slow to abate. Many regarded it as an important contribution, not because his hypotheses about the forces behind the assassination were unquestionably correct, but because it ruthlessly exposed the flaws in the official account. Despite the emphasis placed on it, the Warren Commission’s report was less than credible. Mark Lane’s book made that plain.

     We’ve had a lot of crap shoveled at us since then. Recently there’s been some testimony, and some evidence, coming to light about that assassination. Is it wholly accurate? Hard to say, after sixty years. But what’s not “hard to say” is this: Because of all the obvious lies and obfuscations that have been thrown at us since then, the window of credibility has been opened wide – and not just about the death of President Kennedy. Today, no candidate explanation for anything has more credibility a priori than any other.

     That is not a good thing.

***

     A wide-open window of credibility lets in a lot of noise. It’s a great time for the cranks, the snake-oil salesmen, and the promoters of lunatic theses. They get as much of a hearing as the sobersided and the responsible…but it’s not their doing that it should be so. The window of credibility is opened wide because men with mighty voices and a reputation for knowledge misused those things, in service to an agenda other than truth.

     The current Sturm und Drang over the COVID-19 pandemic and the various vaccines for it is a case in point. So much of what occupied the public’s attention was propaganda and “fear porn” that sober analysis that paid proper attention to evidence and logic was largely sidelined. Analysts attentive to the surrounding phenomena were called – drum roll, please – “conspiracy theorists.” The “authorities” did their best to silence them. Now that the “official line” about the pandemic and the vaccines has been destroyed by the evidence that’s accumulated since then, those “conspiracy theorists” are looking at least as credible as the “authorities” ever did. But that’s not the whole story; cranks, hustlers, and assorted nut jobs are getting an equal amount of attention and respect.

     Everything about COVID-19 and the vaccines is clouded by the storms of controversy. As the actual events recede in time, it becomes ever more difficult to find out what really happened and why. What’s increased is popular skepticism, especially of proclamations and explanations emitted from supposed “authorities.”

     Skepticism about the statements of “authorities” is healthful. Indeed, it’s necessary to the pursuit of reliable knowledge. But a complete cynicism about all analysts and researchers is not. It leads to a distrust of the pursuit of knowledge itself – i.e., of the possibility that any process, however rigorous, can allow anyone to know anything more than anyone else.

     As I’ve said before, only the ability to predict events reliably should be taken as a possible sign of knowledge. The deceits of “authorities,” which justly destroy our willingness to rely on such persons, must not give rise to cynicism about the pursuit of knowledge by well-established processes such as scientific method and objective investigation. Those things work…when we use them according to their rules. And by using them carefully, with due attention both to human fallibility and to wishful thinking, we can lower the sash on the window of credibility, such that at least some of the noise from the cranks and the con men can be excluded from public discourse.

Load more