Mailvox: no shenanigan too small

MR has suspicions about a petty "mistake" by Bank of America:

I enjoy your blog immensely and I know many others do too, that's why I'm writing you this email in hopes that if you've heard of similar stories in the past, then you can publicize them in an article or something.

I just happened to be checking my Bank of America account when I noticed a $5.00 Maintenance Fee had been assessed on one of my accounts. I called and had this fixed and they told me that it was a mistake on their part. My question is, are they making this mistake over and over again in hope of some people not noticing it?

Regardless, this has been the final straw and I will be closing my accounts with them before noon.

Any other BoA depositors noticing similar "maintenance fees" on their accounts? Considering that they are sitting on around 12% of all American deposits, an additional $60 per account per year could add up to a tidy little profit without much effort. And why shouldn't they freely engage in such shenanigans, considering that it has been reported that the Obama administration and the Congress are planning to "punish" them for their mortgage and fraudclosure crimes by fining them cents on the dollar in lieu of any criminal or civil penalties?

Comments ()

Romney = President Goldman Sachs 2.0

The usual suspects have their sticky little fingers all over the supposed alternative to Obama too:

When Bain Capital sought to raise money in 1989 for a fast-growing office-supply company named Staples, Mitt Romney, Bain’s founder, called upon a trusted business partner: Goldman Sachs, whose bankers led the company’s initial public offering. When Mr. Romney became governor of Massachusetts, his blind trust gave Goldman much of his wealth to manage, a fortune now estimated to be as much as $250 million.

And as Mr. Romney mounts his second bid for the presidency, Goldman is coming through again: Its employees have contributed at least $367,000 to his campaign, making the firm Mr. Romney’s largest single source of campaign money through the end of September. No other company is so closely intertwined with Mr. Romney’s public and private lives except Bain itself.

I know I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that there is gambling taking place in the Washington establishment. It will be interesting to hear how all of the Romney Republicans who rightly deride Barack Obama as President Goldman Sachs will respond to the news that their favored candidate is owned by precisely the same corporation.

And it's not as if Newt Gingrich is any better, being a Freddie Mac tool. You can complain about Ron Paul's shortcomings, real and perceived, all you like. But the fact of the matter is that if you don't support him, you are supporting more of the exactly the same thing that Obama is presently providing.

One could, of course, argue with the numbering system. There is a reasonable case to be made that George W. Bush was actually President Goldman Sachs 1.0, courtesy of his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson.

Comments ()

Ebook edits

We're getting closer to putting the three Eternal Warriors ebooks up on Amazon. They'll probably be sold for $1.99 each, as that appears to be Amazon's preferred price. However, while the cover for Shadow is being prepared, it occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to use the time fresh eyes to check for typos and formatting mishaps in the epubs that have been prepared, so if you're interested in reading through one of them and taking the relevant notes, please let me know and specify which book you'd like to check, The War in Heaven, The World in Shadow, or The Wrath of Angels.

Comments ()

The police are the problem

There aren't just a few bad apples. They're an intrinsically rotten fruit:

A DeKalb County family’s dog was shot and killed Tuesday night by a police officer who went to the wrong house when responding to a domestic incident, Channel 2 Action News reported. The officer went to Bobbie Currie’s home on Silva Court around 9 p.m. in response to a domestic dispute call with a possibly armed person.

The family’s German shepherd, which was chained in the garage, lunged at the officer, and was shot and killed, according to Channel 2. Currie’s husband, Anthony, told Channel 2 that the officer also pointed his gun at him and told him to put his hands up.

“I said, ‘Why [did] you shoot my dog?’ And he said, ‘Well, I’ll blow your brains out,’” Anthony Currie said.

A DeKalb police supervisor sent to the scene said the officer made an error.

“Subsequent investigation determined that the actual address that he was looking for was actually across the street,” DeKalb police Lt. Dane Cunningham told Channel 2.

The officer is not facing disciplinary action pending an internal investigation, Channel 2 said.

I don't despise the police because one of them happens to be an idiot who can't read a street address, is needlessly abusive, and is intoxicated with his government-granted license to kill. I despise them because they ALWAYS defend their evil "brethren" and refuse to hold them accountable no matter what they do. They have no honor and they refuse to be held accountable for even the most despicable actions.

At this point, I would be far more confident having to rely upon the actual Mafia than in the badge gang. It's no longer any mystery why the annals of military history are rife with examples of the dreadful behavior and cowardly performance of police units.

Even street criminals usually don't shoot dogs. Especially not dogs that are tied up and can't possibly hurt them.

Comments ()

Mailvox: dating site science

AA asks about a new study purporting to demonstrate that religion only benefits people where it is a free rider:

What do you think about the newly released study that claims that religious beliefs only make people happier due to cultural factors? According to the new study of almost 200,000 people in 11 European countries, people who are religious have higher self-esteem and better psychological adjustment than the non-religious only in countries where belief in religion is common . In more secular societies, the religious and the non-religious are equally well-off.

"The results suggest that religiosity, albeit a potent force, confers benefits by riding on cultural values," study researcher Jochen Gebauer of Humboldt University in Berlin and colleagues wrote online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

Do you think this study indicates the truth or is there any other valid reasons why religion creates better lifestyles for people in need of purpose?

My initial assumption is that this study is the usual propagandistic garbage put out by pseudoscientists who are dishonestly attempting to bolster their preconceived opinion with a false sheen of science. No doubt it is the sort of quasi-scientific study that purports to "prove" that all conservatives are racist, low IQ child molesters and therefore all decent human beings have no choice but to vote for Nancy Pelosi.

[Stops to read the referenced article about the study.]

Bingo. Here is the money quote:

"Gebauer and colleagues wanted to know if larger cultural forces contribute to the well-being of spiritual sorts. They turned to eDarling, the European version of dating websites like eHarmony or Match.com. Users of eDarling answer a question in their profiles about how important religion is to them; while setting up their profiles, they also complete psychological surveys asking them how "calm," "cheerful" and "content" they feel, among other measures of happiness, life satisfaction and self-esteem."

No doubt in their next study, Gebauer and his colleagues will report the astonishing news that contra all the media reports, there is no epidemic of obesity in America as only two percent of the women on eHarmony report themselves to be "overweight". Not only is the ridicuous study entirely based on a notoriously unreliable form of self-reporting - it's a DATING SITE, for crying out loud - but it contradicts many studies based upon more concrete metrics for measuring psychological health, such as alcoholism, suicide rates, and prescriptions for drugs used to treat depression.

Here, for example, is a study that uses the objective measure of hypertension as a metric and directly contradicts the conclusions of the eDarling-based study.

"With the help of a large Norwegian longitudinal health study called HUNT, researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) were able to find a clear relationship between time spent in church and lower blood pressure in both women and men.

"We found that the more often HUNT participants went to church, the lower their blood pressure, even when we controlled for a number of other possible explanatory factors," says Torgeir Sørensen, a PhD candidate from the School of Theology and Religious Psychology Centre at Sykehuset Innlandet (Inland Hospital). "This is the first study of its kind in Scandinavia. Previous research from the United States has shown that there is a possible link between people who attend church and blood pressure."

In fact, if we are to take dating site science seriously, we can conclude that there are other, more important factors in making people happy. For example, OKCupid relies on the same sort of self-reporting "science" and concludes that women's self-confidence increases with weight and age.

"Curvy women pass skinny ones in self-confidence at age 29 and never look back. They also consistently have the highest sex drive among the groups."

So there is the scientific utopia of which so many secularists dream. Obese and godless old women rutting confidently, and often, with each other. Oh sweet Sappho! Do you understand the significance of this? Do you realize what this means? There is now a scientific basis for Lesbian Dorito Night!

Comments ()

The consequences of post-Christianity

One of the things I find so eminently fascinating about atheist evangelicals is the vast gulf between what they say the believe concerning science and evidence and their observable behavior. The hypocrisy they reliably reveal is not only every bit as great as that exhibited by the likes of Jim Bakker, it's actually far greater because they engage in it much more often than the average shamed televangelist. Ever since Freud, we have been told that religion is injurious to the individual. Ever since Jean Meslier, it has been asserted that religion is deleterious to society. And we are still hearing this despite the fact that all the evidence, documentary, testimonial, and scientific consistently demonstrates that religion is good for the individual and a significant positive for society.

And yet, despite literally hundreds of years of evidence directly contradicting their blind faith in the benefits of irreligion, evangelical and militant atheists are still extolling the promised wonders of their sexy, secular science fiction society. And they are doing so even as its reality begins to take shape around them:

Lying, adultery, drug taking, breaking the speed limit, drink-driving, and handling stolen goods are all seen as more acceptable than they were at the turn of the century, it suggests. Disapproval of so-called “low level dishonesty” has [decreased] irrespective of social class, income level or education, according to research by Essex University. Integrity levels were slightly higher among women than men but the most significant variation was by age with noticeably higher tolerance of dishonesty among the young.

I'm not sure if it is more amazing or amusing that the academics who produced the report, who are most likely advocates of secularism if not outright atheists themselves, fail to connect the observed phenomenon to the obvious. Instead, they cast around for ridiculous explanations. "We think it is because their role models are not very good."

And why might that be? The idea that a society can simply abandon one of its central foundations with only minor consequences is absurd on its face. Genetic science has amply demonstrated the powerful limits on environmental modifications to human nature. Atheists can continue to produce a panoply of illogical arguments meant to decouple morality from God, but scientific observation, historical analysis, and thousands of years of philosophical exploration clearly demonstrate that this cannot be successfully done.

Comments ()

Winter is waning

Scott Taylor explains why what was bad in A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons is very likely only going to get worse, assuming that George Martin manages to publish another book in A Song of Ice and Fire:

Writers have a window of ‘perfect’ production, and although it’s much more forgiving than the 4 years of an athlete, it still exists. I mean, there’s a reason you know famous works by authors and yet don’t know what they’ve done in the past 20 years of their lives until their obituary is plastered all over the internet.

There comes a time where you need to retire, you need to hang up your cleats, or in this case, your keyboard, and sail into the sunset. It sucks for everyone, sure, and it’s sad to see them go, and yet isn’t it more horrible to pick up an author’s latest work and think ‘wow, what happened?’ Wouldn’t you rather remember them in the light when their words could do no wrong and each sentence was linguistic gold?

I’m going push my argument with some stats and let you be the judge. Inside these stats you’ll see I’ve included a defining award, and I’ve done this because typically an award showcases the very best of an author’s work, thus, that should be the barometer for the high point of a career.

Let me give some examples:

Michael Moorcock [Born 1939]: Definitive series Elric 1965-1979, Nebula Award Behold the Man, 1967. Prime writing years Age 26-40.

Orson Scott Card [Born 1951]: Definitive series Ender 1985 - Ongoing [but can you name a book after Xenocide, 1991?], Nebula Award Ender’s Game, 1985. Prime writing years Age 33-40.

Stephen King [Born 1947]: Definitive series [Fantasy] Gunslinger 1982-Ongoing, Bram Stoker Award Misery 1987. Prime writing years Age 30-50 [ending with The Green Mile].

Piers Anthony [Born 1934]: Definitive series Xanth 1977-Ongoing [I dare you to name all 36 current volumes!], Award Nebula Nomination A Spell for Chameleon, 1978. Prime writing years Age 32-52.

J.R.R. Tolkien [Born 1892]: Definitive series Lord of the Rings 1940+ [written], Published 1954, Award International Fantasy Award 1957. Prime writing years Age 40-57.

Arthur C. Clarke [Born 1917]: Definitive series Odyssey 1968. Hugo Award 1956 ‘The Star’, Prime writing years Age 40-55.

Robert Jordan [Born 1948]: Definitive series Wheel of Time 1990-Ongoing [Jordan died in 2007 at age 58], Locus Award Nominee Lord of Chaos, 1995, Prime writing years 40-50 [before the wheels came off Wheel of Time].

Isaac Asimov [Born 1920]: Definitive series Foundation 1942, Award Nebula The Gods Themselves, 1972, Prime writing years Age 22-65....

This could go on until the cows come home, but the essence of it breaks down to a set of years that ‘most’ great writers produce their best work, which is typically sometime between age 35 and age 55, a very comfortable twenty year window. Yes, yes, all points can be argued, all dates debated, but remember I’m talking as a whole.

The above is an average, but I believe my point is sound, that being that A Game of Thrones was written in Martin’s prime. Martin was born in 1948, so in 1994 he was 46 which pretty much puts him smack dab in the middle of his prime years. You add 17 years to that publishing figure for the release of A Dance of Dragons and all of a sudden you’ve slipped WELL past your golden creative window to the age of 63 [even the great Asimov was just doing novellas at this point in his life].

It's hard to argue with his conclusions. There are the occasional exceptions, but I remember being simply confused when I read Caesar's Women by Colleen McCullough, the fourth in her Masters of Rome series. While I enjoyed the first three, the fourth was almost as if it was written by a different writer. I never read Caesar, the fifth book, and while I did pick up a copy of The October Horse - great title, incidentally - it was almost unreadable from the start and I put it down almost immediately. McCullough was born in 1937, Caesar's Women was published in 1996, three years after Fortune's Favorites, when she was 59 years old. This suggests that somewhere between the age of 56 and 59, she lost her ups. Or her fastball, if you prefer baseball metaphors. Regardless, it's quite in keeping with Taylor's theory.

This is discouraging as a reader of Martin's work, but I actually find it somewhat encouraging since the first volume in Arts of Dark and Light will be published while I've still got another 15 or 20 years left.

Comments ()

Sic semper pusillus

One would have to have a heart of stone to fail to be amused by the death of this little punk:

A 65-year-old man who was knocked off his bicycle by three teenagers on a Pennsylvania trail shot two of them, killing one, police said according to reports. The Reading Eagle newspaper said the wounded teen, 16, was taken to hospital and the third, aged 15, was taken in for questioning and was later committed to a youth center.... According to police, the 65-year-old was riding his bicycle when the teens knocked him to the ground, the station said. Police said two teens then assaulted the man, who drew his gun and shot them.

What a pity that's not on YouTube. Can you imagine the expression on the face of the dying little prick? One moment, he thinks he's a happy-slapping bad ass impressing his friends with a little casual assault-and-battery and the very next moment, it's game over. For good. Way to go, tough guy.

Concealed carry is certainly one of the more effective means of teaching the little bastards to show the elderly at least a modicum of respect.

Comments ()

BF3: the Alleyway

I like to start out as an Engineer in the Grand Bazaar mission map, equipped with mines and an RPG and the Explosive aspect. Since the armor on both sides usually makes a beeline for each other, I run alongside it and throw out all six of my mines, two near the flag and the other four on the road, then see if I can fire an RPG round or two to help the friendly armor blow up the opposition. I sometimes get blown up along with the AFV or shot down by accompanying assault troops, but usually I can get away with an easy initial kill or two, plus a vehicle disabled or destroyed.

If we're doing okay, which means we have at least one of the two flags, I come back with Recon if we don't have the Alleyway or Assault if we do. Assault lets me revive my fellow alleyway defenders while Recon lets me pick off the defenders as the young twitch guys go charging into the teeth of the enemy fire. The important lesson as a sniper is to not use a suppressor, as it reduces the damage you deal out while doing little to conceal your position. I increased my average mission kills by a full kill simply by ditching the suppressor.

Once the enemy gives up on the Alleyway, it's time to switch back to Recon since the young guys are too impatient to sit around defending. This lets me pick off the solo guys who are trying to steal a seemingly undefended flag. If my side doesn't get overwhelmed at the start, I can usually count on getting 5-7 sniper kills in the Alleyway alone. And it's amusing when late in the mission, one of the mines set earlier takes out an AFV. The problem is that unless one Assault or Engineer sticks around to guard your sniping, eventually you're going to miss someone sneaking into close combat range and getting you with an SMG.

Now that I've got access to some better equipment, like the optical sights in the tanks, I've steadily increased my expected k/d ratio, from around .25 at the start to 1.3+ now. Last night I even had a stellar 4.0 ratio, complete with a top score and Ace Squad ribbon. Now that I've got the Javelin, that should help with the helicopter hunting, and I've learned to stalk tanks with mines rather than RPGs.

I think my favorite kill thus far was this afternoon, in a close-fought mission that we ended up losing by just two tickets. After taking out a helicopter with my brand-new Javelin, I came back as an Engineer in the Russian deployment, but since there were no tanks I hopped in a jeep and tooled off down the road. I saw an enemy jeep was flying down the highway towards me and we hit each other with glancing blow. We both spun around facing each other about 50 meters away, almost as if we were jousting.

I hopped out of my jeep while he sped towards me, intending to run me over. I'm sure he thought I was going to try to pick him off before he could flatten me, but actually I had pulled out an AT mine. I threw it down and jumped off to the side as he hit it squarely for an instant kill and vehicle destruction. Highly satisfying.

Comments ()

Dawkins doubles down

I know a lot of people found it difficult to believe that Richard Dawkins's arguments are as haplessly bad as they are. But every time he speaks out, he reveals that he is both dishonest and as reliably inept as I described in TIA:

“If children are taught, however moderately, that faith is a virtue, they are taught that they don’t need evidence to believe something; that they can believe something just because it’s their faith, then that paves the way for the minority to become extremists. If children are taught that they don’t need to defend their beliefs with evidence, then that does pave the way for extremism.”

He believes that atheism will soon become a more popular framework for people. “There seems to be a correlation with education. It’s certainly true within the US — the more educated people are more likely to give up religion. I’m sure that’s true in India as well,” he says, adding that even US presidents may have been atheists but they’re not allowed to say so or they won’t get re-elected. “I think Lincoln, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama may well be an atheist. Obama’s a very intelligent man. He probably is an atheist,” he says. “There are 535 members in the US congress. Presumably some of them are reasonably educated. It’s inconceivable that only one of them is an atheist. There’s got to be at least 50% of them.”

Being a conventionally clueless academic, Dawkins clearly doesn't realize that the educational systems across the West are barely capable of teaching children how to read or do math. The idea that it is going to teach them to believe in things only based on evidence is absurd. And the stupidity of the idea is underliend by the fact that it is readily apparent that Richard Dawkins doesn't even know what "evidence" is! This is a massive blunder and proves that he genuinely is as stupid as his inept arguments dissected in TIA make him appear!

One can only wonder about the logic behind Dawkins's absurd claim that half the U.S. Congress is atheist. Or what is the evidence upon which he bases this belief, since he presents nothing but a naked assertion. As for Obama being an atheist, everyone knows that's not true. One can quite credibly make the case for him being a Muslim since he is known to have been one as a child; there is no shortage of documentary evidence attesting to his Islamic heritage. Or one could also make the case that he is a Muslim apostate who converted to Christianity, as he himself declared last year. But where is the evidence that Obama is an atheist? Dawkins offers nothing beyond the fact of Obama's education.

In trying to claim that all of these men who openly and publicly confessed their belief, not only in God, but often in specific religious theologies, are actually atheists, Dawkins is being blatantly dishonest. This is deeply ironic, given his angry response to those historically misinformed Christians who believe that Charles Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed.

Comments ()

A man of the people

Or not, as it happens:

On a scale from 0 to 20 points, where 20 signifies full engagement with mainstream American culture and 0 signifies deep cultural isolation within the new upper class bubble, you scored between 0 and 4. In other words, your bubble is so thick you may not even know you're in one.

In fairness, I haven't even lived in the United States for more than a decade. But this result illustrates why I always find it tremendously amusing when insufficiently informed critics attempt to lump this blog in with the conventional conservative Red State crowd.

Anyhow, what do you say about lunch in Davos on Friday, Bertrand?

Comments ()

Curie-Hultgreen Syndrome

I know I've mentioned this before, but have you ever noticed that female pioneers appear to have an extraordinary facility for offing themselves whilst engaged in their pioneering?

A woman who defied a driving ban on female motorists in Saudi Arabia has died in a car crash. Another was hurt in the crash in the only country in the world where females are banned from getting behind the wheel.

I have absolutely no doubt that the first woman to walk on the Moon would somehow manage to trip and break her neck. Even if her "Moon walk" was staged on the same film stage that was used for the Apollo "landings". And the first female NFL referee will probably wind up getting crushed to death the first time she tries to sort out a fumble scrum.

I find it fascinating that female pioneers have a higher "suicide" rate than women who are actually trying to commit suicide.

Comments ()

Sweeping it under the table

Obama is still trying to let the big banks get away with the massive quantities of criminal activity in which they engaged during the housing boom and bust:

The Associated Press reports that a proposed deal could be announced within weeks. Five banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)—would pay the federal government $25 billion. About $17 billion would be used to reduce the principal that some struggling homeowners owe, $5 billion more would be used for future federal and state programs and $3 billion would be used to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent. Civil immunity would be granted to the banks for any role in foreclosure fraud, and there would be no investigations.

Once more, we see that there is absolutely no law whatsoever in the USA. There is barely even the pretense of it here. And looking at it from a political perspective, one would think the Republicans could easily ride this issue of tremendous bank-related corruption and abuse of the home-owning public to victory in November except for one small problem: both Romney and Gingrich are as wholly-owned by the banks as is Obama.

If only there was a candidate who wasn't a banker's puppet. Surely he would be the ideal presidential nominee under these circumstances!

Comments ()

Excursions in Alpha

I suppose I am definitionally obliged to assume that you're all going to be fascinated by the news that I am reportedly a narcissist.

A more disputable question is whether the quantity inelasticity of female demand is a better way of explaining the inapplicability of the conventional demand curve to the supply of available men or if ALPHA and BETA men should simply be regarded as two fundamentally different markets. Color me extremely dubious about the latter; a Ferrari may be vastly more desirable than a Hyundai, but at the end of the day, they're still both cars being sold in the automotive market.

And finally, there is a cursory examination of what some have observed to be the phenomenon of divorced mothers with limited custody losing interest in their children, and how fathers facing divorce might be able to feed and take advantage of it in order to raise their children.

Comments ()

That settles that

I received the following email a few minutes ago:

After around 5 years of the CoComment service we had to decide to terminate the service per 31.3.2012 due to a poor economical perspective of the service and the lack of options and opportunities.

Per 31.3.2009 due to the economical situation at that time we already had to decide to wind-down CoComment to an absolute minimal level of operation. After further 18 months of minimal operations... we now had to finally decide to fully stop also the minimal operation of the service. Unfortunately it was not possible to find any option to continue the service.

We are sorry to have to hereby formally inform you that we will stop the CoComment service according the the Terms of Use per 31.3.2012.

The Service will be switched off at 31.3.2012 at midnight 12:00 am.

We thank you for your comprehension.

I'd be a bit more sanguine about the possibilities if the other options all didn't seem to be obsessed with forcing Blogger users to convert to the exceedingly limited templates of the "new" Blogger. Any ideas or recommendations? I already know that I don't like Disqus, having experimented with it a few months ago.

Comments ()

"Israel Firster" is a factual label

A label can't reasonably be described as a slur when it is both demonstrably true and accurately descriptive. This should suffice to explode the recent dishonest attempts of various neocons to hide blatant Jewish disloyalty to the USA under the guise of anti-semitism:

In a Jan. 13 opinion piece, Andrew Adler offered three possible options to ensure Israel’s security in the Middle East: a strike against the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, an attack against Iran, and having Israel’s U.S.-based Mossad agents assassinate Obama. Adler said “a hit” against the president would “preserve Israel’s existence.” He said Vice President Joe Biden would then be able “to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

If you're openly advocating the murder of a head of state in order to force that state to become the subordinate military arm of another state, it is totally obvious that you are placing the interests of the second state first. Assuming that Adler is an American, this is outright treason. Emotional appeals to the Holocaust no more justify Jewish treason against America than appeals to the Mongol slaughter in China would justify treason committed by Americans of Chinese descent.

Now, I have nothing against the Israel First position when it is expressed by Israelis. They should put Israel first; no one else is going to. But likewise, Americans are expected to put American interests first. This is only one of the many reasons why the USA should return to its longtime historical policy of outlawing dual-citizenship.

It is also worth nothing that the idea of assassinating the U.S. president in order to "preserve Israel's existence" is a monstrously stupid one. If the Israeli leaders were ever so mindlessly arrogant as to to attack their country's foremost supporter among the nations of the world in a manner that not even National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union ever dared to attempt, most Americans would be more than willing to nuke Jerusalem.

To say nothing of the fact that Biden confuses things so often, he might accidentally order the invasion of Israel when he meant to attack Iran. Anyhow, here is exactly what Adler wrote:

"Well, here are your "Kobayahsi Maru" options. "Kobayahsi Maru" is a term used in "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" to describe a no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem.

One, order a pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah and Hamas, knowing that military and civilian casualties will be high, but not as high as they would be in 2017.

Two, go against Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's wish that Israel take a lethal bullet in the name of preserving a healthy, worldwide economic climate, and order the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities at all costs.

Three give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy include helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read" three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"

Now, I actually found the second option to be even more shocking than the third. I mean, on what planet does this "healthy, worldwide economic climate" Adler describes exist? But speaking of Israeli involvement in U.S. politics, it may be worth noting that one such Israeli citizen is presently keeping the Gingrich campaign afloat.

"A wealthy backer of Newt Gingrich will inject $5 million into a “super PAC” supporting his presidential bid, two people with knowledge of the contribution said on Monday, providing a major boost to Mr. Gingrich as he seeks to fend off aggressive attacks from Mitt Romney, his main Republican rival. The supporter, Dr. Miriam Adelson, is the wife of Sheldon Adelson, a longtime Gingrich friend and a patron who this month contributed $5 million to the super PAC, Winning Our Future. Dr. Adelson’s check will bring the couple’s total contributions to Winning Our Future to $10 million...."

Comments ()

Adios Amendments 4 and 5

The judicial war on the U.S. Constitution continues apace:

American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case. Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21--or face the consequences including contempt of court.

Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order. The Fifth Amendment says that nobody may be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which has become known as the right to avoid self-incrimination.

"I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Blackburn wrote in a 10-page opinion today. He said the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789 and has been used to require telephone companies to aid in surveillance, could be invoked in forcing decryption of hard drives as well.

It's always interesting to see the logical contortions through which America's corrupt judges go when they are determined to reach a conclusion that flies directly in the face of the Constitution. Given that Americans have "the right to remain silent" as well as the right to be "secure in their papers and effects", there is no way that a judge can legitimately order any American to cough up a passphrase.

This is just one more piece of evidence demonstrating that the federal government is corrupt, lawless, and unconstitutional. It is an Augean Stables that is likely beyond the ability of any one man, even a principled man like Ron Paul, to clean up. But can anyone suggest with a straight face that Mitt Romney, the $45 million man, or that fat little Freddie Mac-owned troll, Newt Gingrich, have any interest whatsoever in doing so?

Comments ()

Mailvox: hit me with your best shot

Agnosticon hasn't delved deeply enough into the archives to understand why things work the way they do:

If a blog is purposed for argument and not just banal discussion, then opposing views are essential for its content. Of course, this would also depend on quality of opposition, and most regulars here will immediately begin insulting self-proclaimed atheists, so it can be concluded that this blog doesn't really value argument. I think many here are here to socialize with like-minded others. It's possible that true argument might not be possible due to asymmetry of opinion, although that isn't necessarily a disqualifier. Conventionally, a "troll" is not just someone who shows up only for argument, rather a person who shows up to derail argument. It would appear that Vox means to argue, since his posts are so often provocative, yet when engaged he often seems too ready just to score a couple points, declare victory, and get out. There are other people here who seem genuinely interested in argument.

Agnosticon first fails to distinguish between legitimate and substantive arguments versus those that are obviously stupid and fallacious in considering whether the Dread Ilk are interested in arguments in general. He seems to be unaware that I have written a book in which dozens of popular atheist arguments are conclusively demolished and have addressed many more on this blog over the past four years, so when yet another clueless college kid shows up and starts spouting off half-understood atheist pablum that everyone has seen before, it is hardly a mystery that he meets with nothing but ridicule, especially when he presents his outdated arguments in an obnoxious and confrontational manner. And why would they be ever be interested in taking such interlocutors seriously, especially when over the last eight years, we have seen this sort of individual lie, move the goalposts, refuse to admit when they are conclusively proved wrong, and otherwise behave in an intellectually unserious manner?

In the very thread in which Agnosticon commented, we have the example of Dan, who cannot understand that utilitarian philosophy is not "a rational basis in fact". Does he honestly recommend that such an individual be taken seriously? And if so, how?

The second thing that Agnosticon fails to recognize is that there is substantial proof right here on this blog that I am genuinely interested in argument of a sufficiently high quality. I have zero interest in arguing for the sake of arguing, much less wasting my time on people who are insufficiently intelligent to say anything new or interesting. It's not a case of scoring a couple of points, declaring victory, and getting out, it is simply about qualifying potential opponents. If a person is incapable of avoiding very basic logical and factual errors, or if it is apparent that they rely upon the usual chicanery such as redefining basic terms and so forth, then there is absolutely no chance they are going to present an argument that I can't shred with ease. But rather than refusing to give everyone a shot, I prefer to permit anyone one or two opportunities to say something interesting or effective. If they want to waste that opportunity on a trivial drive-by comment or two, that's their choice.

If they can't deliver a substantive argument, or if I can identify their glaring mistakes - or worse, intellectual dishonesty - at first glance, then they're done as far as I'm concerned. I already know how the prosecution will proceed and it's all over but for the formalities even before it has begun. And really, considering the number of comments and emails I receive, that's the only way it is possible to allow pretty much everyone who wants one a shot.

So don't waste it on nonsensical blather if you wish me, or anyone else, to take you seriously. I'm quite willing to give Agnosticon the opportunity to present a case for his Singulatarianism, or what I described in The Irrational Atheist as apocalyptic techno-heresy, even though he has one strike against him for having demonstrated an inability to distinguish between logical and philosophical integrity and logical and philosophical necessity. But if he can't present one, that's hardly reflective of my unwillingness to engage in substantive argument.

It's pretty simple. Right now I owe Dominic my next entry in our ongoing debate on the existence of God. Once that concludes, whenever that may be, I'm sure I'll engage someone else in a substantive and detailed debate. Debt deflation might be a good one. But I'm simply not going to focus any time or attention on commenters who publicly demonstrate that they have neither the intelligence nor the intellectual integrity to present a challenge that is both substantive and interesting. Of course, the primary purpose of this blog is for me to amuse myself. Everything else is secondary; I'm pleased that some of you find it worth reading on a regular basis, but that's not its raison d'etre.

Comments ()

Throwing in the towel

Even Michael Yon has reluctantly concluded that it is time to get out of Afghanistan:

This war is going to turn out badly. We are wasting lives and resources while the United States decays and other threats emerge. We led the horse to water.

Importantly, there is no value in pretending that Pakistan is an ally. We should wish the best of luck to the Afghans, and the many peaceful Pakistanis, and accelerate our withdrawal of our main battle force. The US never has been serious about Afghanistan. Under General Petraeus we were starting to gain ground, but the current trajectory will land us in the mud.

The enemies will never beat us in Afghanistan. Force on force, the Taliban are weak by comparison. Yet this is their home. There is only so much we can do at this extreme cost for the many good Afghan people. We must reduce our main effort and concentrate on other matters. Time to come home.

Sincerely,

Michael Yon

It's ten years late in my opinion, but nevertheless, he's correct. Tim Lynch concurs:

There it is; Afghanistan is toast, and what the last 10 years has taught us is we cannot afford to deploy American ground forces. Two billion dollars a week (that’s billion with a B) has bought what? Every year we stay to “bring security to the people,” the security situation for the people gets worse and worse, deteriorating by orders of magnitude. Now the boy genius has announced a “new strategy”. A strategy that is identical to the “strategy” that resulted in a hollow ground force getting its ass kicked by North Korea in 1950; a mere five years after we had ascended to the most dominant military the world had ever known.

As usual, the culprit is historical ignorance and the "this time it's different" crowd. Seriously, every time someone claims that "this time it's different" or "today's youth [fill-in-the-blank], they should be fitted with shock collars and zapped. Anyone who knows anything about military history or who has ever played a strategic wargame knows that it is much harder to hold onto territory than it is to grab it in the first place.

Vox's first rule of war: if you don't colonize, don't occupy.

The United States has been utilizing what may prove to be the most historically inept strategy in the entire history of warfare, in which the enemy nations are occupied while allowing its own territory to be colonized.

Comments ()

Post-Christian nirvana awaits

You would think that the realization of what will fill the post-Christian void is significantly more intrinsically anti-atheistic religion would serve as a check on the atheist hatred for Christianity. But that would require atheists to be rational, and as I have demonstrated in some detail, that simply isn't the case:

31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting “God does not exist” on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault....

Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal. According to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tries to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in jail for blasphemy.

Atheists point to the inevitable triumph of atheism because a few very small European countries with birth rates below the replacement level now have statistically significant atheist minorities. (None have an atheist majority). Meanwhile, Islamic nations with populations nearly equal to the entire European Union with birth rates nearly twice those of Sweden, France, and other European countries are, unlike historic Christianity, actively prosecuting atheists.

And from this evidence, the atheist somehow manages to conclude that he is not only winning, but that the triumph of atheism is inevitable. It would appear that the godless must subscribe to the Charlie Sheen school of data analysis. It is little wonder their arguments against the existence of God are so uniformly inept.

Comments ()

WND column

The Debt Still Lingers

As the media and political world continue to occupy themselves with the Republican horse race, the elected representatives of both the Republican and Democratic parties are quietly continuing to spend the nation deeper into the debt abyss. While the amusingly misnamed Budget Control Act of 2011 was supposed to settle the debt-ceiling discussion until after the presidential election this November by increasing the amount of permissible debt by at least $2.1 trillion – a mere 14 percent of American GDP – the speed at which the Congress and the administration have been whipping out the government credit card means that there is a reasonable chance that they will burn through that additional debt in barely one year.

Comments ()

RIP Joe Paterno

Thus endeth the saga:

Joseph Vincent Paterno, the winningest coach in Division I football history -- a title that will likely endure given the transient nature of today's relationships between school and coach -- was 85. His death came two months after it was revealed he was being treated for lung cancer.

It is to be regretted that a sick old man spent his last three months living in public shame due to a single moral failure of the sort that many, if not most, men in similar positions of authority have made on one or more occasions. If overlooking the transgressions of a colleague is to be considered tantamount to committing the transgression itself, every single member of the police forces across the country should be in jail, if this is the yardstick applied.

On the other hand, the sad last chapter to Paterno's life is an object lesson that one mistake, of the wrong kind and at the wrong time, is all that it takes to ruin a reputation built up over decades. Barack Obama, no great thinker he, once said that his daughters shouldn't be "punished" for the rest of their lives for making a single mistake. Setting aside the dubious assertion of whether or not having children is a punishment, many lives are altered in the blink of an eye by a single mistake. Simply failing to look both ways before crossing the road can end a life and affect a dozen others, just to give one example.

So, it's fair to remember that Joe Paterno wasn't a saint. But it is not right to pretend that he was some sort of monster, rather than a decent and much-loved man who once failed to live up to his ideals at precisely the wrong time and place.

Comments ()

Conference Championship Day

It seems astonishing that it was only two years ago that the Vikings were going into the Superdome and I was reasonably confident that they would walk out having taken another step towards for a very winnable Super Bowl. We all know how that ended up, thanks to the usual voodoo.

In the AFC game, I think the Patriots will beat the Ravens without too much trouble. Although they're playing well, the Ravens defense is getting older, they don't match up well with Hernandez and Gronkowski, and Belichick+Brady > Harbaugh+Flacco. I thought Houston actually looked like the better team last week and likely would have won without that dreadful decision by Jacoby Jones to try to field a punt better left untouched.

On the NFC side, it feels like the 1980s again. But the 49ers don't have Montana or Young and I think the Giants will beat the 49ers in a more competitive game than the AFC championship. The 49ers defense is fearsome and hard-hitting, but the Giants offense isn't a high-precision machine and won't be disrupted as easily. He may look stupid, but Eli Manning's apparent inability to recognize pressure becomes a big plus in the playoffs. He takes Barry Sanders's "act like you've been there before" philosophy to new heights; when everyone else is celebrating a big, timely touchdown, he's looking as if he's wondering what the fuss is all about.

And looking at it from the conspiratorial angle, you have to think that the league would love to push the REVENGE angle with a Patriots-Giants Super Bowl. It was pretty obvious that the Packers were supposed to make it, but their meltdown was so complete that not even blatant assistance from the referees made any difference.

Last week 3-1. For the playoffs, 6-2.

UPDATE: Make that 8-2.

Comments ()