Fuzzy little things that I find interesting.

Political musings from someone who thinks the S-D curve is more important to politics than politicians.

Piling on to my earlier post.

Three wild speculations from amateur quantitative macrohistory

“Everything was awful for a very long time, and then the industrial revolution happened.”

Interestingly, this is not the impression of history I got from the world history books I read in school.

Well, because it doesn’t fit in the romanticized past Progressives believe in, and wish we could return to.

Advertisements

The implications of this are pretty God-damned deep.

The Conservatism of Progressives

Most “progressives” (meaning those on the left to far left who prefer that term) would freak if they were called conservative, but what I mean by conservative in this context is not donate-to-Jesse-Helms capital-C Conservative but fearful of change and uncomfortable with uncertainty conservative.

OK, most of you are looking at this askance – aren’t progressives always trying to overthrow the government or something? Aren’t they out starting riots at G7 talks? The answer is yes, sure, but what motivates many of them, at least where it comes to capitalism, is a deep-seated conservatism.

However, when we move to fields such as commerce, progressives stop trusting individual decision-making. Progressives who support the right to a person making unfettered choices in sexual partners don’t trust people to make their own choice on seat belt use. Progressives who support the right of fifteen year old girls to make decisions about abortion without parental notification do not trust these same girls later in life to make their own investment choices with their Social Security funds. …

Beyond just the concept of individual decision-making, progressives are hugely uncomfortable with capitalism. Ironically, though progressives want to posture as being “dynamic”, the fact is that capitalism is in fact too dynamic for them. Industries rise and fall, jobs are won and lost, recessions give way to booms. Progressives want comfort and certainty. They want to lock things down the way they are. They want to know that such and such job will be there tomorrow and next decade, and will always pay at least X amount. That is why, in the end, progressives are all statists, because, to paraphrase Hayek, only a government with totalitarian powers can bring the order and certainty and control of individual decision-making that they crave.

As they say, read the whole thing. And by the way, here is the two item choice to determine if you’re an anti-capitalist progressive. Which would you pick?

  1. A capitalist society where the overall levels of wealth and technology continue to increase, though in a pattern that is dynamic, chaotic, generally unpredictable, and whose rewards are unevenly distributed, or…
  2. A “progressive” society where everyone is poorer, but income is generally more evenly distributed. In this society, jobs and pay and industries change only very slowly, and people have good assurances that they will continue to have what they have today, with little downside but also with very little upside.

However, I do want to add one thing, from an unrelated location:

Why Double Entry Bookkeeping Was Not Crucial, Nor Other Proffered Necessary Conditions

What made us rich, I argue at no doubt tedious and unreadable length in the Bourgeois Era trilogy, is imagination, ingenuity, radical ideas released.

That is, learning, ingenuity and new ideas, driven by the imagination of people inventing new processes, new devices or new business methods, is what has driven the growth of wealth.

And it is classical liberal capitalism, not “diligence” or “hard work”, which led to the explosion of wealth over the past 150 years which makes today’s world completely unfamiliar to an agrarian settler living a sustenance existence in the United States in the late 1800’s. Human creativity was “released from ancient trammels” by “liberalism, Smith’s ‘liberal plan of [social] equality, [economic] liberty, and legal [justice].'”

So when a progressive argues that the world would be measurably better if we were poorer (i.e., living a “more meaningful life” closer to nature, stripped of the unnecessary contrivances and plethora of choices that Bernie Sanders once railed against), but a more “evenly distributed” society (similar to the idealistic Ba’ku people in Star Trek: Insurrection)–what they really are speaking about is living in ignorance.

Because the moment a people are trapped in well established trammels for their own good by the Statists who believe they know better than us, all in the name of “progress”–that’s the moment the world is set for a major disruption if someone happens to come across a better method or a more efficient way.

So Progressivism, really, is a call to ignorance and stupidity. It is a rejection of the dynamic forces that happen when people sit down and figure out a better way. It is a call to an ancient ignorance that promises a “simpler” life–a swan song, a siren call pulling us to the rocky shoals and onward to our death.

Really? This needs to be said?

Have we become such fragile flowers a company like Twitter has to spell out something so painfully obvious?

Twitter tries to explain why Trump’s posts aren’t like others

If it’s ‘newsworthy’ then the tweet stays up, even if it’s a threat.

Well, and the post that people want censured–which shows just how fucking stupid this has all become–is the one mentioned in this article: ‘Declaration Of War’ Means North Korea Can Shoot Down U.S. Bombers, Minister Says


Look, I get it. If I were to post a tweet saying “John, you fucking asshole, I’m going to kick your ass!”–well, that tweet should be taken down. It’s a specific call to violence against a specific individual–and if the threat of violence is credible, it is, in point of fact, assault, which is against the law:

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.

(Now most companies error on the side of taking down threats, even if they are not “coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause harm”, because third party companies like Twitter are unable to determine if a threat is credible, or if it is not.)

However, and the point most people nowadays trying to get shit taken off the Internet they don’t like utterly fail to comprehend, is that the post is taken down not because someone said a mean thing that may upset our fragile feelings. Nor is it cart blanche to take down posts we dislike from people we dislike because they sounded all mean and they didn’t even agree with us! (Whine, whine.)

No, it’s taken down because of the potential of representing a real and credible threat: a violation of the law.

It’s why other mean and hateful posts which may hurt our poor wittle feewings (cue worlds smallest violin) don’t get taken down. Because my saying “John, you fucking asshole, you’re such an idiot” is not a threat. Nor, by the way, are the tweets coming from various police agencies threatening arrest and prosecution of people committing certain crimes: the police are in fact legally allowed (and obligated) to make such arrests.

In both cases, there is no potential crime. Hurt feelings, sure–but suck it up, Sparky; life is full of hateful shit.

More importantly, while it would be nice if people were to act in more civil ways–the world is not a civil place. Personally I feel free to counter incivility with incivility–because when civility fails, some people only respond to a rhetorical back slap. (The worst, by the way, is passive-aggressive incivility. But I digress.)


That said, was President Trump’s tweet a potential violation of the law?

Of course not. President Trump is free to use any language he wants, as President of the United States, in order to accomplish the strategic goals of the office he has been elected to.

We may not agree with how he’s going about his job; that’s what elections are for. (And that’s why elections have consequences, as President Obama so famously put it.)

But to take President Trump’s tweet down on the theory that it represented a credible illegal act–a credible call to violence against a specific person in violation of statutes against assault–please.


It is a shame that Twitter’s HR department can’t figure this out, that they are unable to go back to basic principles to derive the reason why Trump saying we’re going pound North Korea into the ground is not the same as me saying I’m going to pound John into the ground.

Because it leaves idiot reporters for places like Engadget begging the question with stupid statements like this:

So if Twitter’s rules ban “violent threats,” then surely a tweet indicating that a country “won’t be around much longer” from a user with the ability to make that happen would be deletion-worthy, right?

And Twitter’s reliance on the “newsworthy” excuse doesn’t work, does it? Because what if John is famous and I in fact beat the living shit out of John? Isn’t that newsworthy?


We’re so down the rabbit hole nowadays because people can’t wind back to the foundational principles on which they’ve built their ontological stack. So they don’t know fundamentally why Trump’s threatening North Korea is philosophically (and, more importantly, legally) different from my threatening John.

It’s why so many companies like Twitter then get bit in the ass, when they do something they think “feels” right–but which has no actual philosophical or legal justification beyond “because I said so.”

I confess I completely missed this.

The Horrifying Easter Egg Everyone Missed In Indiana Jones

So in that third film, the protagonist finds himself in Hatay (now part of Turkey), in an ancient temple facing three booby traps (it’s well-known that while Jesus was a “carpenter,” what he built were primarily booby traps). The theme of the traps is that only true Christians will be able to get through safely without being dismembered, apparently a symbolic representation of how getting into Heaven works.

In one section of the cave, Indy is told “Only the penitent man will pass.” Knowing this is some sort of Biblical riddle (and that apparently faith makes you better at solving riddles), Indy struggles for an answer before, at the last possible second, he realizes he must literally kneel down “before God” and … do a kickass forward somersault? Yes, this is when our blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment occurs:

A blade whizzes past at neck height, forcing Indy to his knees. Any non-kneeling heretic would find themselves neatly decapitated. But the reason he has to then roll forward is that a second blade flies up from the floor.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would a penitent man also be a skilled tumbler with lightning-fast reflexes?

I honestly wondered this myself. And I do remember the scene and remember thinking “what the heck?” But the explanation offered makes perfect sense, in a rather horrifying way.

On Statues, Southern Pride and Marxist Smashers.

One of the smartest essays I’ve read on the topic of confederate statues:

Unlearning history

In some circles there’s lately a vogue for vandalizing or pulling down Confederate statues. The people doing it think (or say they think) that they’re striking a blow against racism. I think they’re, at best, engaged in a dangerous reopening of old wounds. At worst they’re threatening to inflict serious new ones.

Eric Raymond then goes on to discuss the post-war period, the reconciliation between the North and South which left the South one of the most patriotic and pro-American regions of the Union, and the damage caused by reopening old wounds by Marxist Red Guards whose real goal is to destroy American pride and replace it with Marxist cant.

Worth a read, even if you disagree.

In support of anti-elitism.

Periodically I see articles like this, and I’ve been meaning to respond.

To be clear, by the definitions of most articles like this, I would be considered part of the “elite”: I graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a degree in Mathematics, having studied abstract topological spaces and computational geometry. I work as a software developer, a field which requires a relatively high level of logic and intellectualism. I also spend a lot of time studying human interfaces and the limits of human cognition; this comes as part of my job. Economically my wife and I are not quite 1%ers by income, but we certainly are ahead of most of the population. I have a few political connections (though politics is something I’d rather comment on than participate in), and I have a respectably high IQ, meaning I’m good at seeing patterns others don’t see right away.

So when I respond to an article like this, I am not responding as a “populist”: as someone who is suspicious of the “privileged elites” and believes power needs to be given to the “common man” regardless of what station those privileged elites hold.

To be clear, while I am highly supportive of right of everyone to live their lives as they will (different strokes and all that), I am highly suspicious that “common wisdom” exists, and I am highly suspicious of the idea that the “common man” has the ability to process the highly technical aspects we see in some corners of our society. (On the other hand, I do believe it is the responsibility of those who understand to simplify and explain: for those in the know to prepare a “freshman lecture”, both to recognize if they understand, and to explain to others who are less learned than they are.)

So when I respond here, I’m hardly the stereotypical knuckle-dragging moron that most so-called “experts” think of who respond to stuff like this.


In Defense of Elitism

Why is it, then, that in intellectual spheres elitism is criticized and shunned? A comparable amount of talent and training may be necessary to a respected professor or scientist, and yet many people think their opinions are just as valuable with respect to their specific ares of expertise.

Because intellectual elitism is also intellectually narrow.

Take Stephen Hawking, for example, one of the most intellectually gifted theoretical physicists in the modern world. His research in the fields of black holes, general relativity and the like are absolutely cutting edge, and his knowledge in the fields of theoretical physics (and the frameworks which carry you there, such as calculus) is top-notch.

To suggest some random hacker like myself is equal to Stephen Hawking’s knowledge in theoretical physics is beyond absurd. I could spend the rest of my life trying to understand what Professor Hawking knows–and never understand it all.

Stephen Hawking is, thanks to his knowledge of the Universe, a well known celebrity.

And this is where it all goes haywire. Because lately Professor Hawking has been wading into the debate about Artificial Intelligence, a field that Professor Hawking has not studied to the same depth as his prior work on black holes and space-time. It’s not to suggest that his arguments aren’t worth listening to–that’s a logical fallacy–but to amplify his words given his celebrity status, when (in all humility) I’ve probably spent more time in the field of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence–and at that point this whole “expertise” thing comes off the rails.

Why is it, then, that in intellectual spheres elitism is criticized and shunned?

Interestingly, Dr. Novella, the author of the article, answers his own question without realizing it:

Interestingly, the more physical and immediate the outcome, the more elitism is tolerated. Compare surgery to medicine. The skill and talent of the surgeon is unquestionably recognized, and no one sane would allow a self-trained and uncredentialed “surgeon” to perform major surgery on them. But I have news for you – many areas of medicine are just as hard and take as many years of training.

Though–having spent a lot of time in a medical setting recently (thanks to the passing of a couple of people I know), I wouldn’t use the word “tolerated” but “respected.”

And yet… notice that even in the medical setting, we don’t go to an ENT (Ear-Nose-Throat) specialist in order to do open heart surgery.

Expertise is narrow.


The cry of “elitism” has become a major component of anti-intellectualism, denying the value and legitimacy of intellectual pursuits. Everyone might be entitled to their own opinion, but that does not make all opinions are of equal value.

On this point I whole heartedly agree.

Where it goes wrong for me is how improperly this idea is applied in real life, ironically by so-called “experts.”

For example, take Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose Ph.D. is in astrophysics and cosmology. If we wanted to talk to an expert about astrophysics and cosmology, then clearly Dr. Tyson is your man. He’s also your man if you want to (say) talk about the wonders of astronomy.

He is, however, not an expert in Climatology or Philosophy. At best he is an intelligent celebrity–but then, would we also give the same credence to Queen rock guitarist Brian May? After all, Dr. May’s Ph.D. is also in astrophysics.

Where the rubber meets the road with the supposed “anti-intellectual” movement “decrying the value and legitimacy of intellectual pursuits” is when science and experts meets politics.

You can consider politics its own field of expertise–a sort of cross between the practical art of engineering solutions with the practical art of reaching compromises. In politics its all about framing problems and selling solutions, while considering the impact those solutions may have on people who are being affected.

And in this field of expertise, people like Dr. Tyson, Dr. Hawking, Dr. Novella or (to use more charged names here) Dr. Michael Mann or Dr. James Hansen, who supports a national carbon tax are all strangers in a strange land: non-expert intelligent celebrities like Dr. May (whose celebrity came by playing the guitar). To call them “elite” in this context does a massive disservice to the very sort of “expertise” Dr. Novella pretends to advocate for.

None of these people are “elite” in the field of politics. They are just well-connected, using a larger microphone than they deserve.


The problem is not that people are anti-intellectual–though undoubtedly you can find a lot of anti-intellectualism at the fringe of our society, or of any society for that matter. (There are always people who believe in the literal healing power of crystals or ancient alien astronauts building the pyramids.) By and large, as Dr. Novella noted, we do respect experts in their personal field of expertise.

But when so-called experts leverage their expertise to gain celebrity status, then use their celebrity status to opine on subjects not in their field of expertise–expect people to take their words with a grain of salt.

And rightfully so. Because a world where we cede political control to a small elite group of supposed “experts” operating outside of their narrow field of expertise is not “meritocracy”. It’s classical oligarchy, but where our high priests rulers proclaim the religion of scientism.


Perhaps a first step to improving the situation is to stop selectively demonizing intellectual elitism. We praise elite athletes, give our money and adulation to elite performers and artists, and trust in those with elite technical skills. We should also recognize the value of elite intellectual talent and skills.

I once had a doctor–an Ear-Nose-Throat expert I had gone to regarding my snoring–tell me to stop eating microwaved foods because (I shit you not) he told me “microwaves change the molecular structure of the food.” My wife (a Registered Dietitian) basically rolled her eyes when I told her that. Sure, microwaving “changes the molecular structure of the food”–but through a process called “cooking.”

So I suggest to Dr. Novella that perhaps as a first step to improving the situation, experts need to start recognizing the limits of their expertise.

Because the one thing Americans hate more than anything else is someone who clearly has no expertise in a particular topic (even if they have expertise elsewhere) talking down to us like we’re a bunch of fucking fools.

Now if I wanted an opinion in neurology and neuroscience–trust me Dr. Novella, you’re first on my list of people to call.

Anything else? Get in fucking line.

Because despite your apparent protestations to the contrary, outside of your narrow field of expertise–you’re not an elite. You just think you are.

Our dreams of Marxism are really our dreams of Heaven–forgetting that to go to Heaven, you must first die.

Why Trump’s UN Speech Was a Triumph

… “The problem in Venezuela,” Trump said, “is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

It is important to see Trump’s speech in the the broader context of utopian ambition generally. In a memorable passage at the beginning of The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant evokes a soaring dove that, “cleaving the air in her free flight,” feels the resistance of the wind and imagines that its flight “would be easier still in empty space.” It is a fond thought, of course, since absent that aeolian pressure that dove would simply plummet to the ground.

How regularly the friction of reality works that way: making possible our endeavors even as it circumscribes and limits their extent. And how often, like Kant’s dove, we are tempted to imagine that our freedoms would be grander and more extravagant absent the countervailing forces that make them possible.

Such fantasies are as perennial as they are vain. They insinuate themselves everywhere in the economy of human desire, not least in our political arrangements. Noticing the imperfection of our societies, we may be tempted into thinking that the problem is with the limiting structures we have inherited. If only we could dispense with them, we might imagine, beating our wings, how much better things might be.

What a cunning, devilish word is “might.” For here as elsewhere, possibility is cheap. Scrap our current political accommodations and things might be better. Then again, they might be a whole lot worse. Vide the host of tyrannies inspired by that disciple of airy possibility, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “Man was born free,” he declaimed, “but is everywhere in chains”: two startling untruths in a single famous utterance.

Rousseau was keen on “forcing men to be free,” but we had to wait until his followers Robespierre and Saint-Just to discover that freedom in this sense is often indistinguishable from what Robespierre chillingly called “virtue and its emanation, terror.”

In which I engage in a little “science denial.”

Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 1: Surface Air Temperatures

The climate change industry, however, is totally unregulated and can do pretty much what it likes with its data. And it adopts completely the opposite attitude. All raw climate data, including raw temperature data, are deemed to be distorted by biases to the point where they are unusable in their unadjusted form. Adjustments are not only desirable, but essential, before the data become reliable enough to be used. And there may indeed be cases where this approach is valid, but in many others the adjustments that ultimately get applied are so large as to raise the question of whether the raw data were reliable enough to be used in the first place. Nevertheless the approach does have one major advantage. It allows records that don’t show what the data adjusters think they should show to be manipulated into a form where they do. We’ve already seen a lot of this in previous posts and will see more here.

I am reminded of a comment made by Dr. Richard Feynman talking about the Milikan Oil Drop Experiment:

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn’t they discover the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that …

And one of the problems with Global Warming and with researchers on the cutting edge is the constant drumbeat and pressure for them to find warming. So there is no “grand conspiracy” here. Instead, there is pressure to drop a measurement here, to rely on a small dataset there, to justify away a lack of warming from one set of measurements while adjusting another data set.

None of which would fundamentally bother me.

But a number of datasets are no longer provided without “additional quality control procedures” being applied first. Further, while various organizations promise to make the algorithms available that are applying this “quality control”, at present they seem not to be made available. (See Q6 of this page, for an example.)

As I’ve always said, a scientific paper that does not provide sufficient information and the datasets necessary for another scientist or a well-informed lay person to reproduce the results, it’s not a scientific paper. It’s a press release.

And that fundamentally bothers me.

Making the Measurements Match the Models – Part 2: Sea Surface Temperatures

Matching sea surface temperatures (SSTs) to climate models requires a large stair-step cooling adjustment. In this post we review whether this adjustment is valid and find that it isn’t. The specific implications are that combined land-ocean “surface temperature” series underestimate global warming between 1910 and 1950 by approximately 0.3°C and that most of the sea surface warming in the 20th century occurred before 1950, not after. And because discarding the spurious adjustments applied to the raw SST data results in a large mismatch between models and observations the general implication is that we still have no good understanding of what drives temperature changes at the ocean surface.

(Emphasis mine.)

Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 3: Lower Troposphere Satellite Temperatures

Except for small gaps over the poles the satellite temperature series are the only truly global temperature series we have; their defect is that they do not begin until 1979. Published series are constructed using raw records from different satellites that require large adjustments to bring them into line, but the good comparison between the most widely-referenced series – the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) lower troposphere (TLT) series – and radiosonde series suggests that these adjustments are valid. The other widely-referenced series – the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) TLT series was adjusted in 2015 to show over 0.2C more warming since 1979 than UAH. Data reviews do not tell us which series is the more correct, but the circumstances surrounding the RSS adjustments are suspicious. In any event, both series show significantly less warming in the lower troposphere than predicted by climate model simulations – yet another instance of the measurements not matching the models.

(Again, emphasis mine.)


My original departure from the global warming orthodoxy, as it has become, actually came from reading the early IPCC reports back around AR-1 and the associated discussions. My departure was not from the science of global warming; at that time I had no insight into the temperature models or the adjustments being performed to various data sets which make the resulting measurements match the model, as scientists did shortly after Millikan and his oil drop experiment.

No, my departure was from the economic model which projected CO2 emissions growth based on economic development. It seemed to me that the amount of CO2 emissions assigned to each country was in direct proportion to it’s GDP, rather than by attempting to do any sort of analysis of economic activity–as if by my sitting in front of a computer which consumes less than 100 watts of power but writing software for a living, I emit 4 times more CO2 than a truck driver who makes 1/4th my salary.

But the first assessment report made some interesting economic predictions which made no god-damned sense at all. Such that, by this time, the African nation-states would have developed into an economic powerhouse rivaling the United States.

Do you see the African nation-states currently rivaling the United States in economic power? Because that’s what we should be seeing if the FAR was correct.

Underneath the geopolitical circumstances which would have been needed for Africa to engage in economic growth–geopolitical realities which did not change in the past 20 years and left us with the rather depressing statement that the Left implicitly gives thanks for all the starving black people in Africa because if they had started rivaling the United States in economic power, the earth would be doomed to runaway global warming–was a failure of the IPCC to even understand what drives economic growth.

Growth is driven by knowledge. Not by large machines (which become obsolete) or by energy (though energy is necessary), nor by factories full of people.

But knowledge: knowledge how to make more efficient machines, knowledge how to better use energy, knowledge how to organize factories in more efficient ways.


It’s why the various press releases under the guise of scientific papers worry me.

Because it’s increasingly clear that we are not interested in knowledge. We are not interested in publishing all the raw data, the algorithms, the software, the models, and allowing people to try to better understand the planet and how it works.

No; this is about control.

And I don’t think there is a grand conspiracy. Instead, I think it’s an army of scientists and activists who believe they know the answer, and who toss the individual measurements out which do not correlate to the answer they believe correct, because (as sometimes happens) the measurement may not have been taken correctly or recorded correctly, or may have come from an improperly cited weather station.


I am not, by the way, suggesting that global warming is not taking place. I’m suggesting we don’t know. Too many people with too many agendas are putting their fingers on the scales. (Tell me I’m wrong by showing me how the adjustments to the raw data in the GISS’s GISTEMP database is legitimate. Oh, wait; you can’t; GISS no longer provides the raw data, only the adjusted temperatures!)

Further, we do know that urban heat islands do happen, and are having a substantial effect on local climate, sometimes to detrimental effect. Development near the base of Mount Fiji and land-use change near Mount Kilimanjaro have led to a local change in the weather which is causing the ice to melt. Urban heat islands triggered by land use change, not global warming, is melting the ice in both locations.

We also know urban heat islands can have a detrimental effect over a wide area, and when combined with urban expansion in places like the San Joaquin Valley, can create real problems when it comes to agriculture.

So action is necessary, even in a world where no global warming is taking place.

It’s a shame, however, that we’ve put all our eggs into he global warming basket. Because now we no longer debate if a factory pollutes the air or if a subdivision of black-roofed houses in the desert is the wisest thing to be doing in a region. Instead, everything goes through the lens of global warming.

And what happens if we decide global warming is not happening, or if some activity doesn’t contribute to global warming–like land use? Well, fuck it: build that factory, pave that forest! Because we no longer care about local effects at all.

*sigh*

If I have to remind you that all is welcome at my business…

… then it is entirely possible that not everyone is indeed welcome in my business.

New Segregation Signs Pop Up in Leftist Establishments

Further, such signs don’t help the reality that, indeed, through the vast majority of the country, we don’t care who you are.

I honestly do not have words.

Bizarre misreading: Hillary Clinton thinks the lesson of Orwell’s 1984 is that you should trust experts, leaders and the press

I honestly do not have anything to say here.

Except this:

I’ve read 1984. I’ve read it several times. I re-read it periodically. I know what 1984 is about. I know what the core lesson of 1984 is. I even understand what is meant when Orwell notes that freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4.

And when Hillary Clinton writes in her book (photograph at the link):

Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. … This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eight-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers instead. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.

(Emphasis mine)

I can honestly and truthfully say, without any hint of irony, thank God we elected Donald Trump as President instead of her.

Because holy fuck on a stick, this shit is really fucked up right about here.

I mean, she thinks that “authoritarianism” is “distrusting authority”?

Just… just wow, man.

Wow.