Trashy America

Will Smith, Chris Rock, and the Rules of the Street

I remember Will Smith from the Fresh Prince days.  I did not really watch the show, but I would see it occasionally, and Smith was indeed very funny.  But he really came to my attention with the 1993 film Six Degrees of Separation.  His performance was dazzling.  But over the last thirty years, I stopped going to the movies.  And I rarely see any of the blockbusters or blockbuster-wannabe's that command the likes of the movie star that Will Smith has become.  The one exception was the 2007 film I Am Legend.  It was no Six Degrees, but it was another excellent performance and, at the time, an interesting script.  Today I would argue that I Am Legend is a must see film, especially for all the little Covid totalitarians.

In any case, to the extent that I think about movies and Hollywood, which is very little, I have always maintained a high opinion of Smith as an actor.  Of course, as with all actors, I have no idea of what kind of man he is.  I am vaguely aware that he and his wife have some sort of unconventional marriage.  But I don't follow any of that closely enough to know the details.

I don't think I have ever watched the Academy Awards.  Perhaps once as an adolescent.  And Sunday night was no exception.  The truth is, I did not even know it was happening.  And even now, I would not typically know that it had happened.  Except that, within hours, it appeared on my favorite website, Instapundit.  Even there I would have ignored it but for the fact that this is not the sort of material that normally appears on the site.  So something highly unusual must have happened.  Earthquake was my first thought.

No need to rehash the details here.

Now, if you have an occasion to spend time with our criminal elements in their natural habitat, I would like to give you one little piece of advice on how to comport yourself.  Be respectful.  Not obsequious, just respectful.  If circumstances call for firmness, fine, be respectfully firm.  To everyone.  Especially to those who don't deserve it.  Why?  Because respect is a big deal in these quarters and any perceived disrespect may lead to violence.  If you are a big guy with a gun, maybe it does not matter.  But if you are a small guy with no gun, use some common sense.  Oh and one more thing, leave your wife at home.

Is it right?  Maybe not.  But hey, this is the street.  And they have their own rules.  When in Rome....

Besides, when you get back home, to your safe neighborhood, in your safe, law-abiding community, you can get back to your normal self.  You can hit that new restaurant that just opened, maybe take in a movie, visit the wine bar on Main Street.  Or hey, maybe a comedy club.  And you don't have to worry about the rules of the street.

Right?

Well no.  In America in 2022, the rules of the street are now just the rules.

I did not care enough to write about this incident until I noticed who was getting all the support.  And it was not Chris Rock.  So it's not only that Will Smith is a thug who lives by the rules of the street, it is that most Americans are on his side.

And don't think I'm letting women off the hook here.  There is no doubt that Smith was egged on by his wife.  She felt aggrieved by a comedian, so she sent her man to defend her honor.  Violently.  She loved it; of course she did.  I have witnessed this dynamic myself, and it is becoming more common.  Can there be any doubt that America is in cultural regression?

I heard Jesse Watters on Fox News ask:  What if instead of Will Smith, it had been, say for instance, Mel Gibson?  Would Americans be equally supportive of a white man attacking a black man over a harmless joke?  Where is the real privilege?

And yes, it was harmless.  Perhaps ill-chosen, but certainly not malicious.  The fact that Will and Jada Pinkett Smith did not recognize this immediately, and their graceless response, speaks volumes about their character.  And the character of all of their supporters.

Graceless?  Let's call it what it is:  Trashy.  I can think of no other word for it.

No one doubts how beautiful she is.  Certainly not Chris Rock.  One possible graceful response?  Jada should have stood up and taken a bow.  Given the fact that most people in that room seemed to know that she has alopecia, she would have received a standing ovation.  Look, it's simple baldness, not cancer; but never-mind that.  Instead she showed us her all too common ugly side.  Her genuine side.

Sadly, this whole episode is a vivid reflection of America in 2022.

I have said it before and I will say it again:  These are not my people.

𓐵

A Vision For Our Future

The Awakening of Jennifer Van Arsdale:  A Political Fable For Our Time

George C. Leef

★★★★☆

Bombardier Books

4 March 2022

268 pages

Fiction

$ 17.99 (Paperback)

$  9.99 (Kindle)

* Prices accurate on date of this post.

George Leef calls this book a political fable.  My guess is because he has exaggerated the current and coming danger in order to make his points.  But I would have preferred if he labeled it a vision.  A Political Vision for Our Future would make a better subtitle.

Here's the scenario he lays before us:

1. The Left gains control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, including both houses of Congress.
2. The senate completely ends the filibuster.
3. Both the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are admitted to the Union as our 51st and 52nd states, adding four reliably Democratic seats to the senate.
4. Congress passes a law raising the number of Supreme Court justices to fourteen and
5. The president quickly nominates five additional justices and they are just as quickly confirmed.
6. The Left then proposes one absurd law after another, which Congress passes, the president signs, and the Supreme Court declares constitutional.

Think about that.  What would happen to our country?

Well I will tell you what would happen.  The same thing that is going on now, only faster.  This book is a vision of the future in fast forward.  If you don't like the direction of this country, the slow but never-ending leftward drift, often nudged and occasionally shoved, you will really find this book depressing.  And worse, after the last few years, can we doubt that any of the above is possible?

Leef's book highlights the immorality of the leadership of the Left.  Notably their sheer lust for power.  Mind you, not the power to make the world a better place.  But rather power for their own benefit and to satisfy their need to be in control of others.  Leef points out that, for all their hand-wringing, the Left actually cares very little about policy.  They only care about policy insofar as it helps them achieve and maintain power.  They certainly don't care about the long term effects and consequences of their policies.  History has proven this time and again; there is no reason to assume the future will be any different.

The book includes the media and the journalists who cover for those same lefty politicians.  Note, not cover them, but cover for them.  As Glenn Reynolds says, they are political operatives with bylines.  It includes the naive, useful idiots who support the politicians, either because they actually believe the propaganda or because they are looking for something for themselves.  Finally, the book includes a cast of characters representing the millions of Americans who are hurt by the progressive sham, often with little or no recourse.  The result of course is an America that is grinding to a halt.

The book ends with the redemption of the protagonist.  And the fable ends with an antidote.  But here I agree, it really is a fable.  In time, this is a vision which will absolutely come true.  But it's like a terminal disease, there will be no antidote forthcoming.

Only misery.

𓐵

Reflections on Truth

There is truth and there is Chinese truth

A society that is unable or unwilling to define a woman is a society that has failed.  It may not have crashed, yet.  But the crash is inevitable.  I don't need to add to the current discussion around this issue.  But it strikes me as a sign of where we are and where we are going.  Never mind Ketanji Brown Jackson.  After all, she's not a biologist.  But just imagine, the largest circulation newspaper in our country cannot define a woman.  This is not some obscure academic journal discussing rare cases of Klinefelter syndrome.  No, it's a common sense journal of the masses.  Or it pretends to be; just look at its Sports section.

Now, they could if they so chose.  Because regardless of what they print, they know, we all know, what is a woman.  But rather, they decided to obfuscate.  To make it seem complicated and unclear.  And of course, they are not alone.  Fully half of our fellow countrymen are onboard with this nonsense.  They either fully support it or tacitly support it.  If you doubt me on this, ask yourself if Joe Biden would answer the question:  What is a woman?  Would Joe do any better?  I don't think so.

Do you really want to vote for someone who does not know what a woman is?  Or simply is too cowardly to say?  And herein lies the problem.  Evidently, half of the country says:  Yes, I want that!

The fact that these people cannot define a woman is not the start of it.  It's the end of it.

The end of what?

Truth and reason.

And that is the end of everything.

Can we build and sustain a society without truth and reason?  You bet.  Perhaps the best current example is China.  And the Soviet Union before that.  But there are numerous current examples.  North Korea.  The theocratic states of Iran and Saudi Arabia.  The autocratic states of Russia and Venezuela.  The many kleptocratic states of Africa and Latin America.

But our forefathers built Western Civilization on truth and reason.  It was never perfect.  And it will never be perfect.  But for those imperfections, past and present, many people today want to kill it.  They do not believe in Western Civilization, just as they do not believe in truth and reason.  They believe in my truth, your truth, and his truth.  But not objective truth.  And without truth, there can be no reason.

Subjective truth is pliable; it is whatever we want it to be.  So the only truth that matters is the truth of those who are in power.  It is worth noting that this is not the truth of the fittest.  And it is certainly not the truth of those with the best ideas.  It is rather the truth of the most corrupt and ruthless.  Think of it as Chinese truth.

For many years, I have asked, quite sincerely, what is it that these people want?  These people among us who do not believe in objective truth.  Do they want to live in a society like China?  They find the question absurd, and maybe it is.  No one claims to want that.

What you have to understand is they still fiercely lay claim to reason.  In fact, they truly believe that subjective truth yields better reason.  How?  Because according to its advocates, subjective truth is more empathetic, compassionate, understanding, and broad-minded.  And tolerant, they always profess tolerance.  They argue that objective truth is a simplistic, narrow-minded fiction which refuses to acknowledge multiple perspectives.

Of course this is not true.  Those of us who believe in objective truth can acknowledge, appreciate, and even learn from, any number of perspectives.  I think the difference is that we see one more truth than they do.  As they assert, there is my truth, your truth, and his truth.  But there is also the truth.  While it may be difficult, our job is to find it.  Even if they agree that the truth exists in theory, they grant it little or no importance.

This is why the subjectivists have such an inflated sense of their own morality.  And an artificially low opinion of anyone out-of-step with their ideas.  They do not merely disagree with their adversaries; they have convinced themselves that their opponents are morally inferior.  This is the true genesis of cancel culture.  They believe we are intolerant and narrow-minded, and therefore do not deserve to be heard.  Never mind the arguments put forth.  Their professed tolerance simply does not extend to everyone's truth.  And certainly not to inconvenient truth.

Okay now, so what do they want?  They want reason on a foundation of subjective truth without the constraints of objective reality.

It is possible.  That is to say, it is possible to believe in such.

This is how you can believe in open borders and an unlimited taxpayer-supported social safety net.  You see no reason to secure the US border, but you believe in the sanctity of the Ukrainian border.  You can require IDs to buy cigarettes and alcohol, but not to vote.  You can shut down the sources of carbon and nuclear energy, and then complain about electricity and gasoline prices.  You can dramatically raise the money supply, and at the same time rail about inflation.  You can believe that dividing people into racial groups will lead to greater equity.  You believe in free speech in concept, but not in practice.  You can believe in affirmative action for minorities, but not for all minorities.  You can believe in high taxes and defunded police departments, and yet not understand the shrinking tax base.  This is how you can live without God, yet believe in the dignity of jihadists.  This is how you can blame Guns, Germs, and Steel for global inequities, and not the carcinogenic culture of these societies.

Subjective truth allows you to believe that Western Civilization is grossly unjust, while at the same time elevating a broader swath of people than any other system by far.  Subjective truth does not ask, because it cannot answer, the question:  What else then?  Besides, who are we to question the truth of other cultures?

Subjective truth allows you to believe that the man in the pool is a woman.  Likewise, who are we to question Will Thomas' truth?

Reason on a foundation of subjective truth.  It's a faith system.  The adherents are the same people responsible for an out of control and unaccountable government.  High energy prices, lockdowns and mask mandates, a costly regulatory environment, supply chain issues, a farcical foreign policy, the devaluation of the dollar, and a complete breakdown of our education system.

Yes, our education system.  Let's call it what it is:  K-12 grooming and indoctrination, followed by a university degree that is nothing more than credentialed proof of post secondary (advanced) indoctrination.  These are the people who gave us intersectionality, which we now understand is a fancy word for divide and conquer.  And while our education system is so busy grooming and indoctrinating, there's very little actual educating going on.

If you doubt me on this, pick any ten-year-old, and ask him a single-digit multiplication question.  Educators no longer teach multiplication tables.  Nor spelling, nor grammar, nor history.  Ask a high school student who fought in the Second World War.  Ask a college student which two bodies of water the Suez Canal connects?  You can forget about critical thinking.  As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, this is not a bug, it's a feature.

Reason on a foundation of subjective truth.  What is that?  Subjective rationality, dogmatic expectations, doctrinaire reality?  There must be a term for it.  But whatever it is, it is not critical thought.  Again, it's a faith system.  They believe in the truth of those who are in power.  Critical thinking is difficult.  Believing what you are told is so much easier.  And hey, since truth is subjective, their truth (that is, the truth of those who are in power) is just as likely as any other truth.  It sounds good, it sounds hopeful.  So let's go with that.

They may want reason on a foundation of subjective truth, but that does not invalidate objective truth.  It is still there; lurking beneath all.  The corrupt and the ruthless will take advantage of this naivety.  They always do.

In the end, there will only be Chinese truth.

This is not an admonition.  This is a prediction.

With a single party state, a complicit media and educational establishment, and social media censorship, we are well on our way.  Will Thomas is a woman called Lia and a champion female swimmer.  Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.  The high price of oil is Putin's fault.  Zelenskyy is a democrat.  America is the most racist country in the world.  Race is the most important attribute of a person and biological sex is completely irrelevant.  These are Chinese truths.  Many more to come.

These people are killing us.  I would like to say:  I fear for my country.  But is it my country?  I certainly don't recognize it.

I suggest you hold on to your guns and buy some more ammo.

We get closer to Chinese truth every day.

𓐵

Safe Tucking

Back in February, we brought you a document from an American institution of higher learning on neopronouns.  Today, we bring you a new document on tucking from Doernbecher Children's Hospital at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU).

So what is tucking?  Well, they're not talking about tucking in your shirt.  Oh no, this is rather more advanced.

As we did with the previous document, find the original document on the OHSU website here.  And the webpage offering this document and describing their gender services here.  Where you will also find a helpful handout on chest binding.  One can't help but wonder when did they drop the handout on foot binding?

You might recall that I had quite a bit of commentary on the whole neopronoun phenomenon.  Not the least of which reason was my view that pronouns are not ours, but rather belong to others.  And so the proponents of neopronouns want to inflict their nonsense on others.  That is the whole point of their narcissism.  This is very clearly the case; just watch how incensed they get when others don't play along.

Tucking is something people inflict on themselves.  But given the source, I do fear they are encouraging children to inflict this upon themselves as well.  One might ask, what does this do to the emotional development of children?  And what kind of people encourage this?

Now I can hear the proponents already:  Tucking and binding are relatively safe methods for individuals to try out a new body without resorting to the knife.

But maybe it would be better to invest in a good psychiatrist.

𓐵

On Covid Madness

The vaccine argument is weak.  So why all the lingering anger?

As I understand it, the argument is, if you get vaccinated, you may still catch the Covid, but you are less likely to be hospitalized.  And if you are hospitalized, you are less likely to die.  In other words, your symptoms will be less severe.  And if we can believe government statistics, this appears to be true.  Of course, the government has proven itself a dishonest broker regarding all things Covid.  So make of it what you will.

In any case, I just can't get past the actual words of Obama's tweet:

1.  I am vaccinated and boosted.

2.  But I caught Covid anyway.

3.  You go get yourself vaccinated too.

That's a winning argument if I ever heard one.

But no matter what you think of the argument, it's not very reassuring.  And the long term effects of the vaccines are just starting to come out.

What kills me is the moral outrage that people bring to the argument:  You unvaccinated plebs are clogging up our hospitals and costing us all a lot of money.  In fact, I have read some go so far as to argue that insurance companies should not pay for Covid-related treatment for the unvaccinated.  And hey, I don't really have a problem with that.  But I find it difficult to believe that anyone can get so exercised about this issue.  I'm so angry about this, that I'm willing to let you go bankrupt, or even die; you selfish unvaccinated bastards.

Really?  Is that why they are angry?  Not buying it.

No, I think the anger is because of simple disobedience.  Like parents who get angry at a disobedient child.  I told you to clean your room, and you did not.  So now you will suffer the consequences.  And then there are those who are angry because they obeyed and others did not.  That is, little Karen is mad because dad told both her and her brother to wear a coat, and she did, but her brother did not.  Yes, yes, that's infuriating.  That's how little Karens grow up to be emotionally stunted adult Karens scolding people on airplanes.

To switch metaphors, the good little sheep are angry that the black sheep just might be getting away with something.  The shepherds ordered us to vaccinate.  We just can't have all these black sheep running around not doing what they're told.

And for the time being, I think there is an element of fear involved.  Deep down and unspoken, people are afraid.  People are now waking up to their own decisions to blindly follow government advice.  Maybe they acted hastily and unnecessarily.  Even recklessly?  There are questions which may never get a public hearing, but they percolate just below the surface.  That too is infuriating.

The problem with this particular strain of anger is where people tend to direct it.  Are they angry with the government and media types who bullied them into getting an untested jab?  Are they angry with themselves for allowing themselves to be bullied?  Or are they angry with those of us who refused to be bullied?  I guess we're seeing some of all three.

It will be interesting to watch as this fear and anger either wanes or grows.  It will depend on if and how the long term effects of the vaccines develop.  And just as importantly, if they are reported.  I can make no predictions.

But it's better if we don't think about it.  Let's talk about something else.  The Russia/Ukraine situation, climate change.  Something needs to be done.

This is the world we live in today.

𓐵

The Wager

A short story

When I come to, I'm in an elevator of sorts.  The old-fashioned kind with a lever, it's mostly made of wood, and dimly lit.  There is an attendant.

"Ticket please," he asks.

"I don't have a ticket."  But he nods towards my hand.  And of course, I am holding a ticket.  I look at it.  It's stamped with only two possibilities, Heaven or Hell.  Of course, my ticket is punched Hell.

So right there, in the elevator, jumbled memories flow...

I remember my early life in a protestant church run more like a petty, gossipy social club than an institution of faith.  My parents dragging us all to church more for show than out of any sense of deeply held religious conviction.  I remember Christmas pageants with dubious casting, Vacation Bible School in the fellowship hall, and the Red-Letter Bible the congregation presented to me when I formally joined the church as an adolescent.  They had my name inscribed on the cover.  I still have it.

I recall later losing whatever faith the church instilled in me.  But was it faith?  Or just a young person going through the motions in small town America?  In fact, as a young child, the most important lesson I learned in church was the value of sitting still.  Otherwise I'd be beaten when we got home.  Surely, that's faith of a sort.  The faith of Pavlov's dog.

Decades later, I remember Bart Ehrman had a huge impact on my parents.  I think he gave them the permission they sought to leave the church.  And their faith.  But I do not trust him because he only criticizes Christianity and never has much to say about other religions.  Yes, I realize he is a New Testament scholar and I'm sure he would argue that he simply sticks to his knitting.  But I find it odd to advance disbelief without some mention of other faith systems.  It makes me question the former evangelical's motives.

I remember that Daniel Dennett reminded me of an heretical Santa Claus, and consequently, I could never take him seriously.  I know I should be embarrassed to admit this.  But I'm not.

I also remember the ever thoughtful Sam Harris and his books The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.

I recall Harris debating some famous brain dead actor on national television.  Only the completely ignorant and incurious can muster the actor's level of self-righteous anger.

I remember the courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also has to deal with ignorant, incurious, self-righteous anger from people much more immediately dangerous than some sciolistic actor.  People of faith.

I remember Richard Dawkins' hand-painted neckties.

I remember the movies Spotlight and Philomena.

But I also remember It's a Wonderful Life.  And the numinous wedding scene in The Sound of Music.

I remember it was the fourth horseman who made the subtle but important distinction between the numinous and the supernatural.  He then went on to...

The attendant clears his throat.

No, I did not expect to be here in this elevator.  I expected nothing.

I realize that I'm still looking at the ticket.  "Heaven" I announce weakly.  The attendant looks at me rather skeptically, but pushes the lever forward and holds it there.  I recall vaguely that the lever was sometimes called a deadman switch.  Quite so.

It's a slow journey upwards and it gives me time to gather my thoughts.  But not enough time.  The doors creak open and I can see the pearly gates.  Just as described by the faithful.  But I expected a line; I needed a line for more time.

"Where's the line?" I mutter.

As the elevator doors close, I hear the attendant saying, "No lines in Heaven."

There's a gatehouse, an office of sorts, and Saint Peter looks up and sighs.  "I'm pretty sure your ticket is otherwise punched young man."  I'm well north of fifty, but I guess everyone is young to the first apostle.

"I was hoping there's some type of appeal process."

"Hmm...well, anything is possible here.  But you'll have to take it up with the Boss."

There may be no lines in heaven, but there is a rather large waiting room.  Saint Peter points me to it.  There is a sign over the door that says Purgatory.  "You can wait there."  Peter says.

Purgatory is like a large doctor's office waiting room.  I find a seat and just as I am sitting down, an angel with a clipboard appears in a doorway on the other side of the vast chamber.  She calls out loudly, "Hitchens.  Christopher Hitchens."  I see Hitch rise from a near slumber.  I don't know how he managed it, but I swear he's holding two fingers of Johnnie Walker Black in one hand and the latest issue of Vanity Fair in the other.  As he makes his way across the room, he looks like he's off to another debate with some poor theologian.  But I can no longer share his confidence.  I mean, here we are.

If they are just now getting to Hitchens, looks like I am going to be here for some time.  Unlike a doctor's office waiting room, and unless you are Christopher Hitchens, there is no reading material in Purgatory.  Not even five-year-old National Geographics.  And I've left my iPhone somewhere.  I look around and apparently everyone else has as well.  No, there is only one thing to do here in Purgatory.  Sit and ponder.

About a thousand years later, the angel calls my name.  I make my way across the chamber, down a corridor, and enter what looks very similar to a courtroom.

The Lord is sitting at the bench starring at a computer.  He looks up, "Ah yes, I have your file here."

"I did not expect You'd be computerized Lord."

"Neither did I.  But Steve Jobs showed up a few years back and brought me a Mac.  Revolutionized the place.  So much better than that contraption Henry Ford brought Me a few decades earlier.

"Now I see that We've judged you guilty of lack of faith, disbelief, and general heterodoxy.  Is that so?"

"Yes Lord, I am guilty of that offense."

The Lord grimaces, "You did not believe in Me?  You lived a life without Me?"

"Sadly, yes my Lord."

"Well it's a pretty clear cut case; you don't belong here.  What am I missing?"

By now, I have had lots of time to consider how I would answer the Lord.  "Well Lord, it is true that I lived a life without You.  But I did live by two principles which I think You approve of."

The Lord gestured that I could continue.

"Well the first of these is Treat others the way you wish to be treated."

"That's the Golden Rule and you can find it in the Bible," the Lord interrupted.

"Yes Lord, but it need not be.  I would argue that it is entirely practical.  We may treat others well out of the goodness of our heart or because You command it.  Or we may not.  But one reason to treat others well is that we hope that they will return the favor.  Some don't, but most do."

"And your second principle?" asks the Lord.

"My second principle was Live and let live.  Most people agree with it in theory.  Just ask them.  But very few seem to be able to follow it in practice.  People want other people to believe in their god, to join their church or political party or environmental crusade, and to basically think and act like themselves.  This seems to be human nature.  And when others fail to do so, this can and does lead to various levels of separation and dispute.

"I always thought that unless someone is hurting someone else, I needed to respect their choices and leave them alone."

"Yes, yes, very wise" sayeth the Lord.

"Anyway, I tried very hard to live my life by these two principles."

"Yes, your record indicates a good life.  Perhaps not exemplary, but on balance a very good life."

"I'm no saint, my Lord."

"No one has to be my child.  Now, that's all well and good, but you still lacked faith."

"Yes Lord, and I have had lots of time to think about it.  And here is the question that I wish to put to You:  Does lack of faith make me a bad person, ineligible for heaven and eternal salvation?"

"Well that is Our precedent, yes."

"Then Lord, with all due respect, You are correct, I don't belong here.  You agree I lived a good life, but insist upon belief that I could not find."

And then a most surprising thing happened.  Unbeknownst to me, Saint Peter had slipped into the back of the courtroom.  And suddenly he spoke.  "May I be heard, my Lord?"

"Of course Peter, always."

"Lord, I have been the Keeper of Your Gates for some time now.  And I can tell You that we have admitted many many applicants with faith, but also with, hmm, how should I put this?  Less than stellar records.

"Of course, they're all believers, and they've all asked for and received Your forgiveness for their transgressions.  We only admit the truly penitent.  But nonetheless, my Lord...well, You've seen the records Yourself.

"Honestly Lord, for some of these characters, I often wonder if faith is not merely an excuse for misbehavior?  It's as if faith itself is some form of indulgence."

"What are you saying Peter?"

"Well Lord, I'm asking:  Can we not weigh actions and motivations along with faith?"

"Of course Peter, but faith is paramount."

"Then Lord, I would like to ask for a pardon for this applicant.  Like You said, while his record is not exemplary, it is far better than some of our...current residents."

The Lord turns back to me.  "You have a worthy advocate in Peter, but what do you have to say for yourself?"

"Well Lord, I was wrong and if it is not too late, I would like to ask for Your forgiveness.  While alive, I never had faith.  But standing here before You, I have to believe."

"Of course it's too late; that's why we're here."  He thundered.  He went back to His computer and I thought we were done.  I turned to go and accept my fate...

But then He added quietly, "Nevertheless, pardon granted.  You can thank Peter on your way through My gates."

Suddenly relieved and grateful, I meekly ask:  "And Hitchens, my Lord?"

God looks up and smiles.  "What a character, that guy.  You know, he stood right there where you are, and said, hmm wait a second, here, I had it transcribed.  He said:  Lord, I hope You noticed that I didn't try and curry favor.  That I was honestly unable to believe in the claims made by Your human... spokespersons.  Standing before You, I no longer have to take the word of other humans on the necessary propitiations and gestures and subjections that I have to submit myself to, in order to qualify.  But Lord, I cannot and will not be servile.  You'll have to judge me on the life that I led.  Can you imagine?"

Frankly I could imagine.  That sounded exactly like something Hitchens would say.

God went on:  "I had to admit that many of those whom he euphemistically referred to as My spokespersons are not here and will never be here.

"Anyway, I stopped him there, and granted him divine dispensation and had Peter admit him forthwith.  There is just no way I could deliver such a clever chap to the devil."

"But aren't you worried that he'll cause unrest here Lord?"  I ask.

Then God said:  "Well, it did not take him long to realize that he's dead and he's here.  I'm pretty sure, he'll come around.  Like you, he now has his evidence.

"Anyway, just imagine how much more interesting our dinner parties will be with him here.  In fact, I'm having him and Mother Teresa over this evening.  It'll be a hoot.  You're welcome to join us."

Thank You Lord.

Author's note

Britannica has a brief synopsis of Pascal's wager here.  

Pascal did not say that we should not weigh evidence, and as a scientist, I have no doubt that he did.  But his wager demonstrates that ultimately faith is a choice, and evidence, either way and to whatever extent, is irrelevant.  Faith is a choice we make in spite of doubt.

It is interesting to note that Pascal did not come to his faith as a result of his wager.  Rather, he crafted his wager as a logical exercise to buttress his existing faith.  Does that diminish the logical progression of his argument and certainty of his conclusion?  Have faith because it is too risky to not have faith.  I don't find that terribly convincing.  Perhaps we can come to faith ignoring evidence.  But can faith be sincere without conviction?  If God sees all, what is the efficacy of faith without conviction?  Pascal suggests that the probabilities of his wager don't matter, only the possible outcomes:  Infinite happiness or infinite suffering or mere finite existence.  Choose one.  And believe accordingly.  Can it be as simple as that?  We all must decide for ourselves.

As a counter to Pascal's non-evidentiary (to coin a usage) thesis, I had to include the fourth horseman, Christopher Hitchens, in the story.  At the time of his death ten years ago, Hitchens was arguably the most famous atheist in the world.  Certainly the most erudite.  Believing that religion was not only unsupported by evidence, but also positively harmful, he described himself as an anti-theist.  Hitchens wrote for Vanity Fair for nearly twenty years.  His counterargument?  What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.  Again, can it be as simple as that?  We all must decide for ourselves.

Personally, I've always found people of faith who are willing to admit doubt much more compelling than people of faith with no doubt whatsoever.  But I would like to see all people of faith express a curiosity that extends beyond their own belief system.  It would be good for them, and good for all of us.  Frankly, I find the faithful's lack of curiosity... unforgivable.  And dangerous.

As for the atheists, the first thing that we must acknowledge is that they do not have a duty to prove a negative.  Of course not.  But I have come to believe that the vast majority of them are among the most fervently religious of us all.  They have simply replaced faith in the divine with faith in government.  Their willingness to believe in the efficacy of government, without evidence and often in the face of evidence to the contrary, is indeed an article of faith.  While certainly not true in every case (see the self-described secular conservative, Heather Mac Donald), the correlation between secular beliefs and leftist political thought is astounding.  Government is their religion, and the irony is completely lost on them.

𓐵

Neopronouns Are For All of Us

Modern Compelled Speech

I wanted to write something about what's going on with pronouns.  But in order to do justice to the topic, I just did not know where to begin.  You see, little pronouns are big these days.  Luckily, UNC Greensboro had me covered with a handy one page explanation.

Find the original document just below.  Or click here to view it on their website.  Or start here:  UNCG:  Why Pronouns Matter.  Good stuff.

Sure, this is completely insane.  But my problem is not that transgender, non-binary, and/or gender nonconforming people use factitious pronouns (I note the document's passive voice construction).  They can be as crazy as they wish.  We can all be as crazy as we wish.

The first problem is right there in the first sentence:  Pronouns are words that a person may use to identify themselves instead of their name.  But unless you are in the habit of talking about yourself in the third person, surely the pronouns that you use to identify yourself are I and me and we.  It seems to me that what we have here is a very basic and fundamental misunderstanding of third person pronouns.  They are not ours in the sense that we do not typically use them when referring to ourselves.  No, these pronouns belong to others.  So that is my first problem:  Do we have a right to dictate other people's language?  Obviously, some people believe that we do.

Now some will argue:  Well, proper names are also used by others; and since we don't speak about ourselves in the third person, it is rare to use our own name when referring to ourselves.  And yet, no one would argue that your name is not your own.  But a name is a unique identifier for a person.  That is the definition of proper name.  On the other hand, pronouns are general, generic identifying substitutes.  If we make pronouns our own, they would become unique and lose their raison d'être.  Why?  Because they would then also become names.

But the larger problem with neopronouns is that their users and advocates expect us to join them in their madness.  They expect us to use their lexical creations.  And they further expect us to state our own pronouns in order to validate their insanity and grant the exercise some measure of legitimacy.

Now this may seem like a fairly benign exercise:  My name is Ben, and my pronouns are he/him.  What's the big deal?  But by participating in this exercise, you are signaling that you accept that pronouns are unsettled and subject to change, misuse, reversal, or outright fabrication.  And further, the reason pronouns are unsettled is because gender is fluid.  It's no big deal for Ben, but the problem is that it gives Xe license to run wild.  It is not so much that gender is non-binary, it is rather that gender is infinite, but at the same time evidently classifiable in the form of neopronouns.

Gender was once an exclusively grammatical term referring to words and language.  As best I can tell, we started applying this word to people in the late 20th century.  Fine, language changes.  Today, we generally view sex as a biological and therefore binary, and gender as a social construct and therefore non-binary.  To me, unless you argue that gender and sex are perfect synonyms, this distinction seems as valid as any other.  But it does present a problem.  Once we leave the moorings of binary biological reality, we enter a world of infinite possible creation.  And when coupled with insanity where does that take us?  All you have to do is a quick Google search to find out.  Here's a New York Times piece worth reading.

Think of it this way.  You go to a dinner party and there are maybe a dozen people there.  One person introduces herself this way:  My name is Mary Smith, and I am from the planet Ægir – in all seriousness.  Polite people may respond with:  Oh, I see.  But it takes an Orwellian atmosphere of intimidation for everyone there to then feel compelled to say:  Oh, nice to meet you Mary.  My name is Ben Johnson, and I am from Earth.  That's not tolerance or politeness, that's coercion.

But that is not all.  The document above suggests that you might even want to inquire how exactly to pronounce Ægir.  You know, it's important to get these things right.  Postmodern etiquette?  Merely contemporary good manners in the face of now acceptable subjective reality?  Or obsequious attentiveness to madness?

And then there's this:  Some people will use more than one set of pronouns, and you are encouraged to alternate among them in conversation.  Remember, they expect you to enter their fantasy world.  And if you refuse...what?  Well, some might begin to suspect you're some sort of bigot.  Just imagine the shame.

Here's a quick thought experiment.  Would it not be easier for everyone if we used sex to determine pronouns rather than gender?  I think the reason that this is not possible is that the people who argue most stridently that gender is fluid also believe that sex is meaningless.  Once you accept that a transgender woman is the same as a real woman, sex is irrelevant.

Some questions

So where does that leave us?  Sadly, the question becomes:  How far does one go to meet the demands of insanity?  And even if you argue tolerance above all, and politeness is best, when does politeness end and truth begin?  At a dinner party?  In a university lecture?  Testimony before congress?  How about a pre-op conversation with your oncologist?

Our Mary Smith, from the dinner party, was born in Topeka.  When does that matter?  Does it ever matter?

More questions:  Is Mary Smith insane?  Or is she a complete narcissist?  Or both?  And does that matter?  This gets us closer to the root of the problem.  I mean this nonsense is rife on college campuses today.  Can they all be insane?  Or have we simply raised a generation of narcissists?

And this is why neopronouns have exploded.  No self-respecting sui generis narcissist wants to use someone else's pronouns, much less something as mundane as he or she.  Of course not.  By definition, these narcissists are without equal.  They'll create their own unique pronouns, thank you very much.  And fully expect you to use them.  Be sure to write them down and get the pronunciation correct.  And for those who are not super narcissists, but perhaps have only a somewhat narcissistic personality, you know, your garden-variety narcissists; they may be happy to use non-original but sufficiently esoteric neopronouns because they still achieve the goal.

Now you may ask, what is the goal?  Look at me, I'm special, I'm so special that I have my own special descriptors, look at me!  Look. At. Me.  I insist.

But what we really have are narcissists and cowards and tyrants:  The narcissists who demand others refer to them as Xe, the cowards who indulge them, and the tyrants who enforce the madness.

What is going on here?

Now, I have no doubt that there is quite a bit of overlap between these three groups:  The narcissists and the cowards and the tyrants.  But just for a moment, let's consider these as three distinct groups.

We can just about understand the narcissists and the cowards, right?  Don't like them, but we have all met them and understand them.  Best to ignore them.  Surely, let's not contribute to their psychopathology.  If you can ignore your narcissistic colleague or neighbor, I urge you to treat these people the same way.

To me, it is the enforcers that are so interesting.  We are talking about university types here.  Both students and faculty.  Oh, and the countless ancillary bureaucrats attached to the modern university.  With their idle...little minds.  Sure, some of these people are certifiable.  But all of them?  Just can't be.

It is important to understand that university communities are moving from mere encouragement to use preferred personal pronouns, to vigorous insistence on it.  Some have made it mandatory, threatening students and staff with disciplinary action for failing to observe and/or participate in the new standard.  More will follow.  And no doubt the good little conformists they produce are already carrying this nonsense with them into the workplace.

We need to add that labeling pronouns preferred has become taboo.  You see, preferred implies that their use is optional.  And if your proper name is mandatory, so are your pronouns.  Today's bien-pensants simply refer to these as personal pronouns.

One final note on the latest tenets of pronoun usage.  If one fails to offer their preferred personal pronouns, that's perfectly fine.  But, we should then make no assumptions about what their pronouns may be.  So instead we should use their name in place of pronouns altogether.  Each and every time:  Ben had a paper due yesterday.  But Ben turned it in late.  It is not like Ben to be late.  My guess is that the awkward language is purposefully designed to encourage everyone to offer pronouns.  Most people, especially young people, don't like to be singled out.  No Ben, we don't have to speak like that about you; but you never gave us your pronouns.  Why don't you do that now?  So Ben, too, adopts preferred personal pronouns and accepts all that goes with it – Just like everyone else.

So what are they up to?

Two things come to mind.  One, old Soviet-style humiliation.  They want to coerce you into publicly stating something you know is untrue.  They know it is untrue.  And they know that you know that it is untrue.  And they know that you know that they know.  But there is power in coercing you to not only state an untruth, but also to help them enforce it.  With all due and proper self-righteousness comrade.  Yes, there's real power in forced self-humiliation.

I have used the North Korean example before.  When the Dear Leader died, all, and I do mean all, good little North Koreans wept uncontrollably.  Why?  Did they really believe that a great man had just died?  The idea is ridiculous.  No, it was simple fear of the powerful.  And fear that their family, friends, and colleagues might turn them in.  For what?  Insufficient grief?  Well let's put it differently:  Insufficient allegiance to the narrative.  Sound familiar?  Is their artificial grief any more absurd than calling someone Xe?  So they all participate in the lie as an exercise in power dynamics.

Surely this is what we are seeing on college campuses today:  A demonstrable allegiance to a narrative.  Stop and let that sink in.  When did the goal of liberal arts education morph from developing a faculty for critical thought to fostering an allegiance to a narrative?  If you think this comparison is hyperbole, just listen to Yeonmi Park talk about North Korea and Columbia University.

Which brings me to my second point:  To what end?  Well the narcissists and the cowards are just useful idiots with a richly concocted fantasy that the tyrants can exploit.  I personally believe that it could be any ridiculous fantasy, it's just that gender identity theory is the one at hand.  I mean it is so preposterous that if they can feed it to the masses, by whatever means necessary, then they can tell the masses anything they want.  Peak Covid hysteria has presented the tyrants with a similar opportunity.  And one cannot help but notice the tyrannical overlap.

There's also critical theory and intersectionality and 1619 and any number of other exploitable theories.  But come on, the absurdity of gender identity theory with its attendant public declaration of pronouns.  And the demand to prostrate oneself to use the correct pronouns of the petty narcissists?  For the tyrants, it's just too good to pass up.  Of course it is.

If you believe that the man over there is a Xe, or better yet, a she, or at least pretend to believe, odds are, you'll believe anything that those in power tell you to believe.  And if you believe them, you will do what they say – Regardless of which end of the gun you are on.

Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

𓐵

A New Ten Commandments

How might a Decalogue look if it was written for the 21st century?

Christopher Hitchens:

I never quite trust myself beginning a sentence by saying thou shalt not, but let’s see if we can adapt this famous question.

1. Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or their color.
   
   
2. Do not even think about using people as private property.
   
   
3. Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relationships.
   
   
4. Hide you face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
   
   
5. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature.
   
   
6. Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature.  Try and think and act accordingly.
   
   
7. Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
   
   
8. Turn off that fucking cell phone.  You can have no idea how unimportant your call is to us.
   
   
9. Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are:  Psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions and terrible sexual repressions.
   
   
10. Be willing to renounce any god or any faith if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

While I would never presume to improve on Hitchens' list, I did wonder what my own list might look like:

1. Treat others the way you want to be treated.
   
   
2. Live and let live (unless someone is causing harm to someone else).
   
   
3. Learn to think for yourself.
   
   
4. Maintain intellectual curiosity in all things.
   
   
5. Cause no harm to children.
   
   
6. Do not make government your god.
   
   
7. Be fully engaged with the person or persons in front of you.
   
   
8. Respect nature and the environment, but balance the needs of the environment with the needs of humanity.
   
   
9. Understand that objective truth exists; our job is to find it or at least try to find it.
   
   
10. Be willing to renounce any god or any faith if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

I included Hitchens' Numbers Four and Ten in full, but I think I have included most of his points in one way or another.

Numbers One and Two.  Regarding Hitchens' Numbers One, Two, Three, Five, Seven, and Nine, of course I agree with all of these.  But I'm happy to let my Numbers One and Two cover these issues, as they do for so many other sins (murder, rape, theft, fraud, discrimination, false witness, failure to yield, etc.)

Number Two.  Let's stay with my Number Two.  Surely this applies to all manner of issues.  Inborn nature (to use Hitchens' terminology), lifestyle choices, whatever.  But religious people need to pay it particular attention.  Do not attempt to shun or subjugate (or worse) people of differing faith systems.  Likewise do not attempt to shun or subjugate (or worse) people who wish to leave your faith.  Simply put, if you cannot live and let live, you are an evil being, deserving of the worst outcome of your own religious beliefs.  And if your faith instructs you to NOT live and let live, see Number Ten.

Number Three.  Please heed my Number Three.  This is a commandment.

Number Four.  This is true for everything.  But it is especially true for those beliefs we know to be true without evidence, i.e. articles of faith.  I often find the faithful's lack of curiosity unforgivable and dangerous.

Number Five.  As I mentioned, I included Hitchen's Number Four in full, as my Number Five.  It is interesting to note that this was not a prohibition in the original Ten Commandments.  Surely, God did not think it was necessary to include it.  But I guess we've learned a lot since then.  Today I think all of us find it absolutely necessary to include it.

Number Six.  Many who have lost faith in the divine replace it with faith in government.  Their willingness to believe in the efficacy of government, without evidence and often in the face of evidence to the contrary, is indeed an article of faith.  Government is made of men, and almost always, far from the best men.  It is certainly not worthy of anything near religious faith.  In fact, it's tempting to add:  Be skeptical of all matters of government involvement.

Number Seven.  Hitchens mentions cell phones.  I would simply extend that to the internet, social media, video games, television, etc.  But in truth, this commandment extends beyond technology to any distraction.  Pay attention to others.

Number Eight.  Speaks for itself.

Number Nine.  Today the idea of objective truth is under attack.  Therefore, sadly, it merits its own commandment.

Number Ten.  Finally, it is worth noting that so many religious people believe that they get their morality exclusively from their religion.  But their religions can pronounce horribly unjust penalties for arbitrary sins.  In any case, here I hope you can find ten rules of morality which do not require religion in any way.  I am not telling you to not be religious, or that religion is bad.  See my Number Two.  But do not believe that only religion, certainly not only your own religion, can produce moral people.

It's funny how ten is just the right number.  I could do with no less; I can think of no more.

𓐵

Tales From Baobaoan

Part Two

In the aftermath of Typhoon Odette, we were without power for two weeks, including Christmas.  Here in Baobaoan, that was really the worst effect of the cyclone.  Since this immediate area is fed by natural springs, lack of water was never an issue for us.  Other areas of the Philippines were not so lucky.  A category five hurricane does not hit an island nation without areas of complete devastation.

And no electricity is really a non-event for most Filipinos.  Most people do not use air conditioning.  They are also used to small refrigerators without much capacity.  But, at a mere eight degrees north of the equator, I found both of these issues rather disagreeable.

To be fair, temperature and humidity-wise, it did get somewhat comfortable between three and six am.  And we simply went to the market almost daily.  So all-in-all, it was unpleasant, but not terrible.

One mistake we made was that we failed to elevate our water pump.  Well, we did elevate it, but just not enough.  And the thing was flooded.  This is a big deal because there is no water tower here in Baobaoan.  So you need a pump to move water into and through the house.  I thought we needed to replace it, but a few days after the electric company restored the power, Mira's nephew, Kim, Neng's oldest son, got the thing working again.  But first, we made a new, higher platform for the pump.  I'm sure it will not flood that much again, but we are now prepared for the worst.

Third World Country, New World Malls

There are two open markets within five miles of here.  And in Butuan City, there are several large markets, for meat and vegetables & fruit.  We shop at all of these.

But to be honest, we buy most of our groceries at the supermarket.  Yep, just like Kroger.  Okay, they do not have a deli, but otherwise, you'd think you were in a Kroger.  Here in Butuan, we have three to choose from.

And you know where to find the supermarkets?  At the malls of course.  Three supermarkets; three malls.  Here in the Philippines, the malls are not anchored by Macy's, but rather by the supermarkets.

And when you walk inside one of these malls, you leave the third world behind.  Inside, you might well be in Pasadena.  These things are as American as you can get.  And they are packed.  There's a Levis store on the first floor and an Ace Hardware on the second.  And just like in America, Filipinos go not only to shop, but also for entertainment and restaurants.  Movies?  Theater on the third floor.  Hotel?  Attached.  McDonald's?  Right where it is in America – Out front in an outparcel.

It's fair to label the Philippines a third world country.  But it is more accurate to call it a developing nation.  A quickly developing nation.  Want evidence of the emerging Philippine middle class?  Just head to the malls.

Find Part One of Tales From Baobaoan here.

𓐵