Monday, October 31, 2016

October 31, 2016

My Personal and Non-Professional Assessment of the American Voting Public
An Opinion Piece, by
Marcia La Vine

Individual people aren't dumb... but groups of people are not only dumb, they are dangerous- utterly incapable of independent thought, let alone capable of exercising the critical reasoning necessary to make competent decisions about anything. I wouldn’t want most voters to decide something even as meaningless as what type of sandwich I should order for lunch.

Members of political parties/ groups are capable of the simultaneous belief that as a voter, they are both responsible for any positive outcomes and yet are totally blameless for negative outcomes. This isn’t even the worst part. Consider this: political party members and pretty much all voters either deny or are completely ignorant of their having taken part in electing either another mentally impaired person, someone suffering from criminal insanity, or a rational but amoral, narcissistic, and sadistic psychopathic personality and gave them the job of running the nation.

My assessment may seem harsh, of both the candidates in question and their supporters, but let me explain.  
Why do I think someone running for president is so clearly mentally ill or evil? Look at it this way:  These people are TRYING to get a horrible-paying job that has the highest level of responsibility in our nation, the highest level of stress imaginable, entails perpetual sleep deprivation, constant surveillance, constant public and international scrutiny, and they instantly become a clear, specific and desirable target for all who are disgruntled- both nationally and internationally.

They know that they will be recognized by millions if not billions, and varying numbers of people either will revile or adore them, depending on what this person can manage to deliver to individual citizens. The job applicant, in my set of memories, always believes they will only get and then retain the position if they succeed in placating, duping and/or subduing or subjugating most of those they supposedly "serve", then strive to do well in this regard, rather than going with the job review given when being judged by each citizen’s honest, objective and unbiased assessment of how well they believe the candidate could do or may be doing to fulfill the actual duties of office. 

First, why would any sane, rational, thinking human being WANT this job? And why would any sane, rational, thinking human being trust anyone who not only WANTS the job, but wants it so badly that they are willing to do and say what virtually all politicians I have observed proved themselves willing to do and say to get that job, no matter how despicable, lowdown, vile or corrupt? And why do people keep voting the same type of person into office, while simultaneously bemoaning the levels of corruption, greed and lawlessness in government?

I believe this is because people in groups are nearly always twice as dumb collectively as the least intelligent member. They are lemmings. More specifically, I think the American voting public are lemmings, incapable of intelligent, rational thinking. It is true that individual persons are intelligent, thoughtful, bright, amazing beings capable of astonishing, brilliant and profound things, but the voting public is nothing short of a mob- a creature with anywhere from dozens to millions of eyes, ears, arms, legs, and mouths… but absolutely no brain whatsoever to prevent them from joyously dashing towards that cliff. Party members, or members of most groups, remind me of people at a hockey game afterparty that suddenly shifts from a limited local celebration to an angry, and violent throng, leaving devastation, destruction and losses impossible to calculate in its wake. No one ever knows why. Because they are brainless while acting as a group.

Groups of people also seem to be populated by individuals who believe that being a member of a group is an automatic, appropriate, adequate and acceptable absolution of guilt. We see it all the time- membership in group activities is always used to completely deny an individual's own portion of responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the group/mob. Even worse, most members truly do believe that they hold no responsibility because of their low-ranking group membership status, and lack of understanding of their own group dynamic which led to negative consequences.

I've never heard a single average voter- the least involved and least invested member of the political system- say they were personally responsible to any degree for what happened during their candidate’s presidency. No voter I’ve ever spoken to has admitted that even a small fraction of what may follow could possibly be their fault. Instead they all openly and adamantly deny their small but clear and undeniable culpability for the consequences of their individual voting decisions. I’m positive that I never will hear an average voter admit to having a share of blame for any political mess, because no one believes they ARE responsible. Not even the candidates themselves. Why? Leadership lays it on the members, and members on each other, leadership, the opposition, anyone but themselves. Because as a member of their political party, or any group, they see themselves as an unidentifiable, anonymous, insignificant and a minuscule part of a whole that no one of importance could possibly lay blame to for anything.

They see no cognitive dissonance when, though they have admitted to varying degrees of involvement with their group, they behave as if they have no real connection to their chosen congress of baboons or murder of crows, except maybe an admittance of agreement with that party’s foundational ideologies or stated grievances, or perhaps they buy into the rhetoric. But the consequences of supporting those things? Here is what I hear almost daily: “Oh, heavens, no. It wasn’t my fault! I didn’t: [vandalize that building/trash that park/increase taxes/support an admitted criminal/cause the deaths of tens of thousands both here and abroad]. All that happened in a place whose name I can’t even pronounce let alone point out on a map. I just [partied with/camped out with/voted for the mandate/voted for the candidate/demanded action in the form of revenge from our leaders] in retaliation for them attacking us.”

I swear, it makes me want to throat-punch someone sometimes. So instead, I smile and either change the subject or exit the conversation. I at least happen to be aware that of ALL my actions, large and small, have consequences. Besides, I was brought up to control myself like a big girl without collapsing into hysterical violence or uncontrolled weeping whenever things don’t go my way.

People need to realize that group membership always stipulates they are not merely passive observers, but are instead agreeing and accepting the position of a legitimate, active, and representative member of a specific group – and the higher order mammals are not only aware of but have a willingness to use their own portion of individual power and the responsibility that comes with it for the group they align with and work to elevate.

The lemmings are literally every group of people which gathers for a cause but identifies themselves as a group, rather than identifying themselves as a collection of individuals with separate identities, with individual names, who choose to gather to support a common cause. This type of coalition has united for a defined purpose, and the responsibility for all consequences which flow outward from the actions of the group are shouldered by every individual associated with it. Responsibility is not shrugged off, passed on to the next guy, or weaseled out of. No blame, no abdication after the fact. They are willing to pay the freight, so to speak. These are rational, thinking, higher order humans. But most are lemmings.

Why do people join groups without accepting the often-unspoken obligation which comes with membership in a group? I’ve had it explained to me once: This person said it was fantastic to be able to feel safe, anonymous, belonging, important, justified and yet, still blameless and able to deny knowledge of and responsibility for what the leadership decided to do and say for the group.

I must point out that the empirical evidence seems to indicate that she wasn’t the only one, by a long shot.
And it doesn't matter WHICH party or ideology those lemmings agree with or which group they choose to march toward the edge of the cliff with, because they all march while insisting they are not a member of the group and instead are merely walking the same way, to the same place, at the same time, for the same goal, together. But it’s not their fault.

The general voting public is not interested in accepting personal responsibility or accountability for even this smallest yet most important action the American people can do to participate, determining the direction and subsequent actions which our government will perform in our name for the next four years. If anything goes wrong, it is always the other guy’s fault. To me, this qualifies most voters as being "dumb.” And dangerous. And doomed.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

No one needs that many air bags!

I'm on a roll lately. I just crafted a pretty good piece of hyperbole that perfectly matched a ridiculous meme comparing guns and cars. Here's what I wrote on that one:
I didn't know that cars were a right! Cool! And of course, the government needs to be the ones to control all of that safety gear, even if the constitution said that everyone has a right to own seatbelts and airbags. How could the framers possibly have foreseen the use of super-strong, almost unbreakable materials when all they were using was woven cotton or wool? Ridiculous! And besides that, everyone knows that only rational and peaceful people like me choose not to buy those dangerous implements. Nuts who think the government is going to take their cars surely don't need extra safety precautions that exceed mine. It offends me that they believe their right to be as safe as they choose doesn't agree with my right to demand that their rights be removed! Because of this, I demand that the government ensure my ability to force those who have extra safety gear to get rid of them. If we can't do that yet, lets make them register so that the government will be better able to control those who legally purchase their equipment, while ignoring the illegal black market seatbelts and side air bags that the criminals have, some of which were even distributed by the government. That shouldn't matter, because my right to not have something I don't like should outweigh their right to have it! 
The government's job is to make sure my neighbors never have a car that is safer than mine, because no one really NEEDS that much safety gear. The only reason to ever have that much is simply because you want to make sure you're going to survive, which is totally wrong since that equipment is scary looking and makes me uncomfortable, and you probably only got it to look cool instead of ensuring your safety even if the people who don't have all of that die. How awful! It's simply psychotic, I tell you.. these seat-belt nuts just don't have any sense, so we now must enact common-sense seat belt laws to force them to curtail their zealous purchases of items intended to save their lives. People who don't believe in too much safety gear want to make sure that your ability to survive a crash never exceeds their own, even though its been shown that criminals who install illegal safety gear never follow the laws, anyway, because.. well, they're criminals.
Oh, and did you even get proper training for all those buckles and straps? You did? Well, someone else didn't so clearly, you should have to suffer because of it. I know! Lets make those permits for airbags exceeding some arbitrary minimum that has no correlation to safety at all, and is primarily driven by being as inclusive to those poor disadvantaged folk who just never wanted all that extra responsibility of learning how to use the best protection they could get. They should be so expensive that only people who make more than $25 an hour can afford to get extra belts!

And another piece of evidence pointing to the inevitable extinction of our species

It just gets more surreal by the day, I swear.. 
I came across a post about how bullies are now running roughshod, unchallenged by their peers, because now the schools are cracking down on the children who are "bullying the bully" as a way to make them stop their behavior. Good lord, why am I not surprised at such idiocy? I can tell you.
My son was bullied in grade school.. Instead of disciplining the kids who tormented and abused him, it was easier for the admins to call him the trouble maker. inciting and asking for the older kids to repeatedly thump him in the back of the head with a large text book, day after day, during recess, or simply just punching him in the stomach when the faculty attendant was pointedly watching traffic on the road instead of the kids on the playground. Once they decided that he was the reason he was getting beat up every day and not the bully's responsibility for doing the beating, I understood when my son became angry, a bit hostile when it came to the adults he trusted to protect him so he could learn. Not only did he become frustrated and angry, my own made his look like a mild reaction given by someone half way to comatose. I was LIVID, and I told them so. I was beyond frustrated, shall we say, with the administrators and their excuses, blame and shame game that they used as a tactic in their attempted bullying of ME. 
So, when my son's attitude of distrust and contempt showed through to the useless playground monitor when he was getting punched less then fifteen feet from her, they stepped it up and labeled him as "oppositional-defiant disorder". I was threatened with court action in order to force me to take him to a psychiatrist and get him medicated at that point. I found my own therapist, refusing to take him to the pill pusher they strongly "recommended", simply because he fought back against the bully, once, and held those charged with his safety accountable for their failure. Some time later, the special ed teacher he was forced to have class with physically assaulted him by grabbing and jerking his arm, so he pulled away and his hand came into contact with her forearm as he pulled his body away from her assault, so she had HIM charged with assaulting HER. A TEN YEAR OLD had to go to court for assault charges against the teacher who was supposedly trained to cope with "difficult children", and knew better than to touch any child without permission or with compelling reason. Yes, I'm still angry, still vocal, and still "oppositional- defiant", But he isn't. He never was, 
He's now 28, was never medicated, and never had ODD, ADHD, or any other "mental or behavioral disorder" that they claimed he "suffered" from, and for which they tried to charge me with neglect because I didn't take the word of someone who doled out pharmaceutical speed like candy to kids as young as 5 and sleeping pills to the parents so they could "maintain their own sanity". What a racket. Now to the good part.. Pay attention, Class... there may be a pop quiz later....
Check out the list of criteria for this supposed "Disorder" they claimed my son who was clearly well-adjusted until that time suddenly acquired out of nowhere, with no known cause, and lots of "treatments" from pills to hospitalization available, provided your insurance was up to snuff....
The entire list of symptoms and behaviors is nothing but very ordinary, common, occasional behaviors of pretty much ALL CHILDREN, at varying stages in their lives. Ask any mother who's had more than two, and was a stay at home mom. We know normal behavior when we encounter it. None of the things on that list is anything other than what kids do while learning their limits. See what happens when you remove limits from kids? Even the psychs don't remember how kids once responded to them! Seriously, this is normal stuff.
Its how children grow up to learn how to become self-sufficient, trust their own judgement, question unsubstantiated claims, and THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Kids who exhibit the behaviors listed are considered a threat to the society the social engineers want to create, well, except those whose treatment leads to them becoming either too afraid to challenge their elders in any way, or such damage that renders them just a bit too dim to figure out that they're being trained as a good little monkey, whose sole purpose is to become a good big monkey one day. Shut up and take your pill.
From the May Clinic Website, under "Diseases and Conditions" 

"DSM-5 criteria for diagnosis of ODD show a pattern of behavior that:
Includes at least four symptoms from any of these categories — angry and irritable mood; argumentative and defiant behavior; or vindictiveness
Occurs with at least one individual who is not a sibling
Causes significant problems at work, school or home
Occurs on its own, rather than as part of the course of another mental health problem, such as a substance use disorder, depression or bipolar disorder
Lasts at least six months
DSM-5 criteria for diagnosis of ODD include both emotional and behavioral symptoms.
Angry and irritable mood:
Often loses temper
Is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
Is often angry and resentful
Argumentative and defiant behavior:
Often argues with adults or people in authority
Often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
Often deliberately annoys people
Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
Is often spiteful or vindictive
Has shown spiteful or vindictive behavior at least twice in the past six months
These behaviors must be displayed more often than is typical for your child's peers. For children younger than 5 years, the behavior must occur on most days for a period of at least six months. For individuals 5 years or older, the behavior must occur at least once a week for at least six months.
ODD can vary in severity:
Mild. Symptoms occur only in one setting, such as only at home, school, work or with peers.
Moderate. Some symptoms occur in at least two settings.
Severe. Some symptoms occur in three or more settings.
For some children, symptoms may first be seen only at home, but with time extend to other settings, such as school and with friends."
It scares the crap out of me that the psychiatric community gets away with pseudo-science like this, and many parents just let them drug their kids at the first mention of "mental disorder", and it's all just based on unproven opinions that their friends all agreed sounded good, would make them tons of money, would prevent individuality and creativity from spreading like the plague, and nothing more. Oh, yeah.. profits and power are winning over parents' discretion and those lucky few kids who actually get a childhood in spite of those who claim to be "protecting" them from the big bad world.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

This Month's Rant

I can easily draw parallels to the myths and legends of all religions and all societies to what I've been seeing in recent years within this so-called "civil" society. I wonder if maybe I've seen the seventh sign, or the fourth horseman of the apocalypse. I don't know. I've been seeing some totally nonsensical bullshit served up as if it were ambrosia, and people are buying it, so what else can explain this sorry state? I think my first obvious sign of the approaching end of mankind has been the sharp, concurrent and almost proportionate declines in both manners- common courtesy- and reading proficiency. I myself saw the end draw so close to me, more than once, that I thought I could finally plan my last party and see who shows up to mourn. The utterly schizophrenic and pointless hate-fest between what were purported to be reasonable adults who were once capable of simply being happy to be taking another breath are now reveling in their dual party system, all poised to devour anyone who dares to voice any type of dissenting view of any kind, on any subject, even if they're right is proof enough for me. Such behavior isn't just now the norm, it seems to have become an excepted, and expected show of worship for One Side, or The Other. We're being led to become the cannon fodder for either the delusional far-left, whose belief that more government control will result in a sustainable, unchanging equitable wealth distribution (as if this is something to be desired in the first place), while insisting that we allow the government to decide how we must eat, sleep, learn, be entertained, blame for our lot in life, value as a meaningful calling, but just call it a career because you don't dare use words that might illicit emotions associated with joy, faith, happiness, wonder and mystery- Why? I've actually heard this argument, almost ver batim, from a 24 year old white guy sporting smelly dreads and a $350 pair of jeans that his mother just gave him. He said " they sound too Christian..unless the Dalai Lama says them,, that's totally cool. Or Muslims.. they're the religion of peace, you know.. or Wiccans... yeah.. Wiccans aren't Satanists. They're all about nature, so they're a good religion...Some words sound good from those people, but not white, redneck, republican Christians. They're racist and believe in a religion which once killed probably billions, for all we know..They slaughtered half the world's population in less than ten years, more than the Black Plague, according to this article I read last year. Yeah, they didn't stop till around 150 years ago, give or take. At least in Europe. They were still burning Jews and witches then. It's an evil religion that white redneck republicans believe, so I just can't help it if I insult them." I shit you not. I just think he believed what he was told and taught, so it's hard to fault him for that, as he was a college student on break in NV at the time. Oh but wait! There's More! It slices, dices and makes Julienne fries! Just Look at that tomato! Turn your gaze to the other team, maybe this one is your team! You should be delighted to know that I hold the other side in equal amusement, and appalled fascination... I refuse to be cannon fodder for the far right, whose blind faith has led to more death, despair, evil, hate and utterly incorrect theories" throughout all of history than.. I don't know, anyone? They once called them "science", supported by the might of the Vatican's thirst for killing heretics, but its now called an "alternative theory" when it really should just be called what what it is:Fairy Tales and Myths from Long Ago. Both of these opposing sides notify us daily on TV (and here) of who we must associate with and who it's okay to insult, because it can't mean anything if we are forbidden from acknowledging them as fellow human beings- right? they're evil Capitalists! They're evil Socialists! They deserve our expressed revulsion and hatred! I've heard it said so many times, I can't even smile wanly when I hear it any longer, let alone muster up the energy to engage them in an attempt at rational argument through civilized debate. They attack my gender, age, education, place of residence, or the imagined political affiliation attributed to me by both sides, each calling me a member of their hated enemy camp. It was once funny, now it's just sad. An exercise in utter futility, and I'm the only one who seems to appreciate the poetry of such an occurrence.
Just the other day, we were yet again informed that the agency of the week, whatever it might be now, has been declared by our leadership and the sychophants behind them, cheering, have signed a paper that not only justifies what was commonly accepted as a crime yesterday suddenly becoming the approved and standard method of the government to prove they're right, because they said so. They manage fetes like this by obtaining the assistance and collusion of the government equivalent of official interpreters of the English Language, bought and paid for by whoever managed to buy enough congressional votes to get them a seat on the bench. They're given sole authority to assign any words they might choose whatever meaning that proves either more lucrative or more popular, depending on which side they support. They now have grasped, unchallenged, the supreme authority to change what was once a simple expression of a simple concept into something so utterly nonsensical, only those same official interpreters are qualified to determine a word or phrase's new meaning. For example, perhaps the new meaning of the word "might" could eventually be used as legal grounds to move forward with the armed enforcement of a questionable arbitrary mandate, as if it were a law, fundamentally changing the documents that those same interpreters and their cohorts in congressional and executive branches have taken an oath to protect. Huh... Must be one of those phrases that have been interpreted for modern times but I just haven't heard the new official definition of it yet. ...
The Administrative Branch's new additional role as lawmaker has begun by taking perhaps the first step towards removing all the choices once enjoyed by anyone who wanted to defend themselves in an equal manner of their most dangerous threat- the people who were once individuals but are now simply known and referred to as "The Government". Those people now get to tell everyone else how they'll be allowed to defend themselves against itself. HUH? You heard it right.. the government has grasped the brass ring, giving itself the authority to tell you how you will be allowed to defend yourselves against it! Next thing, your neighbor will be allowed to tell you what you can and can't do, when they decide to break in and murder your spouse and steal your wedding rings. You can't be trusted to decide that for yourself, after all- because someone else broke a different law, causing people to feign emotional distress over actions that they never experienced, don't understand, and don't really care about in the long run, because everyone's doin' it, man...
It's been decided on your behalf that you aren't responsible enough, smart enough, from the right family, from the correct ideology, the right religion or no religion, have poor health and cost us money, are in vigorous health so you're a dangerous menace- or perhaps just a really annoying self-congratulatory vegan with too much money, not enough, or you are oppressed as a minority, or are a part of the tyrannical majority... they've got logical reasoning on their side to justify being given the autyhority to act, and make "sensible" laws, because no matter what everyone else does or doesn't do, we'll never be trustworthy enough by government standards to choose for ourselves and accept the consequences like grown ups... so they have taken it upon themselves to act as your benefactor...or not, merely because it's "For Your Own Good". Americans never stood a chance.
Shut up, and be happy! Just accept your government masters, and you will finally experience the new government-approved definition of "freedom" , the way the founders didn't know they had mistakenly interpreted as oppression and serfdom, but which we were meant to embrace and enjoy, as we call it freedom and social enlightenment.
I'm not done. They aren't the only forces of evil I've seen!
This leads us to the swing of the pendulum the other way.. of far-right religious zealots insisting that only the legislating of morality backed by the force of the law as wielded by thick-armed and even thicker headed soldiers-in-disguise, dressed as servants of their communities for photos one day, and the next as an armed gang of enforcers without conscience, wearing the proverbial jackboots, khaki fatigues, black bullet proof vests, while driving tanks and threatening to shoot your dog because.. they felt their life was threatened by a 22 lb mutt. They were too busy busting down the door of a family unlucky enough to have a house number not even close to the one the DA and chief of police quote on TV as a crack house, based on nothing but the word of perhaps one known criminal whom they promised to pay for such "valuable" information about six or eight weeks ago, and we should trust that they know what they're doing, won't harm people who "don't deserve it", and if you would only just obey all the laws, even if they themselves don't know what they are and don't follow them, then you don't have to worry about being shot by mistake the next time their hired thugs try to shoot your poodle for viciously panting in their direction, making them fear for their safety, and for yours, of course.
We're assured by BOTH sides, to one degree or another, that men such as these are necessary in the battle against other people's vices, poor choices which may harm the collective, and to save us all from ourselves, because only their wisdom, backed by their own assurances of righteousness or their social conscience, will set all aright in this nation, while simultaneously saving the souls of imaginary children who were never wanted by the people who chose their own wants over any concept of responsibility for their own actions. 
Neither side will face the stark reality of having to admit you can't control anyone else but yourself. They use the word "love" while sneering openly and making the most vulgar of insinuations or snide and almost always incorrect judgements of people they don't know, as well as all those they hold in contempt while calling it "hating the sin" or "supporting the weak". Their missions seem to be to save all individuals from any personal rights they might possibly, somehow, get the government to protect, so they might use their free will to do something which offends the sense of morality of right-wing nutjobs.., but don't ask if their neighbor's sex life harms them might get called a liberal as if they were calling your sister a strumpet, your mother a whore, and your father a fudge packer, all at once... proving that they themselves behave contemptibly on a daily basis, but it's okay for them, God told them that they have the right to demand their interpretation of moral law is the only "right" and "true" view, based not on preventing bad behaviors of only the believers, but in the mistaken idea that if they could only just forcefully prevent OTHERS from exercising fundamental rights they don't agree with, all would be well, and they'd finally be taken up in the rapture.. or be voted in for another term.. either one is fine by them.....
Yep. This stunning state of ridiculously hypocritical and nonsensical ideologies, both equally bad and equally wrong, equally dangerous and equally destructive, are what I see as the most obvious sign of the end times that all ancient civilizations told stories about. This chaotic, and inescapably idiotic time on earth is what may very well result in the imminent destruction of modern society, and all in less than three generations. And as the final death blows are dealt to our species and our planet, both sides will STILL be shouting down the opposition, using many words to say absolutely nothing, even at the end of all, claiming themselves as winners because of the obvious rightness of their positions... until the silence of oblivion shuts them all up equally, and without choosing a winner.. Because there are only losers in a battle of politics. Always. Every time. So... Finally, peace. .

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

My Masterwork: A Global Warming Rant for the Ages


When “concerned citizens” begin to speak of "global warming", my first reaction is usually to ask them if they know when that rise in sea level is going to happen as promised. I’ve been promised a lot of things in my life thus far, and this is one of those that I just can’t quite decide if I’m unhappy it’s been broken so spectacularly or thrilled that my first assessment of such outrageous claims backed by nothing that could be verified by independent means using the original data and methodologies was incredibly accurate.

These famous studies that can never be replicated are the foundation on which these horror stories of level 9 tsunamis, 10.5 earthquakes, Noah-and-the-Ark-level flooding, and all manner of apocalyptic prediction that’s only surpassed by what's in the book of Revelation itself. WHY do people so readily accept extraordinary claims without the requisite extraordinary evidence? The data used to create the models that produced these (lies) predictions was destroyed by the “scientists” who conducted the studies, claiming it was no longer needed? Really? Last I heard, if any experiment was impossible to replicate independently and at will, then any results from the original studies must be thrown out. Those results are meaningless to the scientific community if all we have is their word for it that the data was sound, the methods were stringent, and the information generated was not subject to tampering and could be proved not to have been, through what real scientists call "the chain of possession", documented by signatures at each stage of the processes involved. 

Any good, ethical and intellectually honest man or woman of science will tell you this. If the models which cannot be replicated because the data used to create them can never be recovered for use are considered to be so good, then tell me honestly what you think of this: What has happened within the scientific community to alter its standards, practices and expectations so much that it will now accept unverifiable results using a method known for its propensity to inaccuracy and false results? 

What kind of men and women are they who can look us in the eye with a straight face and tell us that “The Science is settled”, when the very premise on which science is founded demands that no science ever be settled, as science is the fundamental quest to learn all that can be learned? Once something is declared “settled”, the door is forever and irrevocably slammed shut on that subject—no more can be learned, else the act of learning something new proves the fallibility of those who declared that subject to be finished, and without new information to justify its study? Nice going, guys. You just cut off your own nose to spite your own face.

There are some of us who maintain healthy skepticism, so we have always known that this particular model approach just isn't generally accepted alone as evidence because of those known tendencies to run off the grid without extraordinary evidence to support ANY explanation or theory as to why that happens. When did these “Scientists” decide that most people are now ignorant enough that their claims would be believed, simply by repeating the words while refusing to provide any detractors the necessary tools to substantiate or refute the claims independently?  Did it happen when the IPCC delegated these same “scientists” to "prove" specific, clear and corrupt results supporting claims of global warming? When did these scientists disregard the scientific standard of methodology which dictates absolutely that no sound experimentation begins with a predetermined result which they are told to produce? Solid science begins with a premise, not a result.

The experimentation must always be designed to DISPROVE the theory or premise, NEVER to prove a supposition, opinion, or theoretical conclusion. This entire subset of the general scientific community set out, and still sets out today, not in order to conduct scientific work but instead it seems their primary job is to design experiments and studies which confirm the original results. They do this rather than design sound experimentation and studies which may disprove them. 
Can you imagine the dedication needed to perpetrate that type of fraud? They surely do love their man-made global catastrophe theories- and do please note, they are THEORIES, NOT FACTS- regardless of the words you’ve heard from persuasive shills and con-men disguised as respectable politicians, social leaders and men of learning which have been crafted and designed specifically to convince you otherwise.

There is no such thing as "settled" in science, and when someone with a PhD. or M.S. behind their name tries to tell you that there is, you should discard anything they present by authority of their title as a supposed “expert” as either intellectually dishonest at best, or a blatant lie at worst. I guess what was once a small segment of the scientific community involved in the field prior to the switch from global cooling alarmist to global warming alarmist expected everyone to forget that in the 70s we were told we'd be under a meter of ice by now, After all, that was over 40 years ago. How dare some of us actually retain information we learned in school during the 70s!

Now is about the time that most people who believe the climate change narrative are thoroughly enraged, sputtering and red-faced in near-blinding anger, accusing me of hating the planet, loving corporations, being guilty of the crime of “greed” and “selfishness” in the face of the imminent death of the planet and all of mankind with it. What rubbish. Try again, and please find something either based on reason and logic, or at least original and entertaining to use to support your position concerning my character, not simply opinion and indignant insistence.  

I am none of those things, by the way. I hold this opinion for two reasons. The first and more important of the two is that I simply have never seen credible evidence as dictated by the scientific method to convince me that if I use recycled paper, turn off the ceiling light and read by a dimmer bulb in my lamp that I will be contributing to the effort designed to result in the reduction of global temperatures at all, let alone even by one hundredth of a degree centigrade or more, at any time into the foreseeable future on this planet. It is their job to convince me. I do not have the obligation to accept it just because someone else does, or because I’ve been told for ten years that it’s true. I’ve not been given anything close to what I can accept as credible evidence. And guess what? The scientists and their supporters do not get to determine how much evidence is “acceptable” or how credible any of that evidence should be. As a skeptic, I get to make that determination, not them. I’ll let you know when you’re getting close. Other than that, the onus is on the experts making the claims, not me.

On the subject of “peer review” which is constantly being trotted out as evidence that the “science is settled” I have only a few things to say…. Do any people outside of the scientific community even know what “peer review” actually entails, or do lay persons simply think that because more than one scientist agrees with another, this somehow translates to credible, repeatable, independently verifiable reports on verifiable, independently repeatable experiments? You gotta be kidding me! Are people really that gullible? They never once consider that “peer reviews” are always conducted within a small community of men and women who simply have to say that they either liked their reports, agree with the premise, result, method, a portion of the presented “evidence”, or more likely they simply are being paid by the same employer who expects them to produce specific results as a team?                  
They never thought of the obvious, which they are so keen to point out as a flaw with the opposing view?

(I’m now giving an epic Face Palm that even Picard would approve of, along with a slow, sad shaking of my head afterward)  

I mourn for humanity, I truly do.

The fall from grace began with all of the public attention given to this scientific field when they first raised the hue and cry about how the earth was going to freeze us to death. This directly caused an explosion of "climate science" specialists to appear where there had been only a handful worldwide before then. Their government grants, privately funded university endowments, or university funding that is generated directly from student fees and registrations is what supports every single one of them who supports the idea that the planet is warming due to the activities of man.

It doesn’t help that the opposition is paid for by big business who have clearly defined vested interests of their own, and because their funding is not public thievery, they can be pointed to as biased, while the pointers are enjoying the protection afforded them through the idiocy of the populace in their belief that governments can’t be biased, but corporations are always biased.

It’s now big business for the people with money and power to continue this push for everyone to get on board, to believe we are under constant threat of "climate change", and to these now-pseudo scientists, it is fundamentally crucial. They rely on the population’s continued ignorance, so the general population so often thought of as their inferiors can be ever more easily led to believe what they tell us to believe-- that we not only have caused this impossible to predict prediction (it’s still prediction, because absolutely NONE of the predictions have borne out in the last 15 years or so since we began hearing them…Really!  Look it up if you don’t believe me), but also to have us believe without question that we must also then have the ability to control it by our actions and policies.

The scientific community is willing to perpetuate their pseudoscience as fact, no matter how patently ridiculous the claims may be, as long as the dollars keep rolling in. Now, even the skeptical scientists are in collusion with them, since the money to be made by this ongoing dispute is phenomenal! Just think about all the opportunities to make money on the side by controlling the “results”, either way! How could that carrot dangling in front of them not be appealing, especially since college and grad school are SO expensive now! After all, these men and women with letters after their names are still human, and have bills to pay, too.

I expect nothing less than to be proved correct in my assessment that we will certainly see more sloppy work coined as "research', and modeling, along with “peer review” will be considered sufficient “evidence” of a claim, instead of replicable results from experiments using actual scientific method. I'm resigned to it, but I don't have to just accept it, because NO... the science is NOT settled. I’ll keep trying to make everyone understand, on both sides, that they’ve been had. And know this: I take no pleasure in having seen it longer than you may have. 

Friday, February 20, 2015

I’m Nobody’s Victim

The above linked article really pushed a lot of buttons for me. In fact it infuriated me so brace yourselves.

"... first, the idea that carrying guns makes your surroundings safer ..."
I don't think many people believe guns make your surroundings safer anymore than more cops on the street make a neighborhood safer. Both carrying a gun and police presence come into play after the fact: when a woman is attacked, if she carries a gun, she can shoot the mother fucker and, depending on the situation, keep him from raping and killing her or keep him from doing it again. Cops cannot and do not prevent crime, they merely clean up the mess. If a cop is around, most criminals including rapists won't commit their crime THEN. He/she/they will wait until the cops leave or go somewhere else to commit their crimes.

"... second, the idea that the onus is on rape victims—rather than their rapists—to prevent their rapes."
You know I get pissed as hell whenever someone says something like this. As if a victim or potential victim is absolved of all personal responsibility for their safety. As I said, the police cannot prevent a crime because Knuckle-dragger #42 isn't going to attack anyone while their around but, aside from hiring a 24/7 personal bodyguard, every female will be at risk sometime. I'm not apologizing for the sick freaks who prey on women or children nor am I blaming the victim but, dammit, a little foresight goes a long way to keep anyone safER. Not safe, because no one is safe all the time - or any time in my estimation. Nothing will prevent a would-be rapist from attacking someone somewhere.

The idea that a woman is not or cannot be responsible for her own safety is the rankest form of paternalism to come down the pike. This mentality keeps a woman from feeling or becoming able to care for herself without someone - usually a male - to "take care of her". It keeps women weak and needy and under the thumb of someone else - again, usually a male. But what happens if that male is not around when #42 spots a possible victim. She sure as hell can't take care of herself, prevent or minimize the damage inflicted by #42 or one of his spiritual brothers. Anyone who doesn't teach their children, male or female, how to take care of themselves, how to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, how to extricate themselves from that situation with the minimum of damage to themselves is a neglectful parent and an accessory before the fact.

Furthermore, if a woman doesn't take steps to prevent her own victimization nobody will. I am absolutely certain that, if the onus to prevent rapes is on the rapist, no rapist is going to prevent their raping someone. To suggest such a thing is patently absurd.

"Gun use can obviously be responsible in the individual instance, but in the aggregate, it's not ..." 
First of all, I don't care about the aggregate, I care about one individual walking alone in the dark on campus. If I or someone I care about is carrying a gun, I know that I or they are properly trained in it's use. If faced with a situation in which I or those I love cannot avoid or get away from then I want to be absolutely sure we have the maximum chance of survival.

Second, when they are talking about "the aggregate" what are the parameters of the study? Are we talking about an 18 year old who has never been away from home, a 26 year old single mom who's never fired a weapon, a 46 year old who has been educated and educated herself in self-defense up to and including firing a gun or a 52 year old veteran with hand-to-hand combat and weapons training? Does their aggregate include prior victims of assault, domestic assault or sexual assault? An aggregate is as useful or useless as the parameters used to develop it.

"... having firearms within reach makes men four times more likely to commit suicide than in situations when the guns are not accessible ..."
In this case, I don't care about possible suicides and including it in this discussion does nothing more than cloud the issue under discussion which is the safety of WOMEN. Also, anyone truly bent on suicide will find a way to kill themselves.

" ... and it makes women three times more likely to become homicide victims."
As for women being more likely to be homicide victims; says who? PERHAPS this is true but, again, what woman are we talking about and who owns the gun? Are we talking about one of the ladies I mentioned above? Is she at home, in her car, walking down the street or on her way to the campus library? Is it her gun? Has she been trained to use it? Who is the her killer? IS this a domestic violence situation? Because if it is the dynamic changes drastically.

Show me the research instrument and methodology before you make such sweeping statements. Is the statement based upon a survey instrument? If so how was it administered? What population data is it based on; urban, suburban or rural? How big is your sample? Does it include college students in the sample? What's your error rate?

In reality none of that matters because I don't care about "women" in general or as an aggregate. I care about exactly one at a time. It might be me or my roomie or one of her daughters or her granddaughter and I guaran-damn-tee that all of the above are not shrinking violets. We might still be raped but it's not going to easy and the rapist is not going to get away without some damage. The mere possibility that we will be murdered because we have a weapon has nothing to do with the probability that we will be raped.

"... that college campuses are already unstable in a regulatory sense—and consequently, that the introduction of guns into an environment marked by drugs, drinking, and other forms of constant, experimental (if often mild) illegality would be a literal death sentence to many people involved."
If it's that fucking "unstable" then that's a whole other issue. If a campus is that unstable - which is hard to tell since most university boards of directors and administrators would rather be skinned alive than admit they have a violence and/or sexual assault problem let alone publish actual numbers of assaults or attempted assaults. That very instability is why these women need to be educated in protecting themselves and being able to carry a gun is an OPTION they should have.

"Since empirical data suggest that most victims of homicide know their assailants, the higher risk for women strongly indicates domestic violence."
Says who? Show me the numbers on THAT and you'd better be able to back them up with hard data.  Again, this may be true but the author, Jia Tolentino, herself admits that it's merely an extrapolation of data that was not gathered and evaluated for that subject. The data originated from a study about rape on college campuses not domestic violence. The proper research instrument could be, should be and would be VERY different.

"So: guns make domestic violence more deadly for women."
Depends on who's holding that gun and whether she knows how to use it.

"Rape on college campuses (as well as in general) happens in situations that mirror very closely the dynamic of domestic violence—the introduction of coercion and sexual assault under the cover of relationships and interactions that seem outwardly acceptable. And yet the weird abstraction of rape, the displacement of it from within the community—the idea that sexual violence is committed by people jumping out of bushes, instead of three-quarters of it being committed by people the victims know—"
So it's only date rape that occurs on college campuses? And "in general" rape off campuses are also date rape? Better pony up with some hard, verifiable facts on that before I will even consider that to be a valid statement. And, IF rape is an acquaintance-based crime, how distant does the relationship have to be for a rape to NOT "mirror very closely the dynamic of domestic violence"? What is it when someone "jumps out of the bushes"? "Three-quarters of it"? Really? Prove it. And even if you can, again, how close or distant does the relationship - the degree of "knowing" - have to be to fall into either category?

"... this rhetoric invokes the safety of potential rape victims as a reason to allow guns on campus, which is a situation—due to the power differential that underlies sexual assault—that would dramatically decrease whatever safety these potential rape victims have."
I absolutely disagree with this. The power differential is at least situational and at most nonexistent when a properly trained, armed woman is the potential victim. A rape victim, potential or otherwise, has no safety thus it cannot be decreased. Ask a rape survivor and find out if SHE thought she was safer not having a gun.

"The sponsor... Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: "If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head."

This is absolutely true. A dead rapist will rape no more; therefore the number of subsequent assaults would automatically drop every time one of these brutal bastards bites it.

"As for how many of "these young, hot little girls" would agree, the answer is 14 percent. According to the Times, 86 percent of women and 67 percent of men are in opposition to gun carry on campus, as are a "vast majority" of college administrators and faculty."

That's fine but what about that 14 percent? Why shouldn't they at least have the OPTION of trying to protect themselves? And, personally, I don't really think men deserve a vote on this subject, unless one considers them to viable targets for sexual assault. That's possible but, again, that's another story. Neither do administrators and faculty get a vote other than as potential victims. Their position in the college hierarchy doesn't make them disinterested parties. If they're honest they should admit that at least part of the reason for their opposition to carry permits on campus is to lessen the college's potential liability in a lawsuit.

"Those in favor, I'll venture to say, are either getting paid or deluding themselves: longitudinal studies have shown that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership leads to "a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate and a 0.7 percent increase in the total homicide rate."
Who, pray tell, is paying them? Self-delusion is in the eye of the beholder. Which longitudinal studies? Who did them? When? Why? Who PAID for them? Again, show me the research models. If an increase in gun ownership causes a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate - and I'm saying IF because I haven't seen the numbers - then should not the increase in the total homicide rate also be 1.1 percent?

Also, "homicide" is the act of a human being killing another human being. Lots of things including death through military action, lawful execution and getting shot by accident are considered homicide. The real question lies in the MANNER of death; was the homicide murder, accidental or self-defense? In other words, was it a justifiable homicide? So, yes, if a victim is armed and kills her attacker in self-defense it is indeed classed as a homicide. However, it is a justifiable homicide in self-defense. The cause of death is homicide, the manner of death is self-defense. Such a situation would indeed cause the homicide rate to increase but NOT the murder rate.

"It's sickening to imagine what guns on campus would do in terms of rape."
Not to me. What is "sickening" to me is that someone else gets a vote on how I defend myself. Personally, I'm all for increasing the homicide rate among rapists.