No Vaccine When Biden Took Office

There was no vaccine when Biden took office (January 20, 2021). This MUST be true, because the MSM assures us that Joe is a capable and honest man! This is the time for us to trust the president, the media, and all government institutions! It is a time for unity! 

Here we have a video from December 21, 2020 that purports to be Biden getting vaccinated. Fake news? It seems impossible that a competent person would forget having been vaccinated when we are assured that it is an IMPORTANT matter. So we are left to choose from the following: 

• Biden is correct, he is competent, truthful, and there was no vaccine when he took office. 
• The MSM and much of the US health system is lying to us, and has been  about the status of the vaccine since mid December (the alleged video was faked)
• Biden is not competent, truthful, or both. 

Which one seems most likely? 

I'm personally going with trusting our highly capable and truthful president! 

When he recommends the Nth dose, I'm going to rush on down! 

Goldilocks has always given me confidence. So how many tests do we need before we run for the woods? 

"You need to cast a wide net to find Goldilocks," said John Grabenstein, a former executive director of medical affairs for vaccines at Merck and a former Defense Department immunologist. "You want to look at shorter intervals, you want to look at longer intervals, to determine when is the best time, if needed, to re-vaccinate."

 

Remembering Rush

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/a-word-from-rush.php

The linked PL post brought me back to this post from 2018 celebrating 30 years of Rush. https://privatemoose.blogspot.com/2018/10/thirty-years-of-rush.html

I didn't listen to Rush very much ... too much entertainment vs information for my taste, but I did appreciate that for a whole lot of "salt of the earth" Americans, he validated what they knew in their hearts and the MSM disparaged. 

Reagan got rid of the "fairness doctrine" which was really the doctrine that made American media the equivalent of "Pravda". If you put on a show that presented a view different from the media deep state complex, it required you to provide "equal time" to the opposing view -- which nobody would listen to, since they already had CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc. Cancelling the "fairness" doctrine made Rush possible. 

It will be a pleasant surprise if the left doesn't bring back that doctrine -- it is essentially what we see on the internet now with "de-platforming" and "canceling". 

I'd put Reagan and William F Buckley in the same class as the excellent Boswell quote from the PL link. 

“He has made a chasm, which not only nothing can fill up, but which nothing has a tendency to fill up. Johnson is dead. Let us go to the next best. There is nobody. No man can be said to put you in the mind of Johnson.”

Cuomo, Covid, One Party Rule

Article

Why can't you trust Covid "death tolls"? A quote from the linked: 

"DeRosa admitted that ‘basically, we froze’ out of fear of a US Justice Department investigation into how thousands of nursing home patients had died. A ProPublica investigation had found that Cuomo’s March 25 mandate that state nursing homes admit coronavirus patients was akin to ‘introducing fire to dry grass’. An investigation by the state’s Democratic attorney general found that the real numbers boosted the official nursing-home death toll by more than 50 percent, to what is now a total of 13,432. New York State only has some 100,000 patients in nursing homes."

There is no "trust in government" for sane people, especially when there is one party rule as there is in New York. Sadly, as we saw clearly under Trump, the vast federal and state bureaucracies are where the real power is. Thankfully there are still a few who will stand up as this courageous attorney general did, but it is now quite late, and we will likely never know at what cost. The Cuomo family is powerful -- our nation is massively corrupt at all levels, the New York AG had best be very cautious. 

If a state is significantly in Democrat control, you can't put much stock in any number coming out of it -- more government power is the only goal of the Democrat party, and since they support the killing of babies, we know they have no limit to what they will do to maintain and increase that power. Manipulating any sort of number -- especially vote counts, is standard operating procedure. 

Are Republicans not the same? Certainly there are some that are the same, however the overall goal of the Republican party is LESS government, not more. In general, Republicans at least claim to care for the unborn and recently born. Naturally, as humans, they are FAR from "perfect", however there is a reason that over 90% of media, academia,  legal, and government employees vote Democrat. 

POWER! 

You can trust government to nearly always do whatever it takes to expand their power. As in the case of this brave AG, it is the rare exception that really proves the rule! 

How many people died OF Covid vs WITH Covid? We have no idea -- nor do we have any idea about any government number reported, except they are all (including vote counts) reported with a heavy pro government bias! 

Cold Californiacation Of Texas

 https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/02/texas-winter-weather-iced-wind-turbines-and-rolling-blackouts/

The problem with California crazy is that it spreads. 

As usual, the Bee has the jist of it ..."People who moved to Texas from California are finally feeling at home now".

When the government gets in your market, bad things happen -- like you start to rely too much on less reliable energy sources like natural gas, wind, and solar vs coal and nuclear, and then when it gets really cold and calm with your solar panels covered with ice, well then the lights go out! 

How could this possibly be? We were once assured that WARMING was "settled science". Now we are assured of "Climate Change", which is indeed a very certain prediction like "markets will fluctuate", and "people will be taxed during their lives, and even after death" (estate taxes). 

Bill Gates is still certain that warming is the change that is happening and it is critical -- he wants to cover the sun! If we do that, at least little things like the lights and heat going out will seem minor in comparison. It will be REALLY "cool"!

The linked is worth the read, but the crux is: 

Federal subsidies for wind pay wind-turbine owners $24 per megawatt-hour for electricity regardless of whether the electricity is needed or not. These subsidies allow wind operators to make money even if electricity prices turn negative. This means some power plant operators need to pay customers money if they continue to supply electricity to the grid when the prices are negative, while wind generators will make money courtesy of our tax dollars.

We have a thousand gallon propane tank that we refill if it goes below half, and a gasoline powered generator that will run the place in total comfort (no AC) for a couple hours. We generally keep about 12 gallons of gas on hand which we rotate to keep fresh. 

Is this "perfect"? Certainly not ... it is a "hedge" that lets us have  enough reserve to "tough it out" in cold temps without power for "24 hours" keeping the place from freezing, and us somewhat "comfortable". Then we start draining the pipes and looking for "other means" . 

Events like current Texas lead me to think that being able to operate our generator on propane may be really nice! 

You can be smarter than a nation that allows elections to be stolen so they get a guy like Biden who is certain to work hard to move the nation to 100% unreliable (but environmentally sound!) energy sources! 

Hey, frozen masked people will be HAPPY to get on heated boxcars!  Who says that Biden doesn't have a plan! -- and it isn't a "conspiracy", because we are watching it happen in front of our lying eyes.

Moral Believing Animals, Pass 2

This is my 2nd pass through this important work. I now have the hardcover to lend out to "locals". 

I'd make the title "Moral, Believing Beings", but I'm not the author ... 

My blog on the first pass is here.

A link to a more detailed review here. 

The SHORT summary:

1. The book makes an excellent case that we ALL live by faith in mental models/narratives -- we have no choice as "moral, believing, animals" since those models are as necessary as "air" for us.  Wittgenstein seems to agree.
2. Given that, our situation requires we "choose" the model/narrative that seems best to apply to our shared condition, and/or is more effective for a meaningful life, and potentially eternal life. 
3. If we can come to terms with these assertions (hard task, given our propensity to believe that our current model is THE TRUTH), we might all be able to understand that all our models are really floating in the same boat of unprovable faith! Perhaps, even if we are not able to make that leap, we can at least have less malice toward our fellow believers

Like all believers (which this book strongly asserts we all are), I would love to "convince" you that Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life. I understand that is not very likely, though I believe that with the power of the Holy Spirit, ALL things are possible! 

In any case, perhaps we can understand why we have our differences. 

Wittgenstein

 https://newcriterion.com/issues/1988/12/the-philosophical-porcupine

A name I have trouble remembering the proper pronunciation of  though it is really easy if one remembers that "witt" is VIT!

The linked is probably all one really needs to know about Wittgenstein ... as the linked says: 

In other words, in Wittgenstein’s view, philosophy—and by extension rational discourse generally—is helpless when confronted with anything that really matters.

So Wittgenstein claims to have shown definitely that philosophy is only really useful for showing what can NOT be shown by philosophy! 

far from being a positivist, . . . Wittgenstein had meant the Tractatus to be interpreted in exactly the opposite sense. Where the Vienna positivists had equated the “important” with the “Verifiable” and dismissed all unverifiable propositions as “unimportant because unsayable,” the concluding section of the Tractatus had insisted—though to deaf ears—that the unpayable alone has genuine value. . . . Wittgenstein’s silence in the face of the ‘unutterable’ was not a mocking silence like that of the positivists, but rather a respectful one. Having decided that “Value-neutral” facts alone can be expressed in regular proposition form, he exhorted his readers to turn their eyes away from factual propositions to the things of true value—which cannot be gesagt [stated] but only gezeigt [shown].

The positivists/materialists believe that all that matters is "particles and progress", Wittgenstein believes that it is the inverse -- it is what you CAN'T say that really ultimately matters!

Therefore in this crazy thought world, demanding vorcifiserly that there is no God, one of their main philosophers says that you can't know anything about that philosophically. 

My inclination though is not really "practical" ... that is what I tried to focus on (sometimes successfully) at IBM for 34 years ... so I may well try to understand Wittgenstein in more detail at some point. 

Sacrificing Children

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/what-we-are-doing-to-our-young-people-is-a-crime.php 

In the old testament, when the people turn from God to Baal, the sacrifice of children is a common result. In the US, this became official policy with Roe ... children, like souls, can be "inconvenient". They are a burden rather than a gift to be cherished -- why would you do much "for the kids" when you see another option that you see as making you "happier"? 

If the children have to be sacrificed at the altar of increased government control (a basic "good" in the increasingly fascist nation), why not? If they go to school, possibly bringing home Corona, it may even endanger YOUR life (or so we are told) -- and when this world and you being "happy", entertained, anesthetized, comfortable,etc, maximizing your time in this vale of tears is the prime objective, 

Reality seems to be sinking in for some:

I believed them. They were measuring their situation against people with less. With nothing.
Still. What surprised me is how money didn’t make this OK. These parents looked terrified. Two of the fathers cried; one turned off his video because he could not keep it together. Two of the mom had outbursts, and I couldn’t blame them. Everything they said was true.

Even relatively conservative people like Hinderaker are losing the fact that money doesn't make much at all "ok". The link is worth a sad read. 

So what is a Minnesotan to do? LEAVE!

Do Lockdowns Encourage Greater Virus Lethality?

Interesting article about a possibility why Covid evolved may be more lethal. 

The 1918 lethal flu started out mild like typical flu. The common flu (and colds) spread easily and don't kill their hosts ... or often don't even make them ill enough to stay home. All the better to let their hosts get out and spread better. The strains that are LESS lethal are naturally selected. 

In 1918 europe however, the sick soldier was often sicker (cold, nasty trenches, etc) and was therefore transported to hospitals by healthcare workers. The sicker you were, the more likely you were to get transported and spread the flu. The MORE severe (and thus more likely to be lethal) strains were naturally selected. 

Ridley (the author of the column) is smart and quite humble (I've read books and other articles by him) -- he admits to making mistakes, unlike our "experts" and mass media. 

There is some evidence that the response to Covid may be causing selection of more severe (and thus more likely to be lethal) strains with the health system as a vector. 

**IF** this is a factor, encouraging people to go and get tested (not a problem if you believe masks are very effective), and making them afraid enough that they are driven to seek hospitals for treatment. 

If we allowed the general population to get out, the less severe strains would win the selection race. 

As Ridley points out, we don't KNOW that ... it is a possibility. 

If we were a free society with lots people thinking and discussing their thoughts,  very little censorship (either overt or through shaming) of possibly "crazy" ideas, past experience would suggest that better ideas being "naturally selected" would win out. 

In our current culture, the expression of thoughts like this article is likely to get you labeled as a "dangerous crank" and possibly "cancelled", or at least shamed. 

Respect for actual free speech and diviersity of thought/discussion as a prime cultural value once "naturally selected" the old territory between Mexico and Canada as "exceptional". 

What is cancel culture and shaming selecting? 

Fundamentals, Ten Keys To Reality

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-theoretical-physicist-gets-down-to-the-basics/2021/01/07/c9e65468-47c7-11eb-975c-d17b8815a66d_story.html 

The book would be better titled "10 Keys to Physics and Physicalist Reality", although the real purpose appears to be "how to convince those inconvenienced by souls that they don't have one". 

Frank is a pure materialist -- it is all "space, time, and matter". He likes to borrow phrases from Christianity, eg "born again", and apply them to materialism. One must be "born again" -- to a "complimentary" reality. Bohr first introduced complementarity --  "it is BOTH a wave and a particle", which always reminds me of the "New Shimmer", which is BOTH a dessert topping and a floor wax! 

Complementarity can be understood as the physics version of dialectics -- the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable understanding of seemingly contradictory information and views. You dialectically can have your cake and eat it too!

Arnold Sommerfeld claimed (p 206); "It is clear that complementarity overthrows the scholastic ontology. What is truth? We pose Pilates question not in a  skeptical, non-scientific sense, but rather in the confidence that further work on this new situation will lead to a deeper understanding of the physical and mental world". 

If you want to understand "scholastic ontology", which is supposedly "overthrown", this would be a start. Ontology is about "what is" ... what "actually exists", what it means to exist, what category it is, the subject of universals, etc. --like quantum physics,  it is hard to pin down -- it is metaphysics. To attempt to simplify. it is pretty much a "world view" that has roughly three model/ontological positions: 

1. Realism says there is an external reality independent of human perception. ie. if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, it still makes a sound. 
2. Idealism says that reality can only be understood via the human mind and socially constructed meanings -- the unheard tree does not make a sound, and thinking it does shows you are corrupted by the patriarchy. 
3. Materialism says there is ONLY the material world! Spirit and consciousness are illusions. Reality is all just meaningless random "stuff", including YOU! 

The scholastics were Christian thinkers who sought to understand general philosophical problems like faith, reason, will, intellect, realism, nominalism,  etc, and what could be "known" (epistemology). 

The book seems to present a fairly reachable high level understanding of the current "Standard Model" of physics -- Big Bang, Quantum Physics, quarks,  uncertainty principle, etc -- "reality" is just a complex arrangement of "mass, charge, spin" in Frank's mind. (assuming he has a mind -- true materialism calls the existence of "mind" into question!)

Where the book fails is that it is really just description of "stuff" ("matter", particles, forces, etc) that tries to lure one into thinking that if you explain the things we can observe and measure, that is all there is -- ie, placing  your faith in materialism is "being born again". We "know" there isn't anything beyond the observed because we have not observed it -- we "know" there are no black swans because we have not seen one! (there are, there is a book by that title that I read prior to blogging everything)

Of course we really don't know that, anymore than we can know if we have a wave or particle prior to observation. Honest faith in godless materialism philosophically "resolves" to determinism -- human choice - "Free Will" is collateral damage. Frank isn't comfortable with that, so on page 218 he declares that materialistic determinism and free will both exist through the principle of complementarity.  

However, on page 225, he decides that since you have read this book, the evidence for scientific fundamentalism is overwhelming and indisputable. "To deny it is dishonest. To ignore it is foolish." He goes on to deny that there is such a thing as a soul, but then at the bottom of page 227 he asserts that; "When we see ourselves as patterns in matter, it is natural to draw our circle of kinship very far and wide indeed". 

"Natural"? Frank has just provided a view of the MECHANISM of the universe -- he did not say WHY. The answer to why is a matter of faith, no different from the faith of materialism. I believe heaven and hell both exist, and our faith resolves our destination. I can believe that material exists and with the addition of the secret sauce of consciousness/will, it can build cool stuff and blow it up -- scientific materialism will never tell us whether to build a bomb or an MRI.

If you want to understand the current state of physics a bit better, this book is fine, just ignore the metaphysics, Frank didn't get a Nobel there. I'd recommend "The Fabric Of the Cosmos" as a better choice. 

Biden, Barrett - Good Faith, Bad Faith

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-left-said-amy-coney-barretts-faith-made-her-radical-now-they-say-joe-bidens-faith-makes-him-devout

Documenting the fact that if the left didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all is a thankless, tiresome task. It mostly makes people of actual Christian faith exasperated to the point of anger, and for the left, it is merely documenting that they have "truth", and anyone that disagrees is a hateful heretic. The religion of Wokeism believes that those who disagree are irredeemable deplorable. 

The completely opposite treatment of Biden and Barrett, two supposed Catholics is clear -- but to half the country, completely meaningless. For the woke, Biden's form of "Catholicism" that denies major teachings of the supposed church is "the real faith".  Barrett's actual Catholic faith is deplorable. 

Just three months ago, the same media praising Biden for his “devout” faith was working feverishly to convince anyone who would listen that Amy Coney Barrett’s strict adherence to Catholic teachings made her a “radical.”