January 14, 2010 - January 7, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
scientists are corrupt about climate change? Then why do
you accept their authoritarian
assertions about everything else?
And what do you think is the price of assailing the ivory tower?
. I started this. Commenters pressed the issue. And Lloyd
volunteered to respond directly here in the most candid, personal, and
thoughtful terms anyone might hope for. I asked him to reply to
commenters, then reversed my field and asked him for more: to tell us
who he is and why. Outrageous. But he rose to the occasion. All I ask
of all of you is that you read carefully and think about what he has to
say before you respond. More bluntly, I ask you not to
haste and to try to refrain from pettiness and sharpshooting as
imagine what it's like to challenge the status quo. You're here because
I do. And I'm here partly because people like Lloyd Pye do.
WHY I DO WHAT I DO, THE WAY I DO IT
Lloyd Pye © 2010
Michael Crichton once said, “In the end, science offers us the only way
out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we
are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the Dark Ages, an era
of shifting fears and wild prejudices transmitted to people who don’t
know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s
Unfortunately, since long before those words were written science has
been politicized to a point where it is no better than the religions it
once replaced as the arbiters of “official” wisdom and knowledge. A
brief history lesson is in order for those who don’t know how science
came to be what it is today.
In the recorded history of all world cultures, religion dominated all
thought. Virtually everyone believed what their religious leaders told
them to believe because the rare individuals who dared to challenge
them were soon dead or regretted not being dead. Then, in the
mid-1400s, printing presses appeared. Within 200 years the infection of
literacy became widespread. In 200 more years, by1800, it was
widespread enough for any rebellious person to write and publish
“heretical” thoughts about any aspects of life or “knowledge.”
These early heretics were the “scientists” of their day. Earth wasn’t
flat. It wasn’t the center of the solar system. It was vastly ancient.
Its landmasses shifted. We all know the gradual progression from
profound ignorance to a certain degree of enlightenment. Slowly,
methodically, heretical scientists began to jostle the catbird seat
where religion was securely ensconced. But nothing could dislodge them
until 1859, when Charles Darwin published his “Origin of Species.” That
was the lever the heretics needed to pry religion out of its catbird
seat so science could finally, deservedly, take its place.
In the 150 years since Darwin, science has become every bit as
entrenched as religion once was, and every bit as belligerent and
vindictive against any who dare to question their right to absolute
correctness in all that they utter or pronounce. Now, however, the
invention of the Internet confronts science with a serious challenge to
their authority and autonomy, identical to what science inflicted on
religion after the printing press. Science required several centuries
to gradually disperse enough force of reason to dislodge religion.
Religion had plenty of time to prepare for the end. Not so with science.
The Internet is so pervasive, so fast, and so useful, science will be
out of its catbird seat in the lifetimes of many who witnessed the
birth of the Internet in 1980. In only 30 years since then, science
finds itself quaking in its boots. They have to frantically create
instructional seminars to train “skeptics” to ruthlessly “defend the
faith” against people like me who challenge them. They would surely
execute us all, as religion used to do, if they could get away with it.
But they can’t, so they have to deal with us as best they can, which is
to ridicule, insult, dismiss, ignore….whatever works for however long
it works. But their day of reckoning is coming, and they know it.
The brainwashing process that passes for education around the world is
still controlled by science, and that will hold true well into the
future. However, the Internet will diminish science’s impact to a
shadow of itself in the next decade and down to nothing in the decade
following. Students will still be taught garbage in school, and will
have to learn to pick out reliable truths from among the rantings
posted on the Internet. It will indeed be Michael Crichton’s world of
“shifting fears and wild prejudices.” But amidst all the junk and
nonsense will be pearls of wisdom and truths similar to those that
emerged from the speculations of early scientists who knew for certain
that religion was wrong but weren’t quite sure which new ideas were
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain
ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the
center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an
idea that needed time to stick. Newton’s gravity became accepted
reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making subsequent
speculations by scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus,
Einstein could successfully introduce the bizarre world of quantum
physics. Science is now viewed by most people as all-powerful and
all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and
tolerance as its practitioners move toward their answers.
The problem with all of those “truths” is that they are fundamentally
flawed. Galileo.…wayyyy off base. Newton….hate to say it.
Evolution….ridiculous, really, from the first glimmer of it. Even
Darwin had serious doubts about it, but he could see no other plausible
alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need
decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.
In 1950 Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not
always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent
additions to it. He “called his shot,” a la Joe Namath and others, when
he predicted that the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even
after its bright albedo had convinced every mainstream scientist in the
world that it was a frozen blob. Velikovsky’s “outrageous” prediction
was proved true, as were others, yet none of it can rehabilitate him in
the eyes of mainstream critics. Sixty years later he remains hated and
reviled by cosmologists and other scientists, as Galileo was by the
religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to
indicate or prove that Immanuel Velikovsky was correct.
This is not “forbidden” knowledge in the sense it was when religion
ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream does suppress all volatile
knowledge by heaping scorn on it, and then ignoring it, when they
should be investigating it to the hilt. Velikovsky is particularly
disturbing because to admit any error about such a fundamental aspect
of knowledge would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport
to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests
they could be wrong about anything to keep everyone from doubting where
they absolutely must be correct, which is in the critical arena where
religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them—creation.
Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2)
the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion
says “God did it all,” science insists “Nature did it all.” From both
perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that
viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my
research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google
videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let’s
focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.
Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist
are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is
the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is
supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and
what holds it all together in the magical “dance of the spheres” that
occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really
adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever
possessed, the physical power to do that.
As a binding force of nature, gravity is vanishingly weak. No
infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space
can aggregate into ever larger pieces, which is the story we’re
expected to believe. That simply can never happen. Yet somehow, even
though gravity can’t aggregate loose particulate matter into larger
objects within reality as we know it, somehow in the distant past it
could. So, why is this? Why won’t mainstream science consider that they
might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible
answer? Because they don’t want to give up Newton and Einstein! They’ve
built a sand castle of absurdity on a crumbling edifice that, when it
finally collapses, will force them to scrap every textbook and start
over. So who can blame them for doing all they can to avoid that day of
Let’s consider some facts: in a particle of dust floating in the vacuum
of space, gravity does not exist. To give it even an infinitesimal
degree of attractive force requires an electrical charge of plasma,
which permeates everything around us here on Earth and, as far as we
can tell, is thoroughly ubiquitous throughout the universe. Well, then,
what about charged plasma? Might it have a role in holding everything
together? Yes, it might! In fact, charged plasma, rather than gravity,
is the binding force in the universe.
Electrically charged plasma is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful
than gravity. Let’s not bother with how that is determined, just take
it as the fact it is. Let’s further understand that if charged plasma
is put at the heart of the universe’s obvious attractive force, the
math works. By itself, electricity is strong enough to get the job
done. But science refuses to recognize this for the reason I mentioned
above: no gravity means no Newton or Einstein, and a nightmare of
embarrassment and recriminations will have to be overcome.
Given those options, it’s much easier to create massive “fudge factors”
to hide their glaring errors from Michael Crichton’s “people who don’t
know any better.” That means most of you reading this, whether you like
to think of yourself in that way or not. Scientists don’t care how
ignorant of the truth you are, as long as you don’t make them confess
that all along they’ve been flagrantly lying about their knowledge
base. Believe me, if I know the truth you can be sure they know it.
They’re running an enormous scam on you at the level of Bernie Madoff
or the Fed. The stakes are that toweringly high.
Dark matter, dark energy, black holes.…each has been created to follow
through on this old saying: “If you can’t fool them with facts, blind
them with bullshit.” Like good chocolate, “the darks” are the
mathematical fudge factors mentioned above, all of them impervious to
disproving because they are as invisible and unfathomable as the God of
religion. “Please, just take our word that those things must be there.”
Why? So the gravity math will make sense. With 99% of everything
“missing,” gravity remains viable.
I can do this for pages and pages, example upon example, right up to
and including Darwinian evolution, the Holy Grail of science and the
one idea they will defend almost to the death because it remains so
sacrosanct. Why? Because to concede one inch against evolution is to
grant a mile of highly contested turf to their mortal enemies, the
Creationists. Let me say right here that I’m not a Creationist, and I
consider their arguments every bit as flawed and specious as the
Darwinists. Both are flatly wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet for now the battle
rages on, and those of us fighting it must stay fully engaged.
I do what I do, the way I do it, because I’m no different than
scientists were when they saw and understood a clearer vision of truth
than religionists had. Scientists then knew they were right and they
proceeded on that basis. I and others like me do the same thing now. We
know that we are right and nearly all of mainstream science’s baseline
realities are wrong. That’s a contentious statement, but it’s true. We
look back at the people living on Earth 300 years ago and we howl at
their level of ignorance. With the speed at which we can access
information today, I think it’s safe to say that people only 100 years
from now will look back at what we believe and they’ll gasp with shock
at the profound depth of our ignorance. That’s why I called my book
about these matters Everything You Know Is Wrong. All of it really is
I’m not the only one who knows the depth of our ignorance. Science
knows. That’s why they work so hard to suppress dissenting opinions.
That’s why they have such a witheringly restrictive “peer review”
process that stifles any step forward in any field that is more than a
comfortable inch or so. No radical thoughts allowed, no big jumps
forward, no originality need apply.
This is why a naysayer critic or skeptic must be on any television show
that presents opinions that challenge the mainstream in any way. In
1993, NBC aired a brilliant documentary film called Mystery of the
Sphinx. It presented overwhelming evidence that Egypt’s Sphinx has been
weathered by heavy rainfall, which had not occurred there before 10,000
years earlier. That date blew a gaping hole in classic Egyptology, so
thousands of mainstreamers inundated NBC with complaints for not having
one of them on the show to counter the claims as the nonsense they
insisted it had to be. “The Sphinx Rule” has been in place ever since.
No anti-mainstream position can be aired without a critic or skeptic on
to provide the “truth” to the viewing audience.
Such belligerent behavior makes clear how mortally afraid scientists
are of the evidence piling up beneath their catbird seat, steadily
reaching up to their precarious perch. Someday, any day, even this day,
an alien from a UFO, or a bigfoot, or some other hominoid will climb up
that mound with a stick in hand and, in front of all of us, it will
shatter science’s catbird seat and send all of them tumbling down onto
a painful bed of nails of their own making. They will have to pick
themselves up, tend to their wounds, and try to walk away with as much
dignity as their bruised egos will allow. It won’t be the end of their
lives, but it will be the end of their lives as they know them.
They all understand that outcome, which makes them desperate to protect
their precious status quos. This is why people like me are subjected to
their persistent ridicule and abuse across the Internet, starting with
the thoroughly corrupt Wikipedia and covering every other base they can
find to cover. It’s a never-ending battle between them and us, just as
it was between them and religion. They won against religion and they
will lose against us, but what comes after they lose? I’m not sure, and
I don’t believe anyone can be.
What I think is that they’ll do everything they can to take credit for
every shred of the new knowledge, finding ways to insist that “one of
our own thought of it first.” This is what they do. They learned from
the mistakes religion made when they were overthrown. Religion would
never stoop to even grudgingly accommodate the new realities science
imposed on them. Therefore, I’m confident science will take what people
like me cram down their unwilling throats and, with graceless aplomb,
claim it for themselves.
Three things science will ultimately claim as their own are things that
today they refuse to take seriously. Any of the three will topple the
fragile edifice they have constructed to explain the world as we
currently perceive it. (1) UFOs can’t exist. (2) Aliens in those UFOs
can’t exist. (3) Hominoids such as yeti and bigfoot can’t exist. Why?
Mostly because scientists say so. And why do they say that? Because the
undeniable reality of any of those three would mean that neither
science nor humanity is what it’s cracked up to be. Scientists would be
exposed in all their buffoonery, and humanity would be seen as having
no roots or reality in the flowchart of ancient life on Earth.
As it happens, I have the distinct honor and genuine pleasure of being
up to my neck in the process of proving all three are as real as real
gets. Scientists have no trouble dismissing ghosts, werewolves,
vampires, fairies, trolls, etc., but the reality of UFOs, aliens, or
hominoids will devastate them when they have to deal with the fallout
from their decades of denial-based deceptions. And their loyal toadies
of today, mainstream media, which willingly defers to their academic
“credentials” because that is the easy and safe thing to do, will turn
on their former masters like a pack of rabid dogs. Science will be
shredded by endless recriminations like, “You’re supposed to be
experts! Expert means knowledgeable! So why didn’t you tell us about
Experts do, in fact, tend to be highly knowledgeable about one subject,
but seldom more than one. They learn one tree from roots to tip-top
limbs. They stand beside other experts who know their trees from roots
to tip-top limbs. Standing together makes for an impressive group
photo. However, split them apart and in terms of the forest they’re in,
they don’t know poop. Their focus on their individual trees blinds them
to the forest that surrounds them, and it certainly provides no view of
any horizon. They know what they know and that’s pretty much it.
However, their credentials and the automatic respect it grants
frequently lulls them into thinking they are expert on more topics than
the one in which they are credentialed. And worse than that, they
invariably believe other experts who pontificate about the trees apart
from their own.
If every expert always told the truth about his or her tree, it would
be much more difficult to challenge them on a given point. But because
each one is habitually dishonest in the ways they’ve been taught are
necessary to make their tree fit into the mainstream forest, none
really do tell the truth as they know it, they put out the truth as
they understand it needs to be for them to remain members of the
“expert” club. It’s an exclusive club, too, invariably rejecting
independent thinkers at the graduate level, so they have no trouble
making absurdities seem at least possible. This is why ordinary people
live blissfully floating in a sea of deceptions spewing from mainstream
science, and it’s also why so many “truths” we take for granted really
Lest you think mine are sour grapes from being rejected by some
graduate school in my college days, let me say that I had no inkling of
how corrupt the system was when I was young. Had my mind been captured
at that point I would have bought into “the system” as wholeheartedly
as those who buy into it today. Get people young and they have
literally no way to know the difference. I was almost 30 and well away
from academics before I gained the first inklings of how corrupt their
system was. And even then I couldn’t bring myself to completely reject
it. My early beliefs were as typical as any mainstreamer reading these
words. My revelations were slow and difficult, and my job is making
similar revelations for others less slow and difficult.
So that’s what I do and why I do it the way I do it. I know science is,
on the whole, as full of crap as the proverbial Christmas turkey. Very
little of what they say, or pretend to know, is reliably true because
so incredibly many of their pontifications are constructed around
blatantly wrong information. My special area of interest is human
origins, and I’ve collected, and continue to collect, wonderfully
convincing evidence for the argument that humans did not evolve on
Earth but were genetically created to live and work as slaves and
servants of superior beings sojourning here for thousands of years.
To the unaware or to the uninitiated, I know how that must sound, but
the evidence for it is astonishing if it can be approached with even a
quasi-open mind. Millions of good people can’t do that, of course,
because they are so thoroughly brainwashed against thinking that far
“outside the box.” But for those who can face such an emotional
challenge, the rewards are manifest. Nobody in the alternative
community demands that anyone see the world as we do. That’s what
religion and science inflict on others. All we want is an opportunity
to have our opinions heard and our ideas evaluated, fairly and
objectively, with no harping about our lack of “credentials” or
My most compelling urge is to help all of us come to know and accept
who we actually are, rather than believing the ridiculous fairy tale
concocted for gullible billions by modern science. That fantasy reduces
us all to little more than cartoon characters in a Disney classic.
Until we firmly establish who we actually are and how we’ve come to be
here on Earth, we can never take our proper place in the larger scheme
of life in the universe. We can never take our rightful seat at any
Galactic Roundtable that might be out there, or take a seat in a bar
like the one in “Star Wars.” Until we dare to acknowledge the vast
array of life “out there,” it is doubtful such life will acknowledge
Acknowledge now or acknowledge later, eventually the Truth with a
capital “T” will be established by someone who, like Albert Einstein in
1905 when he published his famous paper, will have neither credentials
nor credibility because no one with either will dare to think what must
be thought to reach toward capital “T” Truth. That Truth is definitely
on our side, and History with a capital “H” will prove it, exactly as
it proved the flat-Earthers were wrong. When the upheaval comes, we can
be sure the Internet that Michael Crichton wrote about will play a
dominant role. We can be equally certain that people like me, serious
alternative researchers hard at work around the world today, will play
significant roles. The catbird seat will pass to us.
At the proverbial “end of the day,” I and my serious alternative
colleagues will have the pleasure and recognition of being in the
vanguard of the “old timers” who drew a solid bead on the Truth back
around 2000, when billions of humans were so abysmally ignorant about
the actual realities of existence. For me, and I’m sure for most of my
colleagues, that will be reward enough.
Now, have at it. But show some respect.
Thank you, Lloyd.
I originally asked, he also rebutted the specific charges and
objections expressed by individual commenters. I thought this essay was
more to the point. But if you must have a fight, I'm sure it can be
Dirty Rotten Varmint thinks he wants to fight. uh, he doesn't. In fact,
he doesn't want to know in this video which is the cub and which is the
bear. I might be inclined to cut him a break because he's a longtime
commenter... Lloyd might be inclined to cut him a break because he's
trying to be polite...
All DRV needs to know is that there IS a bear. Actually. Lloyd and I are BOTH the bear.
Warning enough? Better be. On the other hand, GO for it...
The Green Fantasy
about -- what does Sigourney call it? -- symbiosis.
. I thought I
was working on four or more wildly different posts
over the past couple days and having trouble bringing any one of them
to fruition. Delay, delay, delay. Until I realized that they were all
part of one post. This one.
Which is why it's probably longer than it should be. But all I can do
is apologize, beg your forebearance, and proceed. I'll save some time
by not trying too hard to stitch together the various topics I was
collecting links on. I trust you to fill in the gaps, although I'll
provide my usual glib generalizations where I feel like it.
Are you entranced by Sigourney's vision of Pandora? Me too. But there's
On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums,"
a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream
of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from
people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The
topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe
Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to
post their confused feelings about the movie.
"I wasn't depressed myself. In fact the movie made me happy ,"
Baghdassarian said. "But I can understand why it made people depressed.
The movie was so beautiful and it showed something we don't have here
on Earth. I think people saw we could be living in a completely
different world and that caused them to be depressed"...
A user named Mike wrote on the fan Web site "Naviblue" that he
contemplated suicide after seeing the movie.
Video: Depressed after 'Avatar'?
"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the
wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of
them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the
film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I
even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed
in a world similar to Pandora and [that] everything is the same as in
I confess this is the reason for the title of this post. So much goes
into this kind of reaction to a mere movie. It's an impossible fantasy,
but the reasons for the fantasy and its impossibility add up to a
showerhead that sprays comfortingly warm water in multiple directions
for multiple reasons. For example. there's the green fantasy that if we
halt capitalism and fossil fuels in their tracks, we can somehow get
closer to nature and live more like the natives did -- forget which
natives, they were ALL more
in tune with the rhythms of nature than we are -- and the earth will be
better off, perhaps even survive our imperialist destruction of our
planet. I know it's not quite as beautiful, but take in these images of
anti-capitalist Haiti -- their simplicity, the bicycles, the green
places, the biting into fruit, the rejection of wealth for its own
sake, the women with baskets on their heads, the relative absence of
power lines, the lovely white-teethed young girl who symbolizes the
innocence we all aspire back to... Isn't this
a perfect picture of the responsible response to climate change?
Innocent harmony with our natural surroundings. A kind of intrinsic
pantheism, lovely, humble, and in tune with the rhythms of sun and
diminution of the role of technology and fossil fuels in what should be
a purer, more sustainable
relationship between the human race and the planet? I think so.
And there's also the cold water of reality. Let's look at that, too.
The cold water
Now, all the the features of simpler life are become the enemies of
life. Unpaved roads. Absence of high-tech infrastructure. Lack of the
wealth and capitalistic incentives that create survivable hospitals,
power stations, port facilities, stores, and homes. Lack of the
taxpayer funding that builds sturdy schools, effective police and fire
departments, and hardened sewer, water, and electric utilities.
I can only imagine what liberals thought about the tsunami that took a
quarter million lives a few years ago. Something assigned to the Ring
of Fire of the South Pacific that has nothing to do with rational life?
I mean, Southeast Asians... really.
But this particular catastrophe, in our own hemisphere, less than a
thousand miles from Miami, should make even the "educated classes"
aren't as important as honest-to-God hard work. It's not enough to have
historical justice on your side as it is some means of building a
civilization that can defend against the worst Nature has to offer.
Oops? Nature as the enemy?
Well, yeah. Nature has always
been the enemy. Still is. The disaster in Haiti has only just begun.
First, the hundreds of thousands of bodies. Next comes epidemic,
national collapse of a two-century autocratic regime, panicky refugees
in the form of boat people and legal petititioners into the U.S. and
the U.S. only, HIV and malaria infusions into the U.S., which will have
to be denied or downplayed, and then condemnation by all of Latin
America for the charge that the U.S. hasn't done nearly enough, while
Cuba, Venezuela, and company did nothing. Back in Haiti, it will be all
typhoid, dengue fever, and starvation. All our fault.
But it's not
our fault. Life
sucks. Nature sucks. Everyone who knows anything will know this too.
The exception will be the"smart" people who still
think they should rule
America. Next topic.
Ah. Thank you, David Brooks. Whose perpetual topic is smart people
versus people who don't "talk
." Tell me, won't you, if this
is completely irrelevant to everything above:
In his New York Times column last week,
David Brooks contrasted "the educated class," which supports Barack
Obama and his liberal worldview, with the tea party movement, "a large,
fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are
against, ... the concentrated power of the educated class"...
[I]t sounds like Brooks was indulging the conceit of so many liberals
that they are, well, simply smarter than conservatives.
But when you look back over the surges of enthusiasm in the politics of
the last two years, you see something like this: The Obama enthusiasts
who dominated so much of the 2008 campaign cycle were motivated by
style. The tea party protesters who dominated so much of 2009 were
motivated by substance.
Or look at other issues on which Brooks notes, correctly, that
Americans have been moving away from positions "associated with the
The educated class thinks that gun control can reduce crime. But over
the last 15 years, crime rates have plummeted thanks to Giuliani-type
police tactics and while 40 states have laws permitting law-abiding
citizens to get licenses to carry concealed weapons.
"The educated class believes in global warming," Brooks notes. But
ordinary Americans have been noticing that temperatures have not been
rising in the last decade as climate scientists' models predicted, and
they may have noticed those Climategate e-mails that show how climate
scientists have been jiggering the statistics and suppressing opposing
On these issues the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary
Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as
the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by
As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the
increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other
Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts,
where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in
the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have
reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party
back in 1773.
Last lap. Only one more connection to be drawn. The greens, the
liberals, the "educated class," all share one thing in common. It's a
thing that divorces them from the essential economics of America, the
masses of their own country, the absurdity of invented apocalypses, and
the reality of disasters like Haiti. It's not an intellectual thing.
They could understand that. It's a thing-type thing. What's the thing?
All the hard labor that makes their abstract superiorities possible.
I once had a friend who confronted his dog with the question, "What did
you do? What did you do
dog acted guilty, whether he understood or not. Would that the
"educated class" had a similar instinct. But they don't. They remain
consistently superior to a plethora of things they've never ever ever ever
Civilization is not a function of a few smart people who tell everyone
else what to do. It's a function of maybe millions of people who create
and maintain the infrastructure that sustains the the seeming
independence from physical
dependencies that constitute superior
life. Senators, congressmen, and lawyers call plumbers in the middle of
the night. And electricians. Why? Because they don't have any idea how
anything actually works.
But who are the plumbers, electricians, and other folks they call?
They're the people libs dismiss as rednecks, flyover jerks, bitter
clingers of God and guns, and these days, tea partiers.
Let's think for a moment about disaster. Who knows more about its
challenges? Chuck Schumer, the Obamas, Senator Rockefeller? Or Joe the
Plumber? The people who have had to pull out their ratchet sets to undo
a thousand disasters in the homes of people who depend on them every
day? Meaning, uh, yeah, the people Washington politicians regard as
servants and idiots in thrall to their own whims.
Namely, the American people.
My question is this: Who knows more about "Nature"? Obama, Schumer,
Frank, Reid, Pelosi, or Gore? Or these guys?
I know their knowledge is not pretty. They're
not pretty. And, God forbid, they're actually cutting nature down. as
in cutting down trees. But let's go back to the big picture. Houses are
made of lumber are made of trees, and which of us is living in a house
not made of lumber? Where the fuck do we think that lumber comes from?
What else do we deny? Do we fancy that our hybrid cars involve no steel
Hate you. Completely. If you're green. You've spent your lives
pretending that you can absent yourself from being a member of the
human race. You can't.
Haiti is. Right now, they need every ounce of technology we can
provide. Imagine what would be the case if the world had sworn off
fossil fuels and couldn't steam aircraft carriers, Coast Guard cutters,
and C130s to the scene. That's the world you'd be left with. Like Thera
and the Minoan civilization. Dead on arrival. Some of the world's
greatest works of art -- "Avatar!" -- plunged into eternal darkness
because the world didn't possess the technology to save one of its
greatest civilizations. Which is called, in the here and now, justice.
Oh. I forgot. South Park anticipated Avatar. Several years ago. Sorry.
Not 3D but better:
whole episode is here.
the chick wasn't
wearing a cheerleader costume. You see?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Mrs. CP is Happy.
the Lord taketh away FIRST, and THEN he giveth.
COMING HOME TO ROOST
. All in all, a darn good football weekend for
Mrs. CP. Since she started following college football (Rutgers season
tickets!), she likes the baby quarterbacks laboring to make it in the
NFL -- Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Matt Stafford, Aaron
Rodgers. So on Saturday she was rooting for the Jets, one of her new
teams, who won
convincingly. Admittedly, she was as confused as the rest of us
Arizona and Green Bay subcontracted their game to the Phoenix Suns and
the Milwaukee Bucks (to prevent injuries perhaps?), resulting in a
tense defensive battle that ended sorrowfully with a fatal last-second
turnover by the Bucks. Yes, a foul should have been called on the play,
but we all know what NBA refs are.
A disappointment, certainly, yet one
that was largely offset by her joy at Michael Vick's dismissal from the
playoffs, which was, well, kind of like a divine judgment on the team
that had the gall to honor Vick as its "comeback player of the year."
For what conceivable reason? No doubt, because he managed to get
through a whole NFL season without killing any more dogs. In some
quarters, that pretty much guarantees you'll be "One and Done" in the
playoffs in the
most humiliating possible fashion, crushed to dust by your most hated
arch rival. Did she smile the smile of satisfied vengeance? Yes.
Absolutely. (Me, I confess to deep sadness that her Donovan McNabb
jersey lies neatly folded and locked away in the bedroom cedar chest.)
Long live the Baltimore Ravens. Her new home
team, led by Ray Rice
(Rutgers) and Joe Flacco (Audubon, NJ). They kicked ass yesterday
against the NFL team of the decade, the New England Patriots. In that
glorious first quarter, for the first time all season she was the Mrs.
CP of old, cheering, LOUD, and bubbly with excitement about the NFL
that's wired into her heart.
And so I
am happy, too. Maybe
Thomas Wolfe was right when he said, "You can't go home again." Or, as
that old Baltimore poet might have put it, more succinctly,
Ravens versus Colts next week. Go Baltimore. Oh
. uh, yeah. Let me be more clear
about my own rooting interest here (despite the thrill I felt when
all-pro safety Ed
Reed warned the press yesterday that "No.
18 is coming
btw. Found this in looking back on past IP posts
about Michael Vick
. Anybody with me on thinking that it's even more
intensely relevant today
than it was months
So here's what I want. I want a
fearless reporter to ask President
Obama about Michael Vick. Has
he paid his debt to society? Should
he be permitted to sign a new multi-million dollar contract with an NFL
team? Is it really possible to live down the deliberate murder of dogs
with a prison term and a possibly self-serving avowal of regret and
apology? Is the revulsion felt by animal lovers for this man truly
racist and unjust? Are dogs really nothing,
as all the NFL pundits, players, and pontificators appear to be
I'd like to know what our president thinks. He certainly wasn't shy
about his opinions regarding Professor Gates. And I, for one, would
glean one hell of a lot of important insight about Barack Obama from
his answer to this question.
Nobody with me? Awwww...