Instapun***K.com Archive Listing
InstaPunk.Com

Archive Listing
January 14, 2010 - January 7, 2010

Thursday, January 14, 2010


Lloyd Pye.

Think 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?

THE ANTECEDENT. I started this. Commenters pressed the issue. And Lloyd Pye has 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 respond in haste and to try to refrain from pettiness and sharpshooting as you 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 our past.”

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 correct.

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 reckoning?

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 wrong.

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 this?”

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 are wrong.

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 “credibility.”

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 us.

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.

P.S. As 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 arranged.

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

Something about -- what does Sigourney call it? -- symbiosis.

ALWAYS ME. 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 a downside:

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 'Avatar.' "

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 moon. A 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" think. Maybe good intentions 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 like us." 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 educated class."

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 views.

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 substance.

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?" The 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 understood.

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:


The whole episode is here.

In Avatar the chick wasn't wearing a cheerleader costume. You see?




Monday, January 11, 2010


The NFL Playoffs:
Mrs. CP is Happy.

Sometimes, the Lord taketh away FIRST, and THEN he giveth.

BIRDS 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 yesterday when 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.) BUT...

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 team 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, "Nevermore."

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...").

R - A - V - E - N - SRAVENS!



Evermore?

P.S. Oh, 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 ago?

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 suggesting?

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...





Top U.S. Foreign War
Correspondent Arrested


Important to stop this guy at the border, no?

OLIVER STONE IS AN ICON. Tired yet? Of course not. It's always much much better to finger-search grandmas and good guys than to admit we're supposed to be keeping an eye on swarthy young male virgins (bomb-neutered or not) who plan to get seduced by slutty angels in the afterlife

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport officials recently interrogated and handcuffed Army Green Beret-turned-reporter Michael Yon because he refused to tell them how much money he makes.

Ten days after the underwear bomber’s foiled attack aboard Flight 253 to Detroit, the award-winning war correspondent was detained by U.S. Customs Border and Protection after having spent most of the last 12 months reporting from the front lines of Afghanistan.

“I was caught off-guard by the question [about my income],” Yon, who had flown into Seattle from Hong Kong, told The Daily Caller. He said he cooperated fully when asked standard security questions about what was in his suitcase: “I was on better-than-normal behavior.”

Yon, an American citizen traveling on an American passport, said he politely but firmly refused to answer questions he considered invasive and irrelevant to ascertaining whether he was a threat to the country. He was subsequently handcuffed, detained and interrogated. Yon said he largely maintained silence after he realized what was happening, and waited for Port Authority Police to arrive on the scene...

“There is not a regulation or law that says what you can or can’t ask,” Mike Milne, a 31-year veteran of U.S. Customs and a spokesman for the CBP, told The Daily Caller.

“We may ask someone for sources and types of income, asking them how they have the means to travel and how they paid for the ticket. If someone doesn’t answer questions it leaves us fewer options for how we’re going to declare their admissibility,” Milne said.

Kewl.

Actually not. I am tired. I am old. Which makes some things simple. Like my advice to President Obama. Stop arresting Michael Yon. And my dead mother hanging on her walker. Don't arrest idiots who want to kiss their girlfriends goodbye. Or the clowns who are supposed to be guarding them.

Instead. Arrest the management numbskulls who reprocess 10,000 airline passengers because they can't identify one lovelorn goop in a bright yellow parka.

Instead. Arrest the highly educated bureaucrats who just "forgot" that all muslims, foreign or domestic, might be convertible by clever con-men into terrorists. (How many fucking Discovery channel documentaries have you produced to convince us that members of dangerous cults can be intelligent and otherwise seemingly sane members of normal families who just fall into the wrong hands? How many? HOW MANY?)

Instead. Quit suggesting that we in America are somehow vaguely to blame for everyone in the world who might have decided we're the reason they won't ever get rich, cool (liked), cool (i.e., air-conditioned) or cool (laid by a sexy blonde in this life). We're not. There's a mathematics of coolness. And, tragically, muslims will never be more than the repeating remainder of that curve. Way after the decimal point. Sorry.

Heard of the Golden Mean, have you? We discovered it, we own it, and we can't lose its beauty even by getting our throats slit in the body-odor-land of Islam. We're the big part of the shell. They're the laggard end stuck in the dead-fish sand. Sorry again. But not really. After all, we're the ones who invented Old Spice and English Leather. And showers.

But I'm not giving you any real news. You know it all before I tell you. The biggest screwup ever. You don't really want to die, do you, jihadist asswipes? You're just so hard up for pussy you'd rather die than live another day. Because your fathers and uncles have been killing your daughters, sisters, and female cousins for so long -- for honor -- that there's no one left for you to marry, let alone absolve you of virginity in some Mecca-facing back seat.

The incredible, awful, ridiculous  truth. Jihad is merely a synonym for horny. Your desire to kill us is actually a frustrated desire to, uh, dip your wick, uh, screw, uh, make love to a girl who could conceivably love you back.

I pronounce this truth knowing full well that John Lennon was also a dick. No such thing as free love. YOUR culture makes it more or less impossible for you to get laid. OUR culture has taught us what you'll never get old enough to learn. That the price of getting laid is always steep, no matter what religion you are. You won't get to learn it until your post-death life slams you into sexual misery. Kewl. The jihad war is the revenge of the nerds. The retaliation of the unloved, uncool against the rest of us. How does that fit into the peace and love vision of Beatlemania?

I just want all American lefties to understand that the war for free love  they won in the sixties is the war they started with the rest of the world, the war that will kill them in the end if they don't choose to fight to the death now. The snot-nosed geeks are coming at your throats with axes. Still love Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix, do you?

Do you really think the Islamic jihadist fundamentalists would be attacking us if our moms were June Cleaver? If our dads were Robert Young? If our children were Paul Stone and Shelley Fabares? No. What they're objecting to is not Red State America but Blue State America. All the whore starlets (Name them for yourself.) The America that believes in abortion, promiscuity, Lesbian bitches in charge, gay gossip columnists, and Demi Moore's little gigolo.

And the irony is that only Red State America is prepared to oppose them. Islamic jihadists don't have any real grudge against the private lives of Christians. They hate Jews, but absent the secularists, they wouldn't have the balls to assault American Jews, because we accept them and they wouldn't fucking dare blackball them unless they had Ivy League accomplices. Their real jihad is against their fiercest defenders -- the self-hating Gaians who lie supine awaiting the barbarian knife at their throats, as if the primitive desire for human sacrifice were somehow justified by tsunamis and melting glaciers.

We should have a reality show of jihadist carotid gushers. What the Islamists would do to the throats of Fonda, Sarandon, Madonna, Megan Fox, Paltrow, Penn, Robbins, Clooney, Baldwin, Cameron, etc, etc, etc. etc.

Except that then we'd also have to have the show about how far the U.S. Marines would go to save them, regaadless.

Which would be fine. After all. something like Michael Yon.




Friday, January 08, 2010


"At war with al Qaeda"


THE BUCK STOPS WHERE? Yesterday, the president did two things in his latest remarks about the Christmas Day bomb attack. He pulled what we Philadelphians call a Donovan McNabb, beginning by taking full responsibility for another embarrassing failure and then proceeding to shower blame everywhere else. The buck stops with him, he proclaimed, but everybody else screwed up big time. Just so we all know. Then he did a second thing. He carefully and definitively framed what he now concedes is a war on terror:

President Obama Thursday afternoon publicly called for the intelligence community to do better in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt. In the process, he offered a response to critics on the right who have complained that he has not used rhetoric indicating the seriousness of the situation.

"While passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands," the president said. "We are at war."

"We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again," he continued. "And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them."

The president said America has "made progress" in that war, having inflicted "major blows against al Qaeda leaders." He said "we have disrupted plots at home and abroad and saved American lives."

He then reached out to the Muslim world, as he has in the past.

"We know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda," he said. "But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations, not just in the Middle East but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding."

He said that is the reason he has directed intelligence officials to develop a new strategy to deal with "lone recruits." And he added that it was also crucial to "communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death, including the murder of fellow Muslims, while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress."

America, he said, believes in the aspirations that all people share, such as "to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security."

"That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists," he said.

We're not at war with an entire sector of fundamentalist Islam that has been sponsored and proliferated throughout the middle east and beyond by Arab kings, Persian and Palestinian despots, powerful muslim clerics, expatriate academics, and numerous front organizations here and abroad which masquerade as peaceful ambassadors of good will. No. We are at war with a single entity called Al Qaida, which deals in some mysteriously nameless brand of hatred that rounds up "lone recruits" for unspecified violent ends. And if this one nefarious organization could be made to go away, that would end all the present foolishness as well as the need for our Nobel Peace Lord to sully his silver tongue with bellicose words. Because as we all know, the rest of us would be perfectly happy if we could just be guaranteed an education, dignified employment, and, you know, peace and security.

I don't know. Maybe he's sincere. Maybe that's how he really looks at it. But I can't help thinking that he's actually doing his best to send al Qaida a tip based on his own lengthy experience as a community organizer. If they could simply change their name, diversify into all manner of activities, some putatively focused on education, dignity, etc, and others, well, never mind, then he, the Ultimate Community Organizer, would be able to ignore them and go back to dismissing all acts of terrorist violence as isolated, meaningless events. I mean, could he be telling them to get smart and go legit, at least on the surface?

It's not like there's no precedent he might have in mind...


Change the damn name, fellas!

Are you listening, bin Laden? Get a reassuring makeover. Get some government grants and a thousand little offices. It makes recruiting far easier to do and far harder to track. If nobody can figure out who you are, what you're doing, or how it all works, then nobody can be blamed. Especially not the remote and austere president of the United States.


It's called the Chicago Way.

Unless that's what the jihadists are already doing and Obama's too dumb-smart to recognize his own M.O.

Or...

But no, that can't be right...





Pumpkinhead speaks...

"Connecting the dawts..."

WHAT'S OLD IS NEW AGAIN
. Oh please. How would the bobble-head doll of alphabet network news respond if 300 Americans had (nearly) died under the watch of a Republican president? As it happens, we know. Back in May of 2004, Koppel presided over a morbid ceremony of reading the names of American servicemen killed in action. It was a purely political exercise for the purpose of undermining U.S. foreign policy, specifically the War in Iraq, that illegal and delusionary engagement which, only now, can we see helped distract the terrorists who want to kill us from focusing their attention on ordinary American citizens. Here's how we reported it at the time:

I watched some but not all of Ted Koppel's memorial on Nightline. My guess is that hardly anybody watched all of it. What was there to learn or feel? At approximately two seconds per name and photo, there was no way to connect with any individual casualty in the list. The show's format deliberately restricted us to only this duad of data -- name and photo, name and photo, name and photo -- as if we were being subjected to a kind of sensory deprivation. I experienced the illusion that the broadcast was actually being transmitted in black and white.

The absence of music in a medium where it is a standard part of the experience reminded me of Failsafe, the 1960s nightmare fable of the Cold War. In that soundtrack-less movie, the nuclear annihilation of New York City is rendered through a sequence of soundless freezing of live action shots. Children playing. Freeze. Pedestrians bustling. Freeze. It's an act of reduction and diminishment. This is it; this is all they are now; it doesn't matter who they really were, what they believed, what they loved; they're just gone. Though Koppel titled his piece The Fallen, the broadcast was not about honoring individual sacrifice. It in no way compared to the newspaper tributes that memorialized the 9/11 dead. Those were about introducing us to people whose lives had value and meaning despite their premature end. The Fallen was not that. It was a featureless droning process of accumulation. It was the broadcast equivalent of the Vietnam Memorial known as The Wall, a bleak rendering of futility.

Connecting the "dawts"? (I just love it when American pseudo-intellectuals put on their Euro-affected accents for the Brit press. Don't you?) Here are two more "dawts" to connect:

Koppel made his whole career out of the Iranian hostage crisis that occurred in the Carter administration.

He wrote the epitaph for that career by journeying to Iran and concluding that Iranians were smarter than Americans who supported Bush.

All this should be ancient history, shouldn't it? Network dinosaurs should go politely extinct like everyone else, right? But all things Carter administration are new again, ain't? Including Ted the Head.

Gawd-help-us.

P.S. I forgot to mention just how much this midget with the gigantic head and even more gigantic ego offends me. It's, like, a lot. I didn't like him even before the 2004 memorial obscenity. Back when I was doing Shuteye Nation (c. 2000), I wrote (and still stand by) this:

Ted Koppule. The sheer size of his head is stupefying. It's so awe-inspiringly huge that no one has ever been able to listen to a word he says. Maybe that's why he always gives the impression that he's talking to himself, for his own amusement, but really really loud. It gives you the feeling that if you could listen to him, he's being kind of wry and witty and cogent, though loud. But it might be that he's just reading the phone book off the teleprompter, really loud. His show is called Nightmine, and did we mention that his head is just shockingly enormous? Oh.

I thought I was doing satire then. Now -- after hearing him read the names of U.S. military casualties as if they were entries in the phonebook -- I'm convinced it was the literal truth of a small small man with an ego 20 times the size of his actual worth. I despise and detest Ted Koppel. If you object, you know where to find me.




Thursday, January 07, 2010


A New Media Beacon

No, not him. The place I swiped this pic from. You'll see.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS... If you think it's been quiet around here because we've been goofing off, think again. We've been out looking for pinpoints of light in the enveloping darkness of this ill-starred new decade. The news itself has degenerated to farce as Obama tries to pretend he cares about protecting Americans from terrorists and the Democratic congress pretends that its process for passing the healthcare bill bears some resemblance to deliberative democracy. Are various voices being insightful or humorous about these ridiculous charades? Yes. But there's a flavor of gallows humor about it all, which is less like light than a chuckle in the dark.

And then there have been the usual dumb distractions, all the more annoying in the context of our dawning awareness that the Obama administration has hurled the nation's security apparatus all the way back to the 1990s and our economic strategy all the way back to the 1930s. So what are hot topics out in op-ed land? Brit Hume's arrogant suggestion that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity. The disgraceful fact that conservatives as a group are badmouthing the only genuine American economic success of the past year, James Cameron's anti-American blockbuster Avatar. The amazing discovery, reported with much less irony than outrage, that winter is still a season of cold and snow and ice. And btw, how dare Rush Limbaugh not die after being rushed to the hospital... and just how drunk was Mariah Carey at that awards banquet? At least she didn't look quite as foolish as JLo in her catsuit or Robert Gibbs stonewalling journalists about his boss's repeated C-SPAN, er, fibs. And so on.

In the dramatic form that used to be called tragedy (back before the term was coopted to be a synonym for anything sad or hurtful), there are two key moments. The first is the climax, which occurs when the tragic hero has committed the action or made the decision that dooms him to destruction. The second is called the catastrophe. It's the moment when the inevitable doom arrives. Everything in between is a kind of waiting, usually filled by playwrights with fine speeches and plot contrivances. But it's really just waiting. Something like the absurdist play Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, in which minor characters from Hamlet are offstage wondering what the hell is going on and, yes, waiting to find out how bad it's going to be.

Quite theatrically, the climax of our own national drama occurred on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Senate passage of the healthcare nightmare and the comedy of errors that was the underwear bomber's mission were both dooming events for President Obama and, unfortunately, for us as well. He cannot fully recover from the first, because he will be equally damned if the bill passes or it doesn't. Until that moment he still had the opportunity to pull the congress and nation back from the brink and, only somewhat humbled, call for a truly bipartisan do-over. But now his 60-vote majority is committed to a man in terms voters cannot mistake, and the senators who did Obama's bidding will be equally damaged by a failure to pass a bill with their filibuster-proof majority or by passage of a bill so recklessly corrupt and destructive they will never live it down. Catastrophe awaits. What specific form it will take we do not know. We can guess all we want, but we're really just twiddling our thumbs.

The same is true of the second climactic moment, which occurred just 24 hours after the first. The pundits and experts and administration spokesmen can jabber all they want to about reviews and reforms and procedures and fixing what's broken in "the system," but the reality is that it's too late. Obama's big gamble that he could end the war on terror by wishing it away, renaming it, making nice to fanatics who hate us, and transferring all the real action to the criminal justice system and a purely defensive homeland security strategy has failed. Utterly. A system as big and complicated and lethargic as this one is cannot be fixed quickly if it can be fixed at all. For eight years its seeming success was an illusion, procured by the aggressive stance of the Bush administration that put our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to lure Islamic terrorists away from the United States into the sights of the world's greatest military. They took the bait. Now the bait has been self-righteously and sanctimoniously withdrawn. Are they appeased? No. They are emboldened. Catastrophe awaits. Again, what specific form it will take we do not know. We can guess all we want, but we're really just twiddling our thumbs.

And whistling in the dark.

So most of what's going on at the moment, this week, this month, doesn't matter. We're all just Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern idling in the wings.

But. I did find one pinpoint of light. It may be just a flaring match today, but because it is aiming itself toward a much bigger and brighter future, it might eventually acquire some power to affect one of the Iago's who has conspired to lead us into ruin. Andrew Breitbart's new Big Journalism site is here, and I'm happy to report that all of the initial articles are worthwhile reading. Please do read them all and see if you agree with me that it sounds like an army abuilding. God knows, we need one here on the homefront.

That's why that small reedy sound you hear is me, whistling.





Lighten up, IP.

Guaranteed to break the dour mood. (H/t Jonah Goldberg.)

SHEESH. There. A good laugh helps, doesn't it? And some good news that may have escaped your attention in the general dreariness: Think the age of fossil fuels is done? Not hardly.

Chevron came here, an hour-long helicopter ride south of New Orleans, because so many of the places it would rather be -- big, easily tapped oil fields close to shore -- have become off-limits. Western oil companies have been kicked out of much of the Middle East in recent decades, had assets seized in Venezuela and seen much of the U.S. roped off because of environmental regulations. Their access in Iran is limited by sanctions, in Russia by curbs on foreign investment, in Iraq by violence.

So, Chevron and other major oil companies are moving ever farther from shore in search of oil. That quest is paying off as these companies discover unexpectedly large quantities of oil -- oil that only they have the technology and financial muscle to find and produce.

In May, the first wells from Chevron's latest Gulf of Mexico project came online. The wells are now pumping 125,000 barrels of oil a day, making the project one of the gulf's biggest producers. In September, BP PLC announced what could be the biggest discovery in the gulf in years: a field that could hold three billion barrels.

Beyond the Gulf of Mexico, companies have announced big finds off the coasts of Brazil and Ghana, leading some experts to suggest the existence of a massive oil reservoir stretching across the Atlantic from Africa to South America. Production from deepwater projects -- those in water at least 1,000 feet deep -- grew by 67%, or by about 2.3 million barrels a day, between 2005 and 2008, according to PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm.

The discoveries come as many of the giant oil fields of the past century are beginning to dry up, and as some experts are warning that global oil production could soon reach a peak and begin to decline. The new deepwater fields represent a huge and largely untapped source of oil, which could help ease fears that the world won't be able to meet demand for energy, which is expected to grow rapidly in coming years.

For oil companies, the discoveries mean something more: After a decade of retreat, large Western energy companies are taking back the lead in the quest to find oil. "A lot of people can get the very easy oil," says George Kirkland, Chevron's vice chairman. "There's just not a lot of it left."

Of course the anti-capitalist global warming nuts will try to prevent us from acquiring this new "unobtanium," but remember: when there's enough money to be made, peoples and nations tend to brush aside any scolding kooks standing in the way, if not trample them flat. You know the very best thing about Cameron's 10-ft tall blue meanies? They're not here. We are.

Drill, drill, drill.

Feel at least a little bit better? I do.




Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to InstaPunk.com Learn More