How not only Spanish bureaucracy works

Spanish filmmakers have finally shot a documentary movie accurately showing how the bureaucrats operate:



Holy cow, I totally identify myself with the blonde entrepreneur. That's exactly how I approach bureaucratic offices most of the time and the bureaucrats' behavior is exactly what I usually get in return.

My emotions for the bureaucrats and their apologists have often been so intense that I have played this scene of Mafia I about 50 times in my life, imagining that the people whom I "interact" with are state employees, the kind of creatures who support - for obvious reasons - the expansion of the government and pseudo-government bodies whose main purpose is to make living for similar folks who are "working" on similar things. The kind of people who constantly harass those who actually pay for their living.




Whenever I played the game, I was loving the people. I was mostly loving them with the Thompson 1928 submachine gun whenever it was available. Needless to say, if Al Qaeda had chosen the headquarters of IRS, INS, or one of numerous other criminal organizations that have been treating me in a similar way as the Gentlemen in the video, I wouldn't object to Al Qaeda's act for a second.

Thanks to Jiří Wagner

---

Bio-cucumbers kill in Germany

When we talk about Spain, there have been 7 deaths and 1,000 hospitalizations in Germany caused by the deadly O104 serotype of Escherichia coli (E coli). It's been quickly found that the germ comes out of cucumbers.

But they're not ordinary cucumbers. They're Spanish cucumbers. But they're not ordinary Spanish cucumbers. They're organic cucumbers - we call them bio-cucumbers - for salads. 100 pieces of them were also sold by Country Life Co., a company promoting healthy life style :-), in the Czech Republic.

The message is that if you want to eat literally shit, destroy your kidneys, and die, eat organic food. If you want to suffer from plague and the same other nasty diseases as our ancestors in the Middle Ages, eat the same unrefined medieval food. In the modern language, the medieval food is called organic food.

Feminazis assassinate the president of U.S. surgeons

The feminist Gestapo would love to deny top U.S. surgeons the right to conclude e.g. that semen is good for female health

Dr Lazar Greenfield of the University of Michigan is a giant of surgery. In 1968, he invented a metal filter - the Greenfield filter - that prevented clots from traveling through veins into lungs. The discovery has surely saved lots of lives. He has also authored 200 papers, 8 books, and 55 book chapters. Dr Greenfield has also recruited lots of younger surgeons, including a large number of female ones.

However, because of the self-evident inability of the American nation to safely liquidate the pernicious feminist fascist movement, this 78-year-old heroic president of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) had to undergo a rather inhuman treatment that included his forced resignation from ACS.




What happened?

In Valentine's Day issue of Surgery News which was later censored, he dared to share an important and rather persuasive scientific finding that is directly relevant both for women's health as well as Valentine's Day: semen is a healthier gift than chocolate. He wrote:

One of the legends of St. Valentine says that he was a priest arrested by Roman Emperor Claudius II for secretly performing marriages. Claudius wanted to enlarge his army and believed that married men did not make good soldiers, rather like Halsted’s feelings about surgical residents. But Valentine’s Day is about love, and if you remember a romantic gut feeling when you met your significant other, it might have a physiological basis.

It has long been known that Drosophila raised on starch media are more likely to mate with other starch-raised flies, whereas those fed maltose have similar preferences. In a study published online in the November issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, investigators explored the mechanism for this preference by treating flies with antibiotics to sterilize the gut and saw the preferences disappear (Proc. Nad. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010 Nov. 1).

In cultures of untreated flies, the bacterium  L. plantarum was more common in those on starch, and sure enough, when L. plantarum was returned to the sterile groups, the mating preference returned. The best explanation for this is revealed in the significant differences in their sex pheromones. These experiments also support the hologenome theory of evolution wherein the unit of natural selection is the “holobiont,” or combination of organism and its microorganisms, that determines mating preferences.

Mating gets more interesting when you have an organism that can choose between sexual and asexual reproduction, like the rotifer. Biologists say that it’s more advantageous for a rotifer to remain asexual and pass 100% of its genetic information to the next generation. But if the environment changes, rotifers must adapt quickly in order to survive and reproduce with new gene combinations that have an advantage over existing genotypes. So in this new situation, the stressed rotifers, all of which are female, begin sending messages to each other to produce males for the switch to sexual reproduction (Nature 2010 Oct. 13). You can draw your own inference about males not being needed until there’s trouble in the environment.

As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you’d be surprised by new findings. It’s been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.

There's a lot of interesting ideas in the text - and all of the nontrivial ones are supported by peer-reviewed literature. But the Big Sisters never sleep, especially - sadly enough - not with a man, so some of Greenfield's third class female colleagues (and a couple of their would-be male colleagues as well) have eventually forced him to resign as the editor of the publication and, today, as the president of ACS.

I am not able to safely evaluate the robustness of Dr Greenfield's arguments concluding that unprotected sex is healthy for women; my guess is that he is right, also because in millions of years, evolution is likely to have developed some advantages that make the unfiltered contact of the sexes preferred. But whether we have a reliable proof or not: holy crap, he knows quite something about medicine, doesn't he? I just find it shocking if the very top surgeon in the very top country of the world is effectively not allowed by the inferior yet zealous minds to convey his conclusions about these extremely important health questions that directly belong to his primary expertise.

First dinner in the Society of Fellows

Ten years ago, in 2001, I was still believing that the United States were a country of the free and of course, this belief may also have increased the frequency of my jokes, laughter, and good mood in general. It just happens that during the very first dinner in the Harvard Society of Fellows, which was probably one right after the interview if I remember well (before the new fellows were chosen), I have presented one of my favorite jokes that is very similar to Dr Greenfield's - more serious - findings.

The joke is a question: What is the most intelligent cell in a female body?

The answer is, of course, a sperm. ;-)

I am confident that at that time, I didn't have any real problems because of this joke that was heard by a dozen of junior and senior fellows; after all, they picked me. About one half of them exploded in laughter; the remaining one half of them froze to death. The former group included a constantly smiling fellow natural scientist who appreciated that it was a "double hit" because the joke was making fun both about the sensitive sexual topics as well as the intelligence of the sexes.

Well, I am not sure whether I would have the courage to say such a joke in the U.S. today - in front of people who are not uniformly my "verified friends". During my last years in the U.S., I became well aware of the suffocating atmosphere of the political correctness in the U.S. which made me immensely unhappy - at least in comparison with the previous years. Today, I no longer consider America to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. This conclusion also means that its national anthem has become deceptive.

What really drives me up the wall is that the people who are supposed to lose their freedom to speak are also if not primarily the people who are the most competent ones to speak about the issues.

I remember similar feelings from 2006 when two crackpots whose names don't have to be listed explicitly complained to 1/2 of the Harvard senior professors about my perfectly polite amazon.com reviews of their books that have unmasked why the books were actually rubbish. They actually mentioned that the senior professors should give me a hard time because I was not politically correct in other respects, too. You can't be surprised that I viscerally hate Shmolin, Shmoit, and all of their shameless apologists; they're just stinky assholes without any traces of ethics.

The topics discussed in my reviews were exactly the aspects of physics whose extraordinary knowledge has landed me a job a year earlier, as chosen from 66 applicants, and two fucked-up crackpot assholes who (including their thousands of equally defective crackpot fans) don't know 1% of physics that I was familiar with wanted to silence me? What did it mean, I was asking? Still, I had a feeling that this self-evident description of the situation was controversial, a finding that made me even more depressed.

The situation in the U.S. Academia - and the medical elite - is really bad. Any topic that overlaps with some ideologically sensitive issues is de facto being controlled by extremist ideological groups such as the feminists who are predominantly humans of poor quality. The currently politically loaded questions involve not only climatology and pretty much all environmental sciences, much like all issues related to sexes, races, and any group differences between humans, but some of the jerks mentioned above have even attempted to politicize topics as abstract as quantum gravity.

As far as the healthy-semen hypothesis goes, I am convinced that the Inquisition can't stop the propagation of the ideas - and, after some tests and filtering, the truth - among the scientifically leaning people. Most intelligent women are aware that the conclusions by Dr Greenfield are more worth to listen than the preconceived opinions of his critics, so this story may lead to an increased rate of unprotected sex. What the PC police does manage to achieve is to poison the community of surgeons themselves.

Via Vitalik

2011 MIT feminist women's status report

The Daily Beast has pointed out that after a decade, an MIT committee has released a brand new report on the status of women at the technological institute:

A Report on the Status of Women Faculty in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MIT, 2011

The key person behind similar documents at the MIT is Nancy Hopkins, an MIT biologist and the main assassin of Lawrence Summers as the Harvard president. In January 2005, when Lawrence Summers began to explain how his twin daughters played with the daddy truck and the baby truck, she was going to commit the most important achievement of her life.




Nancy Hopkins left the room, called a friend in the Boston Globe, and threatened Harvard University, the American newspapers, and the global Academia that she would vomit if she stayed in the room as a polite participant of a conference whose very purpose was to discuss how women play with the trucks. She demanded Harvard and the U.S. media to start a hysterical witch hunt against all sane men in the system in general and Lawrence Summers in particular and they obeyed.

At that time, I decided to leave the U.S. Academia and President Summers was forced to resign after a year of continuing harassment by the feminists and various groups of their PC friends.

What does the new report say? Well, it celebrates the "progress" i.e. the increased amount of funding and advantages that goes to the women just because they are women. It is inevitable that the main message of the report has to be a positive one. It if were not, the text could also be understood as a criticism of the current MIT president, Susan Hockfield, who is also a female.

However, on pages 13 and 14, they also list "remaining and resulting problems". They quote a few women who are dissatisfied that they were not invited to a conference - and who are also complaining that feminism is not as rampant in some Western European countries as it is in the contemporary U.S. Academia.

More importantly, on page 14, they discuss "perceived preferential treatment of women". What's the problem? Their problem is that they notice that people notice that women are being given advantages because they are women. This fact can be decoded from the lower relative abundance of references to "brilliance" in recommendation letters for female candidates and in the persistent questions of new female faculty: "Was I hired because I am female?"

Well, if you ask me, I can't tell you a universal answer because there's no universal answer. And I can't give you a specific answer for your case because I don't know your name, your achievements, and your talents, and it's very likely that I haven't attended the meeting that was deciding about you. However, I can give you a statistical answer. Approximate yourself by an average MIT woman who has gotten a tenure in recent years. What are the odds that you got it because you are a woman?

This question is easy to be answered. Just look at the percentage of tenured MIT women in the mid 1990s, before the feminist bias became aggressive and substantial. At that time, the percentage of women among new tenured faculty was about 8.5%. It's 17% today. (In all these figures, I only mean the two schools of science and engineering by "MIT" - the institute has three more schools.)

It shouldn't be hard to do the maths. The logic and expectations of the fields - and the relative people's ability to excel in them - hasn't changed much in the two decades so about 8.5% of the tenured faculty would be women if almost no one tried to give women much advantage, just like it was the case in the early 1990s. However, the percentage has doubled.

Chances are therefore 50% that if you are a recently tenured female professor at the MIT, you were tenured because you are female. Try to talk to another MIT female tenured professor: it is more likely than not (75%) that at least one of you got tenured because of her sexual organs. This percentage makes it unreasonable to expect that the discussion between the two of you could have anything to do with the meritocracy. Fortunately, most of you don't care why you were hired.

Note that these effects of feminism are strong and "highly concentrated" if you focus on the female subgroup; they're not as large when you look at the whole MIT because the female professors are still a minority which reduces the impact of all effects that only influence the females.

It's kind of honest that the authors of the report chose the title "remaining and resulting problems" because this problem is clearly a "resulting problem" that is guaranteed to increase with the influence of the feminist ideology, not a "remaining one" that is expected to fade away. The more often the feminist ideology with all its crap about men's and women's being equal in all fields and about men's everlasting discrimination against women influences the hiring process, the greater numbers of inappropriate women will be hired, and the more more often their male and female colleagues will notice that it was the case.

It's that simple.

In the unlimited feminism scenario, the MIT will effectively be composed of the male and female portions. The male portion will resemble the MIT as we have known it; the female portion will be primarily composed of people who don't know much about technology and who use the MIT as a source of free money and a charity paying for daycare centers and kindergartens. Correspondingly, about 1/2 of the money from the donors will go to welfare for the women who marketed themselves as technological scholars.

Most likely, the reality will be somewhere in between the meritocratic MIT we have known decades ago and the MIT from the unlimited feminism scenario. You may think that it's not too bad if 50% of the resources are wasted. But the percentage is only 50% because we haven't discussed the affirmative action for ethnic groups and other groups. In the extreme scenario, about 80% of the resources may be spent just for the affirmative action. Of course, within the remaining 20%, most of the amount is being wasted for other things, too.

President Klaus on dictatorship of political correctness

Czech (nominally) right-wing prime minister, Mr Petr Nečas, has vetoed the candidacy of Mr Ladislav Bátora, a deeply conservative intellectual, who was expected to become a deputy education minister of the Czech Republic because Mr Bátora used to be a candidate of the nationalist National Party in some past elections. See Czech Press Agency.

President Klaus has identified this dismissal as another example of the dictatorship of political correctness in his today's op-ed in Právo (in Czech).

For you to understand the title: "the Hilsneriad" was a media campaign started in 1899 when Mr Leopold Hilsner, a poor Jew, was first accused of murder of a 19-year-old Czech woman, Ms Anežka Hrůzová. It was the most intense collection of anti-Semitic events that controlled the Czech society at the end of the 19th century. Prof Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk defended Hilsner and was humiliated - which hasn't prevented him from becoming the founding president of Czechoslovakia years later. I will explain other things that are unfamiliar to non-Czech readers inside square brackets within my translation of Klaus's text which starts right here:

A Little Czech Hilsneriad or another case of the dictatorship of political correctness

During the last week, several Czech journalists together with some politicians - which, shockingly for some of us, included some politicians from the right side of the political spectrum - have created the so-called BátoraGate which I find deeply troubling. I was still believing that I live in a primarily democratic society but there are growing signals that it is not the case. While our contemporary society continues to boast many attributes which allow it to be called democratic - unlike e.g. Colonel Gaddafi's regime - something completely different is gradually becoming the dominant force. Not such a long time ago, I discovered the English term "PC-Society" in an American journal. The term didn't denote a society full of personal computers. Instead, it was the name of a politically correct society. This is an amazing and enormously useful term.




Moreover, what is and what is not politically correct is being defined by one - totally self-appointed - group of people that has conquered a completely unbelievable position in the media and that tells us in a sovereign and authoritarian way what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do. It is a global phenomenon, a European phenomenon, as well as a Czech phenomenon. He who dares resist it faces an avalanche of attacks leading to his discrediting in society, often a loss of job, and his personal ostracism. This exactly is happening to Mr Ladislav Bátora in our country.

In order for me to prevent speculations, I have to say that I don't know Mr Bátora in person, I have never talked to him directly (not even via phone, and I haven't exchanged mail with him), and I haven't even read any text he authored. I know that at www.euportal.cz, one may find a photograph from a rally against the Treaty of Lisbon which was organized by the D.O.S.T. movement and where I stand next to him; but I have never exactly known who he was. The only thing I know is that he is a deeply conservative, authentic right-oriented man who attends various public events to express his opposition to trends he disagrees with. Those include the European Union because he thinks - much like I do - that the European Union, especially in its current incarnation, is a flawed construct and that this opinion has to be loudly articulated. I would even dare to say that this opinion is close to the majority attitude of the Czech society (and maybe even the people on the whole European continent): this, however, runs counter to the opinion of the strategists of political correctness (and even they may disagree with the ideology they promote - which may only reflect their interests) and those who want to be on good terms with Brussels at any cost.

On Thursday, February 24th, 2011, I accidentally read short excerpts from Mr Ladislav Bátora's CV which have intrigued me immensely. I was searching for the whole text and I found out that the autobiography was written on March 8th, 2009, and published on February 21st, 2011 on the www.euportal.cz server. For you to get some idea about Mr Bátora's opinions, here is the excerpt:

---

Excerpt from Mr Ladislav Bátora's autobiography

Conservatism isn't an ideology but an attitude to life - as every proper conservative may confirm. Here are a few examples describing myself:

Better Confucius than Rousseau, better Franz Josef I of Austria [conservative emperor in the 19th and 20th century] than Joseph II [a progressive emperor], better Ms Jarmila Šuláková [an old lady singing folk songs] than Mr Jura Pavlica [a violinist and singer singing slightly modernized folk songs], better local than global, better mellow szegedin goulash from the "Pub of Rozvařils" [a traditional name of a rural restaurant] than yummy emulgator food from McDonald's, better Ms Božena Viková-Kunětická [a Czech writer and politician before the war] than Ms Jiřina Šiklová [an ex-communist ex-dissident sociologist who became green], better education of the basics of Greek and Latin than courses how to pull on condoms, better "with Lorenová" [with the correct Czech feminization and declination of names] than "with Loren" or "with Lorena" [adopting names and words directly from other languages], better a South Bohemian country woman than a female intellectual from Prague, better a modest Czech crown than a prettified euro, better Agnetha Fältskog than Joan Baez, better tradition than progress, better matternity leave than mandatory day euronurseries, better Mr Stanislav Sucharda [sculptor 100 years ago] than Olbram Zoubek [a contemporary, but old, sculptor], better Nixon than Bush, better Bartered Bride [by Mr Bedřich Smetana] than Leaving [by Václav Havel], better čecháček [a derogatory Czech term for (provincial?) Czechs] than světáček [a similar, less usual word to denote a cosmopolitan], better to be a creditor than to owe, better Koniáš [a jesuit priest 300 years ago who also liked to burn protestant books and became a symbol of it] than Halík [a top contemporary Catholic priest and left-wing intellectual], better wayside inn "U tří lip" [By Three Lime Trees] than Grand Hotel Bilderberg... And certainly not europeism, humanrightism, genderism, multiculturalism, feminism, antidiscriminationism, political correctness, oikophobia [fear of the home], ecumenism, positive discrimination, homosexualism, Truth and Love as ordained from Havel's unventilated moral and spiritual den, environmentalism, International Court of Justice, Mr Kaplický [a late Czech architect who proposed the "melted blob" for the National Library in Prague] and Mr Ježek's blobism [defense of this blob by Mr Vlastimil Ježek, the director of the library]...

And, more generally, all this brainwashing neosocialist dogmatics of the seigniorially distributed Well-Being instead of Freedom; dogmatics that is intentionally and maliciously beating us and it will certainly kill us at some moment! Let's try to delay this end as much as possible.

---

[VK:] I insist that it is legitimate to share opinions of this type and that it would be fair to conduct a serious dialogue about them, not to condemn them a priori. As far as I am concerned, Mr Bátora's opinions are close to mine in many points. I also prefer tradition over putative progress, I also prefer to listen to Jarmila Šuláková on radio rather than to the destroyer of the folk music Mr Pavlica. Even I see a threat in the seeds planted to the human society by J. J. Rousseau, even I am afraid that the slogan of the civic society is hiding lots of non-democratic ideas (and deeds). The difference between Mr Koniáš and Mr Halík is 300 years (and probably a genuine faith in the former case and just some media equilibristics in the latter). I have never used the term "čecháček" (a provincial Czech) in a derogatory sense (this term is one of the icons of the Czech version of the PC-Society) but I am afraid of our allegedly "global" giants, and so on, and so on.

That's why we should thank Mr Ladislav Bátora for having articulated those words so sharply and courageously.

Václav Klaus, published in Právo, February 28th, 2011
(translation by L.M.)

---

P.S. The Catholic priest, Mr Tomáš "Koniáš" Halík, has praised Klaus because he's not only an expert in cinematography and climatology but also in theology. Theologian Halík himself admitted that he couldn't react to the analysis - because, as we know, he's not quite competent. However, he returned something he's good at - silly expletives. According to Mr Halík, President Klaus is converging towards the attitudes of "fascizing petit bourgeois". :-) The last two words were stated in Czech and simply represents inhabitants of medium-sized towns.

Republican AGW crusader Kerry Emanuel

The Los Angeles Times have promoted Kerry Emanuel of MIT,

Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible

See also a short echo in the Washington Post.

Kerry Emanuel, who has once argued that the hurricanes get stronger and more frequent because of man-made climate disruption, is presented as a new role model: Republicans are recommended to follow in his footsteps. Of course, the media won't show us left-wing scholars who are climate skeptics - e.g. Denis Rancourt or left-wing journalists such as Alexander Cockburn.

These facts indicate that for many journalists, the attitudes to climate disruption have become more important than the attitudes to ordinary political questions that used to divide the people into leftists and rightwingers.




Needless to say, there is a huge correlation between the traditional political attitudes and the approach to the question whether climate change is something "we should wrestle with". This correlation exists because the AGW memes are political in character after all. No one really cares about a Celsius degree that the Earth may add or subtract in average. What some people are enthusiastic about is the possibility that the tautology of climate change, when "properly" marketed, allows them to regulate and control whole nations.

It is equally obvious that there exist exceptions - left-wing climate skeptics and right-wing climate crusaders. Kerry Emanuel has included himself in the latter category. The Los Angeles Times also mention John Cook of the Skeptical Science - who is a moderate evangelical Christian and a hysterical AGW crusader - and a Barry Bickmore who is a Mormon alarmist.



Go to the John Cook's soulmates' website to learn that Christ will arrive on May 21st and God will destroy the world on October 21st, at 8 a.m.

Because the AGW issue has become somewhat important in the U.S. - and surely among the MIT Earth scientists - Kerry Emanuel is thinking about going Democrat because of "anti-scientific" attitudes of the current GOP. That's despite his support for a strong military, his admiration for Ronald Reagan, and his opposition to homosexual marriages.

There are some other minor issues but the question whether climate change should be fought against has become the defining topic that leads people to say that the other side is anti-scientific. Kerry Emanuel has picked the wrong side of this dispute - others have picked the right side. But of course, there can be absolutely no "guarantee" that one of the parties will always choose the right answer to every scientifically loaded question. Whoever believes that one of the parties "owns" the science is a hopelessly blinded ideological bigot.

Is he rare?

While Emanuel may be superficially rare, his combination of climatological and political attitudes is surely nothing that should be artificially encouraged. More than a Republican, he is an opportunist, and in Cambridge, Massachusetts - and, more generally, in the whole U.S. Academia - you simply get much further by adopting mentally and morally degenerated ideologies such as AGW. In 2000, nutcase Ralph Nader received more votes from Cambridge, Massachusetts than George W. Bush who would become the president. To adopt the majority opinions of the town where he lives is what Kerry Emanuel has decided to do, too.

The reason why he is being promoted by the left-wing alarmist inkspillers is self-evident: they dream about controlling the GOP, too. And of course, people such as Emanuel who are registered Republicans but who sling mud on the GOP and who, if they stay in the Republican Party, are eager to transform it into another copy of the Democrat Party are just excellent tools in the propagation of left-wing answers to all questions that are important in the contemporary world.

Obviously, it can't really work. Most of the people who support the Republican Party ultimately support it because of its values rather than its logo with the elephant. So if the GOP became another Democrat Party when it comes to its values and ideology, it would simply lose its supporters and a new party would eventually fill the vacuum.

I don't know whether Emanuel still cares about the strong U.S. military. But when you look at the topics according to the space they receive in the media, it's pretty clear that from most of the important angles, Kerry Emanuel has become a de facto leftist (although one who is arguably driven by personal gain rather than ideological passion). It's not just his endorsement of the climate hysteria; it's also about his indirect support of affirmative action (for people such as himself).

He clearly likes to present himself as a rare breed.

Well, opportunists such as himself are not rare at all. But the existing "encouragement" of rare breeds such as himself - which is a purely left-wing policy - has a subtle point: it is never about the encouragement of the genuine ideological diversity in the Academia. It is always about the encouragement of the diversity of the kinds that don't fundamentally matter. Traditionally, affirmative action would try to include people of various skin colors and sexes. And in Emanuel's case, it is about the inclusion of people who used to live in the Republican environments.

But they're only encouraged if they actually adopt all the ideological delusions and pseudoscience that the leftist establishment actually finds essential at a given moment - and the climate disruption hysteria is the key example of the current era. The diversity promoted by the leftists is always about your hair color but not about your different moral values.

Do GOP scientists need affirmative action?

My answer is "No" but you surely want to hear some details, too.

A writer named Daniel Sarewitz wrote a text for Slate:

Lab Politics

---

Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.

It's being mentioned that only 6 percent of the U.S. scientists classify themselves as Republicans. Sarewitz suggests that this fact leads the public to distrust the institutionalized science. He even notices that the leftist scientific community has systematically defended scientific conclusions that support the idea that the government should be bigger. And he even dares to ask whether it is a coincidence or a sign of causation.

Of course, he is not brave enough to offer the obvious answer. ;-)

Well, try to answer this question yourself. Invent about 20 independent scientific questions that may determine a policy. What is the probability that all of the right answers support a bigger government? And what is the probability that the scientists are honest if they choose this "bigger government answer" despite the fact that in at least 15 of the questions, it's been established that the opposite answer was right?




Chris Mooney agrees that the U.S. scientific community is hugely politically distorted. But he doesn't consider it a problem; on the contrary, it's a big achievement in his eyes. Moonbat thinks that it's enough to fill the Republican Party itself by leftists as well and the problem is solved.

This is, of course, a preposterous recipe. If the Republican Party becomes compatible with immoral Nazi far left-wing jerks such as himself, much like the Democrat Party, it will lose the support and will be superseded by a more functional party, e.g. a Tea "Party".

Can left-wing communities do science?

My answer is a resounding "Yes", at least in principle. The scientific method is impersonal and, by its very definition, decoupled from non-scientific issues such as the gender, ethnicity, or political values of the scientist. The objective data and universal, impersonal logical and mathematical reasoning lead the scientists to their conclusions - at least if they are genuine scientists.

Science requires some skills and passions, among other conditions. So it's a well-established fact that in a meritocratic physics research community, less than 20% of the scientists will be female and races will be represented highly unequally, too. These are facts mostly determined by genetics. But even if the causes had a social component, this social component is operating at such long timescales that it's impossible to change the numbers in any foreseeable future. The numbers reflect the reality.



Quiz: this is the elevator going from the LHC tunnel, 100 meters below the ground, in December 2010. Which of the people is an artist and the author of the #1 November 2010 bestseller in the Czech Republic, a book of nine physics fables called "A Magpie in the Land of Entropy"? Use the fast comments to guess. While your chances are about 1/12 to guess it right, my theory is that a much higher percentage than 1/12 will find the right answer. :-) I was honored to write the preface for the book and "check the science".

It is not hard to see that the conservatives are much more underrepresented in the current Western scientific establishment than women - and even than blacks. Clearly, the reasons are mostly social in this case. The scientific establishment has become a part of the "big government" with lots of bureaucracy, egalitarianism, redistribution, and political groupthink. And it's been filled by leftists who are often nasty jerks who make the life of decent conservatives impossible. Look at the picture at the very top what the leftists are doing to the conservatives: the verb starts with an "s".

These jerks sometimes appear inside the scientific community itself. However, a large part of the science community is still composed of modest people who silently work in their ivory towers. So more typically, the jerks are omnipresent in the societal groups that surround the scientific community - the scientific bureaucracy, science journalists, science writers, and others. For example, Mooney is the Left's counterpart of the Islamic terrorists. He has no idea about science but he has decided to transform science into a whore whose job is to support what he really cares about, namely his fascist attacks against the conservatives and the propagandist support for deluded left-wing policies.

Do you want a more balanced scientific community? Just punish Mooney, CommunistStalinistSwine, and a few others for their long-term crimes against the humanity. Whether electric chairs are the right tools should be decided by the experts. Decent conservative people clearly don't want to become members of a community whose most vocal - and generally tolerated - members or "de facto members" treat them just like the Nazis treated the Jews.

If the society dares to protect the basic human dignity of the conservatives at least as much as it wants to protect the rights of the Islamic terrorists, i.e. if it manages to shut down the Mooney-like scum that actually deliberately hurts other people all the time, and sometimes does so for a salary (Mooney is an example), namely the leftist activists surrounding the Academia, and if other artifacts of the left-wing thinking (or, more accurately, left-wing lack of thinking) are reduced, of course that the number of conservative people in that group will surge.

Of course, it would be nice for pure scientific yet conservative types such as myself if we could actually professionally work on our favorite questions without sacrificing their basic human dignity and values but I realize that this is totally unrealistic in any foreseeable future, so I am not fighting for this chimera in any way. The political composition of the Western Academia is totally screwed and will remain so at least for decades.

No one has warned me how insane it was in advance ;-) so I couldn't take this information into account but I don't regret any decisions of this type I ever did. When it comes to the younger people who find freedom and conservative values important and who are interested in pure science, my recommendation for them is to avoid the Academia because it is not an environment hospitable for life and it won't become hospitable too soon.

It's sad that this is what I have to recommend, especially because my recommendation will make the imbalance even worse - but I have honestly evaluated what can happen and what cannot and, as suggested above, I don't really care whether science is advanced by leftists or rightists.

Historical swings

There is nothing eternal or biological about the underrepresentation of conservatives in science. Some of the key scientists in the history were conservatives. That includes most of the pre-20th-century giants but also many important scientists of the 20th century. In Germany of the 1930s, it was fashionable for every scientist to endorse the Nazi establishment which was, at least from some viewpoint, not left-wing. Of course that politics does influence such things.

In the Soviet bloc, the intellectuals - which overlapped with scientists to a large extent - were thought of by the regime as a key dangerous group that threatened the survival of communism. The communists were right in their suspicion. Of course, it was playwrights and philosophers who mattered in the fall of communism. But important dissidents were found among natural scientists as well.

So unlike the underrepresentation of women, the underrepresentation of the conservatives is clearly not of a lasting nature. It is just a feature of the post-war and post-modern Western society.

But do I really care about a higher number of conservatives? Well, when it comes to some emotional aspects of this question, I do. Just like I would prefer if many more good scientists were Czech, I would prefer if they were conservatives because I could identify with many more aspects of their personality. I could view them as both intellectual and moral role models - and let me admit that the number of living scientists who satisfy both conditions for me is just tiny.

However, from a scientific viewpoint, I don't care. I think it is totally obvious that the left-wing people may do good science just like everyone else. If they do it right, they are led to the same conclusions as a scientist from any other group you could imagine. There is nothing that could prevent any left-wing person from learning cutting-edge physics or mathematics. So I don't think that the progress in science requires some balance.

There is another issue that should be mentioned here: if you restrict the pool from which the scientists are being chosen to 1/2 of the population - the leftists - by making the environment inhospitable to the conservatives who have arguably the same innate talents in average, the competition obviously weakens and the quality and efficiency may decrease as a result. I am not sure how important this effect actually is - how much more efficient the scientific progress would be if the conservatives found the scientific community hospitable to life.

While they surely have the same - or comparable (with uncertain ordering) - IQ as the leftists, there can be other non-IQ-related but also non-social quantities that actually explain that some fields are currently advanced mostly by leftists. One of the likely aspects will be mentioned in the following section.

Undistorted scientific disciplines

For an ideal scientist, his political beliefs shouldn't matter, regardless of the discipline he or she studies. However, in the real world, scientists are not ideal people. How much are real scientists affected by their political beliefs?

Obviously, I believe that in the disciplines that are as abstract and pure as possible - that are separated from any conceivable political applications -, the politics doesn't play much role. High-energy physics is the most obvious example. Exactly because it doesn't have any applications now or in any foreseeable future, people don't look and can't look what political consequences one conclusion or another could have.

By the way, it is plausible that because these pure scientific disciplines have no practical applications, they attract a smaller percentage of the right-wing people because the right-wing people, as a group, could actually prefer activities that lead to material benefits: this is one aspect I announced in the previous section.

Your humble correspondent clearly doesn't share this view but it is totally plausible that this effect is statistically real and helps to explain the dominance of leftists in high-energy physics and other disciplines: I would agree - and I find it likely - that the conservatives also have a bigger problem to distinguish "true" from "useful" or "working". The leftists may be better in distinguishing these two in average but the price they pay is that they can't really "feel" what is useful or working.

By the way, I should add that politics may affect even theoretical physics (and probably other disciplines of pure science), but not at the professional level. Lee Smolin fights to insert minorities or "seers" who try to destroy existing science, whether or not there exists a glimpse of evidence that this should be done, and he promotes "original young thinkers" who spend their lives saying "Yes Mr Smolin" while climbing deeply inside his buttocks.

Smolin is therefore pretty much overlapping with the postmodern feminist anti-science babblers who say that science is a social construct imposed by white males, and all this stinky stuff. But all real physicists know that he is just a hippie crackpot - only dumb readers of his "popular" books may fail to see this obvious fact; just because the real scientists believe in the same left-wing ideas about the society as Smolin doesn't mean that they will believe the junk he spreads about science. One must be really stupid or amazingly dishonest to do so - and being a normal left-wing person simply isn't "enough".

Distorted scientific disciplines

I have just argued that the disciplines of pure science are essentially immune with respect to political pressures (religious pressures would deserve an extra article, however).

Obviously, the opposite extreme type of the disciplines are those whose existence is pretty much justified by their applications - especially applications in policymaking. Climatology, overtaken by the irrational fears two decades ago or so, is the most obvious contemporary example. But there exist other, less striking examples, too.

Once again, an ideally honest scientist is able to investigate phenomena impartially, regardless of his or her political values. That is true for the climate science, too.

The reality has produced a climatological community that is as separated from a community of the ideal scientists as you can get. The elevated funding and the political strength of the discipline has attracted thousands of sub-par people who have nothing to do with the quality science and who prefer the politics, the money, and the power that the discipline has offered them.

The public mostly distrusts this community - and for a good reason. The community sucks. It is a predominantly corrupt group of criminals, semi-criminals, and opportunist hypocrites and almost everyone outside this group is able to figure this fact out. If you're an alarmist - imagine an honest one, even though it is extremely hard to imagine - and you want to increase the public confidence in the climatological community, what fixes may you invent?

Alarmists trying to regain the public support

For example, you may try to elevate the number of Republicans in the climate science. Will it help to increase the public confidence in the climatologists' honesty?

You bet: it will. But at the same moment, you will also change the scientific conclusions that the community is producing. The community is producing the absurd warnings exactly because it is controlled by left-wing politics. The community had expanded by an order of magnitude - so a vast majority of the people who work in it today joined because of the climate hysteria.

So of course that if you start to hire Republicans and pay them to balance the political colors of the discipline, you will be hiring totally different people with totally different political opinions. And because politics will still matter, even though with the nearly opposite sign, their scientific opinions will still be hugely affected by their politics.

It could be helpful if a politicized discipline such as the climate science were politically pH-neutralized. However, it's just masking the true source of the wrongness: the true source of wrongness is that scientists distort their work by politics. This is wrong whether the politics is left-wing or right-wing. So the pH-neutralization fix may only work as an ad hoc solution but it won't make the community able to systematically find new and valid scientific insights.

The desire of some people to increase regulation and to justify it by the climate threat is clearly a political desire. It has nothing to do with the science. Science doesn't - and actually cannot - tell us that we should increase the powers of the government. The only scientific discipline that can say something of the sort is economics - and be sure that any slightly decent economics says that it is generally better to reduce the government, not to extend it.

As many of us have known and said for years, the climate wars are not about science. They're all about politics. The "attacking side" - the people who suddenly want to impose new bans and regulations - is driven by the political goals. That's why they invented the threat. So it is obvious that the "defending side", one that wants to preserve the civilization, is obviously driven by politics, too.

The amount of political noise in the climate science discipline makes the research mostly useless. Even if there are good papers and "signals", they're just overwhelmed by the political noise and bias. The alarmist side doesn't want any honesty and balance to return to climatology because they claim that the "threat is urgent" - and "action" is needed within years.

Obviously, as long as people who are not arrested will be forcing others to okay this preposterous statement, climatology cannot regain its status of a legitimate scientific discipline. So from this viewpoint, even if you imagined that there was something right about the climate worries, it is absolutely critical for science that the skeptics "win" at least at the decadal scale.

Relevant people simply have to agree that the threat is not "looming" and that we can really afford to do the science properly and without hysteria - and dedicate years of extra research whenever it's helpful or needed. A tie is simply not enough in this sense. If the skeptics don't "win" this particular battle, climate science - and maybe not just climate science - is just permanently doomed.

And that's the memo.

EU LGBT bureaucrats attack Czech arousal test

(Czech band) Nightwork: Global warming - I am gay. The song was marketed as a gay anthem and the band as well as the singer, Vojta Dyk, scored high in the most recent Czech Nightingale national music contest.

Homosexual activists officially paid by the European Union have attacked a sensible test that has been introduced in my homeland:

Czech Republic Denounced For Using Arousal Test on Asylum Seekers

---

Czech Dick Test

---

Czechs using sex arousal test on asylum seekers

Czechia has become a destination of various asylum seekers. And because of the inherent tolerance of the Czechs towards various non-standard types of sexual orientation, the list of asylum seekers includes many gays who claim to be harassed by homophobes in their previous countries.

Clearly, we cannot afford to admit an unlimited amount of immigrants who could use any excuse to get here. There have to be some tests that remove at least most of the "false positives". In the case of gays, the relevant procedure is known as "phallometric testing" and was introduced by Kurt Freund, German-speaking Jewish Czech-Canadian physician, in the 1950s to fight "fake gays" who didn't want to serve in the Czechoslovak army (gays were banned).




Of course, you're not required to "stand up" while watching a homosexual porn movie: that could be discriminating against impotent gays or anyone who just doesn't find the immigration office environment "exciting". On the contrary, you're required "not to stand up" if you watch straight porn. ;-) If you claim that you're a gay but you "stand up" while watching a straight porn, your gay asylum application is pretty much doomed. It makes a lot of sense.

A hysterical report by the EU's own official gays has complained about the policy - Czechia is the only country clever enough to explicitly introduce it. They claim that the test is "scientifically unsound".

That's a bold statement, indeed. The homosexual orientation may be defined as someone's not getting aroused by the "straight stimuli" so the test, if performed accurately, is not only scientifically sound - it is scientifically valid pretty much by definition. OK, what is the "scientifically sound" test that the EU homosexual activists recommend instead of the phallometric testing?

A UNHCR booklet states that "self-identification as LGBT should be taken as an indication of the individual’s sexual orientation." Now, this is scientifically sound! ;-)

If you want to measure whether someone is a gay or not, you listen to what he tells you. Holy crap. It's like choosing a president or a world champion according to what he tells you about his or her qualities. At least 50% of the things that people say is untrue, and when the untrue propositions are needed to get advantages from a government, the percentage grows closer to 96%.

It's another example how various bureaucrats don't hesitate to denounce an almost perfectly scientific, yet ideologically inconvenient, test as "scientifically unsound" and replace it with a completely unscientific procedure that they don't want to be criticized.

The Czech Republic is responsible enough not to admit thousands of f*ke f*cking f*ggots and if the EU hacks can't understand that it is right to be cautious in this way, well, then they should scr*w themselves. ;-)

P.S. In the original Czech version of the song embedded at the top, gays - the "warm ones" in the Czech language - are being linked to global warming. Everything is getting warmer, they sing. There also exists a German and French version of the song. All of them are on YouTube.

If you want a song about McDonald's in the Muslim world, "Love in a Braided Roll", by Xindl X and Ms Olga Lounová, you will also learn that the supply determines the demand and other things. The Arab guy fell in love with a McDonald's worker haha - funny video clip.

Bill Maher disturbed by Islamization

If you include all the mutations of the name, Mohammed has become the most frequent name of newborn boys in the United Kingdom: Google News. Olivia is, so far, the most frequent name given to newborn girls.

Allah Save the Queen!

I think it is a pretty scary symbol of the direction that the demographics of many Western countries have taken. In his TV show, Bill Maher revealed that he is worried, too. His worries were confirmed and strengthened when he learned that the Sharia Law is already used as a parallel system of courts in the U.K.

Juan Williams was recently fired from NPR just for stating that he gets nervous if his fellow airline passengers are dressed in a Muslim way. So do I and I think that most non-Muslims do - but I also start to think about the best ways to do "let's roll" in the case that it's needed. :-)

Well, I actually have the same thought even if I see an Arab; the Muslim garb is not the real issue because e.g. all the 9/11 hijackers were dressed in Western clothes. But I suppose that if Williams said that it was the Arab looks that made him worry on the airplane, it would be even worse for the PC police. So the criticism that he doesn't appreciate that the hijackers try to be invisible is really hypocritical.

His is a completely rational reaction: if a sufficiently assertive Muslim is on board, the probability of critical problems with the aircraft significantly increases: just compute it. It doesn't matter whether you associate the elevated risk with the religion or the race because in most cases, the two criteria coincide: it's more important that the risk is elevated. It's bad if NPR wants to punish the people - and its own people - for reacting rationally.




In the past centuries, our ancestors would fight against the Muslims and the expansion of the Turks and other nations to Europe. I don't think that there was anything wrong about this defense. They may have lived in feudalism and their science was much more primitive but they were right about this point.

The political correctness transforms millions of people in the West to building blocks of the fifth column of jihad. And it's worrisome for those of us who think that the Islamic societies are not as human and desirable as the Western ones.



Click to zoom in.

One must realize that different countries are influenced to a completely different extent. The map above shows that while Norway, Sweden, Baltic states, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Italy, and a few others remain below 1% of the Muslim population, France is already near 10% and other large EU countries such as Britain, Spain, Germany, Benelux are approaching 5% or so.

A combination of immigration and the natality gap may make the Muslims a majority in 2 generations - in countries such as France. And maybe one generation. Immigration represents 85% of the growth of the European Muslims right now. The previous link also suggests that the Muslim population has the potential to double within a decade. With this rate, France needs just 20 years or so to become a dominantly Muslim country.

Newborns in Czechia

Just for fun, it's interesting to see what are the most frequent names in a country of "infidels" such as Czechia. I find it kind of shocking, in a very positive way. The data are from early 2010.

One can see that the popular names are changing with time. The most frequent names of fresh mothers - which reflects the popular names of newborn girls in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e. late stages of socialism - are

1. Jana [Jane], big gap,
2. Petra
3. Lenka

They're the most likely names to attract adult men these days. ;-)

None of them is too popular for the newborns today. In fact, only Kateřina [Catherine], Lucie [Lucy], and Veronika [Veronica] appear in the intersection of the frequent names of mothers and daughters.

The most frequent names of fresh fathers are

1. Petr [Peter], big gap,
2. Martin
3. Jan [John]
4. Jiří [George]
5. Pavel [Paul]

The intersection of fathers and sons is dominated by Jan [John], Tomáš [Thomas], and David. Note that these are pretty civilian names in average: the last three names are among the four members of the Beatles (we don't use Ringo here). But what is kind of fascinating are the current frequent names of newborns.



Click to zoom in.

The girls are clearly led by Tereza [Theresa] which is a pretty Christian name if you remember Mother Theresa. This dominant name is followed by Anna [Anne] - which is very old-fashioned in the Czech context and people used to think it was going extinct two decades ago. The bronze medal goes to Eliška [Elise]. Karolína and Natálie [Caroline and Natalia] follow.

All these names are pretty old-fashioned. If you say "Karolína" or "Eliška" to people of my generation, we usually think of "Karolina Světlá" and "Eliška Krásnohorská", two (largely) 19th century Czech female writers who were kind of feminists. OK, sorry, I don't want to insult Světlá who wasn't really a feminist. ;-) Feminism in the Czech lands peaked in the 19th century; at that time, the culture was not yet sufficiently advanced for the women to realize that feminism was a shallow trap they had to overcome (which they eventually did).

But this return to the roots is nothing compared to the currently most frequent newborn boys' names.



Click to zoom in.

The leadership was regained by Jan [John], followed by Jakub, Tomáš, Lukáš, Filip [Jacob, Thomas, Luke, Philip]. Vojtěch, Ondřej, David, Adam [Albert, Andrew, David, Adam] are in the top ten, too.

It's even more remarkable if you look at the top 3-4 lists in the regions. Take the Pilsner region, for example - the second one from the West. You see:

1. Matěj [Matthew]
2. Jakub [Jacob]
3. Jan [John]
4. Lukáš [Luke]

Now, recall that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke. Three of the four names are among the top four most frequent newborn boy names in the atheist Pilsner region. Recall that only 1-2% of the Pilsner region attends the church regularly. Isn't it funny?

(OK, I am improving the story a bit by not mentioning that "Matěj" is a 2nd-layer Czech variation of Matthew. The author of the gospel is actually referred to "Matouš" which is itself a newer version of an even older name, "Matyáš". All these variations are still being used.)

Mark is also relatively frequent but no longer in the top ten. Instead, among the authors of gospel, Mark was replaced by Jacob who didn't write his own gospel but he was at least the third patriarch of the Jewish people, a leader also known as Israel. ;-)

There are lots of names that people could have chosen if they wanted their baby to have non-religious names - like Luboš or Markéta, to mention two examples haha. About 200-300 names are being used each month: see a calendar with the name day we celebrate each day. (The out-of-calendar names recently given to babies include curiosities such as Chloe, Ban Mai, Megan, Uljana, Gaia, Graciela, Malvína, and Ribana for girls - as well as Abdev, Dean, Ronny, Timothy, Diviš, Kelvin, Lev, and Maxián for boys.)

But that's not what's happening. So I would say that despite the widespread atheism, the inclination of the people to preserve the Christian roots and traditions is significant. I guess that if the proportion of the Muslims grew above 2% and they would cause 10% of the problems they cause in France, parties that wouldn't consider the Islamization to be a sensitive problem and a potential threat would be quickly be moved to the political fringe of my homeland.

However, it's not 100% guaranteed that the current evolution of the European Union will actually allow us - and other European nations - to decide about these existential questions such as the regulation of immigration flows.

The main "active" promotion of the harmful developments probably comes from France. Germany has had a lot of workers from Turkey - for various reasons. The Germans used to think that the Turks stayed in Germany temporarily. Time was needed to show that this expectation was wrong. The Germans seem to realize that "multi kulti", as Angela Merkel and others call it, doesn't work.



This satirical map of Europe in 2015 shows the dominant Muslim nations that are gradually overtaking individual countries.

However, France seems to be actively supporting the rise of Islam in Europe already today.

EMA: Hollywood hypocrites are saving the Earth

The Hollywood self-described "elite" are distributing the Ecoterrorist Media Awards (EMA) to each other. If your stomach is really strong, here is 18 minutes of some juicy stuff for you.



Please be careful when watching this video. If it makes you throw up, I apologize in advance. If you don't see any video, go to the individual page of this entry.

Needless to say, the abbreviation EMA was chosen to partially steal the fame of the Emmy: these green nuts are parasiting on the Emmy's achievements. They're parasiting on many other things, too.




The hypocrisy of these folks is just stunning, beyond any imagination. You hear them talking - for 18 minutes - how their children are trying to save water when they brush their teeth, and similar silly stuff.

But e.g. James Cameron apparently assumes that people won't be able to notice that he is using

3 houses in Malibu (24,000 sq ft in total - 10 times the average U.S. home), a 100-acre ranch in Santa Barbara, a JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys, a Corvette, a Ducati, a Ford GT, a collection of dirt bikes, a yacht, a Humvee firetruck, a fleet of submarines...

Nevertheless, he demands that people live with less - the same people who made him rich by watching his movies. This probably also (or primarily?) includes other rich people.

By the way, almost everyone who sees the "No Pressure" movie for the first time thinks that it had to be created by climate skeptics because it's such a painful caricature of the environmentalists' reasoning. I had thought so, too. A simple test of the data reveals that it is a real movie with the 10:10 campaign and Richard Curtis behind it.

However, in the case of the Avatar, even I still cannot believe that it was meant as a serious propaganda movie against the industry and capitalism - because if this were indeed the original purpose, then the movie had to be addressed to people whose IQ is around 75. As a propaganda display, it's just so incredibly naive...

There are blue savages and they are the nice people - the third world - and then there are the white people who are the nasty capitalists who try to hurt the blue people in order to gain profit. So the corporations that produce stuff are always evil and the savages are the saints. Yes, sure. Even when I was a boy in the kindergarten, I was mature enough not to buy a similar kind of stuff, from the communists or otherwise.

These people are also talking about the need to lower the world population. I apologize but it's not needed, and if it were needed, there would have to be at least some meritocracy in the process. If James Cameron et al. believe that the Earth is at existential risk because of the CO2 emissions, then any reasonable criterion would imply that James Cameron et al. would have to be among the first ones who would have to go.

If you agree that the notion that the CO2 is lethally risky is preposterous and a sign of the believer's hopelessly low IQ, then James Cameron should go because the mankind can't afford to have this stupid people in it. Even if you believed that the emissions were harmful, James Cameron has to go because he's among the top 0.01% of the people who would be most harmful.

There simply doesn't exist any justification of the need to lower the world population that would make the life of James Cameron sustainable. It's just amazing to think about the societal atmosphere that makes it natural for him to defend these inhuman concepts.

Via Willie Soon

APS thinks that Tawanda may teach physics to Hal Lewis

A few days ago, Harold Lewis wrote a very thoughtful resignation letter to the current chairman of the American Physical Society, Curtis Callan.

In the letter, he has recalled some better times when the American Physical Society actually allowed and encouraged the physicists to use their expertise, creativity, honesty, and intelligence to discuss important matters related to science.

The current APS is very different. Most people in its leadership are corrupt and they deliberately try to suppress any debate about questions that would be financially or "socially" harmful to these individuals - and global warming has become a key topic of this kind.

Yesterday, the APS has answered to Dr Hal Lewis in a way that I consider breathtakingly arrogant and dishonest.

First of all, the answer to the important letter by a serious scientist was apparently composed by a secretary, a bureaucrat called Tawanda Johnson. Or is it a coincidence that she is signed under the reply and that the quality of the text suggests that indeed, no scientist was involved?




Needless to say, she has no clue about science or research and it is self-evident that she is employed just and purely for the money.

After all, the record shows that she has never cared about anything linked to the scientific truth in her life. Her knowledge of physics is closer to the knowledge of an average dog than the knowledge of Dr Hal Lewis and, as three APS members at Anthony Watts' blog analyze in detail, her letter is a continuous stream of lies.

Nevertheless, the APS chairman has to think that such a bureaucrat has the credentials to reply to serious letters such as the letter from Dr Hal Lewis. I suppose that in between the lines, it's being assumed that no one will dare to question the credentials of this official to answer to similar correspondence.

Are you serious, Mr Callan, that instead of your own reply to Dr Lewis' points, letters such as Dr Lewis' ones should be "taken care of" by random employees who have nothing to do with science? In an intimidating bureaucratic tone, she is just summarizing some conclusions reached by similarly mindless and incompetent women - and men - in the past. Is this how you imagine scientific debates? Is this how you want the "scientific consensus" to be achieved?

After all, she is both female and black, so who could dare to suggest that she is just a hired gun with no comparative advantages who would have no business to be a relevant part of any serious scientific institution under any normal circumstances? Well, I will surely do that: this woman should be at most a janitor in APS, not a person whose reply is considered "enough" to "neutralize" important messages about the very structure of the APS such as the letter from Dr Lewis. And if you have approved this reply, Mr Callan, I am deeply disgusted by your immoral methods. You just suck.

All of us know why you couldn't have written your own reply: you wouldn't be able to formulate a single sentence that makes any sense because you have been drowning in the liquid excrements of randomly mutated lies for years - and for nearly a year as a chairman. After all, Dr Lewis' letter is completely true yet inconvenient and it would be impossible for you to deny a single letter he wrote. So instead, you tell your bodyguard to deal with the problems - and her answer is good enough for a bodyguard, isn't it?

To make things worse, the dishonest letter is full of the old clichés but also some of the newest kitsch. For example, it says that what is uncertain is just the extent of "climatic disruptions". Clearly, Ms Tawanda is parroting a new idiotic terminology coined by a champion of the state-sponsored mass vasectomy, Mr John Holdren, to mislead the people into thinking that the structure of unusual climatic events has been changing in a uniform direction - and it has surely not.

There has been no "climatic disruption" so the APS cannot possibly be "uncertain" about its extent. The sentence makes no sense.

The worst type of propagandistic garbage is being literally promoted to be a part of texts that are officially being written on behalf of the American Physical Society, the society officially representing a big part of the physics community in the most important country of the world, in science and otherwise. The consensus boils down to similar Tawandas Johnsons - thousands of random, uneducated, yet aggressive Tawandas at every place you may think of. They have no clue but they have completely contaminated the scientific discourse. The political correctness can't hurt, can it? Well, you can see that it can. Real physicists simply suffer when trying to co-exist with this corrupt stuff that shouldn't be in the discipline at all.

It just makes me vomit. Mr Callan, you are now on par with the representatives of the Aryan Physics or any other totalitarian arrangement in the history that was suppressing proper scientific etiquette within the national scientific communities.

Mitchell Heisman: suicide note, 1905 pages

This 35-year-old Gentleman from Somerville, Massachusetts may look like a self-confident practical manager.

However, this Jewish-American holder of a degree in psychology was an intellectual who wrote 1,904 or 1,905 pages of wisdom about freedom, nihilism, transhumanism, sociobiology, God, Judaism, Jewish symbols, Jewish IQ, Anglo-Saxon history, referring to Socrates, Newton, Einstein, Pinker, Dawkins, Mansfield, Dershowitz, and many others, before he shot himself on the top step of Harvard's Memorial Church - in front of dozens of people - on Saturday.

Suicide note found online (Harvard Crimson)

---

SuicideNote.INFO (website)

---

Suicide Note (PDF, 1,905 pages)

Sad. And a pretty impressive stuff.

Unfortunately, I doubt that his ultimate sacrifice will earn his opus - which he considered so important - a deserved number of readers although it has already been shown that the number is vastly higher than zero.

But when you compare him with the typical environmental activists and terrorists who recently died in the Discovery Channel or in a family tragedy, and maybe even if you don't compare him to anyone, you must conclude: wow, this guy was a man of wisdom...




Heisman has predicted that his work would be repressed. I am afraid that it will be ignored.



Harvard's Memorial Church, the place where he ended his life; see Google Maps. It's 280 meters from Jefferson Physics Labs where I've worked for 6 years.



Mitchell Heisman when he was found at the staircase: click to zoom in.

See this story in the Harvard Crimson for more pictures and the news that appeared immediately after he pulled the trigger and before the media knew his name.

---

A special comment for Hong-Kong readers and others: you may want to study this blog in more detail if you're interested in global warming, theoretical physics, elementary particles, string theory, the LHC collider, and other things.

Obama loses Larry Summers

In 2008, Lawrence Summers had left Harvard University for two years and he is coming back.

It's completely plausible that it's just a part of an old plan: he would lose tenure if he were away for more than two years. It's also plausible that someone has "recommended" him to leave Obama's economic team where he has been a top economic advisor. And Summers himself may have found that the White House job sucked. You will never know for sure and in my opinion, it makes no sense to speculate about these things.

Barack Obama's attitudes to various things may look extreme but I don't believe he will do a genuinely insane thing after Summers' departure. The president has praised Summers for his services and it's expected that he will choose a senior corporate executive as Summers' replacement.




However, what I find pretty remarkable are some of the negative reactions. The radical leftist blogosphere has used Summers' departure as a justification for another stream of irrational attacks. Of course, Summers' appreciation for the differences between men and women is the main genuine reason behind many of the attacks.

But look at some of these reactions.

Robert Scheer at Truthdig starts with the words "So Long, Summers" and "Finally!". Summers is being linked to the Wall Street which are clearly the ultimate bad guys who exploit the working class - an opinion that is unfortunately shared by many people in the Tea Party Movement, too.

Summers has defended the "color blindness" of all proposed stimuli and he's been clearly correct. It's just not a job for the government to selectively look for small businesses (or even individuals) that should be boosted when a crisis began in another sector of the economy. Any such ad hoc decision adds the noise to the system, reduces the motivation of these business to work, and reduces the effectiveness of the markets.

Because of some undesirable previous events, the money has been "lost" in the financial sector (in the U.S.) so it's clear that if the lack of liquidity were the problem, the financial sector was the place where they should have been "returned". The financial sector performs certain functions for everyone else - and the economy. Some of it is really important and by helping the financial institutions, one could possibly stop the problems at the beginning. Some of it may be unimportant or counterproductive.

Whether the money should have been pumped at all is a different question because at least some "cleaning" or changes that the recession would have naturally produced in the financial sector would actually be desirable - and Summers himself as vetoed Romer's proposal of a $1.2 trillion stimulus - but pumping the money to random houses on the Main Street would clearly have been a bigger mistake than the aid to the financial institutions.

Cullen Roche of Seeking Alpha adds another layer of attacks. Larry Summers is the worst villain in a group of economists who are destroying the U.S. economy, we learn.

What attitudes would Roche offer as a replacement for Summers' ideas?

I think that the attitudes are just crazy. Roche reviews a discussion in which someone clearly wanted to defend budget deficits as a good thing - universally, as a matter of principle. Now, people with similar opinions are on par with "physicists" who are trying to construct a perpetuum mobile device.

But of course, such morons may be very annoying. So Summers was once asked a question that he was expected to treat seriously: What's wrong with the budget deficits? Summers took it seriously and replied: they take away savings that could be used for investment.

Of course that some incomprehensible administrative buzzwords followed and were meant to defend the ludicrous idea that the budget deficits were a good thing. Summers politely said that it was just babbling by saying that "he didn't understand reserve accounting so he couldn't discuss it at this level." You know, fake politeness may be costly. If he had just said that the statements of the other party were misguided, he wouldn't be criticized for apparently "not knowing basics of economics such as reserve accounting".

By the way, there's no "one" reserve accounting. There exists lagged and contemporaneous reserve accounting. Which one keeps the value of money more stable is debated by the economists; they should agree in the long run. But one thing is clear: if you increase your budget deficits so that the debt indefinitely grows as a percentage of the GDP, soon or later, you're going to run into problems. No "fancy" words about reserve accounting can change such matters.

The debater also tried to convince Summers of some Keynesian talking points. One of them is the "paradox of thrift". Keynes said that while the attempts to increase one's savings could be good for an individual, they're bad for the society if everyone does so because the consumption decreases. Needless to say, this superficial game is used as just another excuse for budget deficits.

However, one must be very careful about the analysis of this paradox. It has many subtleties and as the Austrian school economists would tell you, the canonical answer is that the increased desire to save the money won't impact the real economy at all. The key is to notice what happens with the prices which impacts how the "nominal GDP" is translated to a "real GDP".

Imagine that you start with a society where the people don't save any money. Suddenly, give them a lesson. The average people will begin to save 1/2 of their income. What will happen? They will only spend the remaining 1/2 of their income for goods and services. Clearly, the companies' nominal revenues will drop.

However, how will the companies behave after they converge to a new equilibrium? Well, they will reduce the prices to 1/2, too. So the people who save 1/2 of their income will actually buy the same amount of stuff; the economy will not drop. To show that the new arrangement also admits an equilibrium, I would also have to discuss what happens with the salaries of the producers' employees (which can't quite drop to 1/2), and so on. But at the end, the flow of goods and services may be unchanged as all the incomes and transactions are just redefined by a linear function. The Austrian economists would summarize it by saying that the investmentt-consumption ratio can be completely unchanged when people become more thrifty.

That doesn't mean that the long-term behavior won't be impacted by the rate of savings. Higher savings mean more safety - for the individual and those who depend on him - which may be a good thing. However, they may also imply a reduced motivation to work and earn money.

(Well, I actually think that if all the people suddenly became more thrifty, the nominal incomes would inevitably decrease a bit, too - because the companies' revenues will be nominally lower. However, the prices of things that don't depend on the human work will drop even more than by 1/2 in the example above so that a new equilibrium is found. Macroeconomically, it may be "equivalent" to the previous one when it comes to the real GDP; there won't be a discontinuity. However, I think that the new pressures in a newly thrifty society will punish the producers that depend on lots of the human work and give advantage to those that don't. The abrupt drop of commodity prices etc. will eventually convince the people that they don't have to be too thrifty. So I think that even the "thrift" is not quite an independent, arbitrary parameter - but the markets try to find its optimal value, too.)

These aspects have to be carefully considered when someone tries to stimulate the economy. Clearly, giving the money to the Main Street can never systematically lead to such a stimulation; such a transfer reduces the need for the recipient to work, and it reduces the payers' resources that could otherwise be used for investment.

Whether you like it or not, the economy is statistically motivated to work by the players' desire to achieve profit, to survive, or to have a luxurious life - depending on the context and wealth. Their eagerness to work and productivity depends on the pressures. However, if the people are freely paid - or forced to pay - amounts of money that have nothing to do with their work, it always reduces their motivation to do work and do it efficiently simply because a part of their income (whether it is positive or negative) is determined by something else - by the redistribution mechanisms that may look "random". Any "guarantees" inevitably reduce this motivation.

Have the economists managed to solve the crisis well? I don't know. It's plausible that it would have solved itself without any interventions and it could have been a better path, especially in the long run. And maybe, the previous conjecture isn't true. We will never know.

However, you shouldn't forget that a long new Very Great Depression was expected by many people and it has definitely not materialized. Chances are that it will not materialize in the near future. So I don't think that it would be fair to call their macroeconomic policies since 2008 catastrophic. Obviously, liquidity has mostly returned to the system and it was needed.

However, many other changes that are more "microeconomic" in character have gotten to the U.S. economy, too. Think about the healthcare, various types of regulation of the financial markets (which Summers has opposed), and other things. The system has converged much closer to the typical systems in the EU. When this happens, you shouldn't be surprised that the long-term U.S. growth rate will be lower than it used to be. It will also be closer to the EU rates which have been closer to 1% or so than to 3-4%. You won't be able to do anything with it. America has begun to become socialized and you will eventually see the consequences. America is not a special nation that is immune against the general laws of economics - or even physics. ;-)

I have certain doubts that the "new" long-term growth potential of the U.S. is much higher than the growth we have seen recently.

---

Environmentalists' new president

Glenn Hurowitz of Grist has noticed that Obama failed to install solar panels on the White House - and he also paid less money for them than he did pay for the stimulus package. So Obama will have to be replaced by a greener president in the 2012 Democratic primaries, we learn.

Pentti Linkola, a Finnish philosopher and fisherman, is a hot candidate. He's from Finland - but Finland or Kenyland, who cares about the difference? ;-)

Linkola wants to re-educate some skeptics in eco-gulags and kill the remaining 6.8 billion people on Earth. Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another world war would be “a happy occasion for the planet” because it would eradicate tens of millions of people. The environmentalist believes that only jackbooted tyranny can help to save mother earth from “the worst ideologies in the world” which he defines as “growth and freedom”.

He wants to mimic the best experience of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and add much more. Read it - it's kilobytes of this stuff. I am sure that if he has fanboys in Finland and Slovakia (did you translate all the materials to Slovak, Alexander Ač?), he will get millions of fanboys in the U.S. Democrat Party, too.

Under Linkola’s proposal to save Earth from man-made climate change, “only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.” This system would be enforced by the creation of a “Green Police” who would abandon “the syrup of ethics” that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.