Plague-Monkeys

Let me be clear: there are those who say that we should infect monkeys with bubonic plague and then release said monkeys into every major city, strip-mall, airport, intersection, school, hospital and day-care center in America, but, with all due deference to my opponents, I respectfully disagree.

I believe that we must seize this opportunity. Nobody said it would be easy. Everyone is entitled to his opinion; democracy is messy. But while some may disagree, the one thing we can all agree upon is that my proposal for dealing with plague-infected monkeys is the only possible solution.

Anyone who disagrees with me simply wants to see your children bitten by bubonic plague-infected monkeys.

That is why tonight, I am proposing the formation of a bi-partisan commission to study the effects of plague monkeys upon our economy. This commission will be empowered to make valid and workable recommendations for dealing with plague--infected-monkey caused disasters to a new plague-infected-monkey-caused-disaster-contingency-operation task force which I have created—by executive order--under the wise and battle-tested guidance of Janet Napolitano.

Let me be clear: there are those who say that other people say things that they never actually say in order to create a weak straw-man argument, but I say that we must transcend partisan bickering and finger-pointing. Partisan bickering, finger-pointing: these are exactly the sort of things that Republicans do—exactly the sort of things that they did for eight years—exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

But simply saying “no” to plague monkeys is not leadership. No, only by uniting behind my proposal can we hope to dig ourselves out of the hole created by the sorts of people who spend other people’s money, engage in empty rhetorical flourishes, resort to ad hominem attacks, and seek to deny plague monkeys their constitutional rights.

Let me be clear, other than the plague-infected monkeys, the state of the union is strong.

Obama and the Dalai Lama

Why aren't the Chinese afraid of offending the US?

Viva Le Revolucion!

Miguel Muro is a brave and gifted filmmaker whose documentaries have taken on the corruption and violence of Cuba’s monolithic ruling Party and crushing bureaucracy.

Muro’s style is controversial and confrontational: he specializes in placing authority figures in awkward situations—on film--wherein they must either defend their actions or be make to look like simpletons or bullies.

For instance, Muro brought a group of elderly and infirm Cuban citizens to one of Havana’s “tourist only” health clinics and demanded to know why Cuban citizens were forbidden to enter.

“Why can’t a man who has worked all his life for Fidel and the Party receive the same quality care that rich visitors from Europe and South America get here?”

His question was not answered. Rather, he and his retinue were forcibly removed from the clinic.

In another film Muro infiltrated one of Cuba’s youth camps and demanded to know why children were being indoctrinated in party dogma and mindless worship of the Castro brothers instead of being taught factual history. He also wanted to know and why Cuban children were not allowed to live with their parents.

“Given that Elian Gonzalez was forcibly removed from the United States, after his mother had sacrificed her life to get him there, because, supposedly, his father wanted him back home; why then do parents in Cuba have no say in where their children may live and what they may learn?”

Again, Mr. Muro was escorted out by armed guards, but his question was not answered.

In his most recent documentary Muro showed up, uninvited, at several of the vast palatial estates owned by the Castros and other members of Cuba’s nomenklatura. Muro demanded to know why Cuba’s ruling elite saw fit to live in luxury while the Cuban people starved and did without basic necessities.

Muro’s films have been honored at Sundance and the Cannes Film Festival. He has become an international celebrity and, not surprisingly, a cause of consternation and anger for the Communist Party of Cuba.

Or rather, he would be, if he actually existed. But of course he does not. He cannot exist. There may be many potential Miguel Muros among the Cuban people, but no filmmaker hostile to Cuba’s ruling regime will ever be granted access to Cuban institutions or be given permission to film anywhere in Cuba.

Such a filmmaker, if he were a foreigner, would have his film confiscated and destroyed. Should a Cuban citizen attempted to make such a documentary, he would be imprisoned and probably tortured. His family and friends would be rounded up and beaten in front of him. He would be asked if he wanted to apologize and recant, and he would, most likely, say: “Yes, of course I want to apologize. Viva Le Revolucion!”

Good Cop, Bad Cop

Barack Obama speaks to crowds and conventions as if he is speaking to a friend. He exudes a corona of charm, competence and trustworthiness

Whereas the snarling acolytes of Gramsci and Alinsky speak of revolution and destruction from within, Obama speaks of reconciliation and progress. All empirical evidence suggests that his sympathies lie with the far left, but he doesn’t sound like the far left.

Whereas rabid anti-Semites such as Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi cheer the work of Islamic terrorists, Obama presents himself as philo-Semitic and a friend of Israel. All empirical evidence indicates that Obama is more sympathetic to Islamists than he is to Israel, but he doesn’t sound like an Islamist.

Whereas William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn boast of their acts of domestic terror and contemplate how many millions of Americans will have to be eliminated after the communist revolution, Barack Obama says that they did ‘despicable things’ when he was only eight years old.

All empirical evidence suggests that Obama and Ayers are friends, colleagues and mutual supporters, but Obama doesn’t sound like a domestic terrorist.

Whereas the currupt Chicago Democrat machine leaks private details of Republican politician’s divorce proceedings, sells Senate seats and destroys anyone who gets in its way, Obama speaks of ethical government and “transparency.”

All empirical evidence suggest that Obama was part of, and benefited greatly, from that corrupt Chicago machine, but Obama doesn’t come across as a thug or a bully.

Whereas Black Liberation Theologists such as Reverend Wright scream about “white devils,” and shout “God Damn America,” Obama speaks quietly and respectfully and wants to be “post-racial.” All empirical evidence suggests that Obama is sympathetic to Black Liberation Theology, but he doesn’t sound like a Black Liberation Theologist.

In other words, Obama has always played the “Good Cop.”

The old “Good Cop, Bad Cop” routine works, because even though you know, intellectually, that the two cops are actually working together--that they want the same thing--that the whole phony dichotomy is worked out ahead of time in order to get you to confess—it works nevertheless, because when you are under pressure, and afraid, you will look to someone who presents himself as a friend and protector, and you will be grateful.

When Obama accused the Cambridge police department of acting “stupidly” he sounded, ironically and uncharacteristically, like the “Bad Cop.” For an instant he broke character and the illusion was shattered.

Obama’s Words

No one disputes that President Obama is an eloquent and persuasive speaker. Occasionally, however, he makes statements that demand careful parsing and exegesis. Sometimes, in fact, his statements are downright appalling.

Consider the following quote from his most recent press conference, in response to a question from reporter Lynn Sweet, concerning the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.


President Obama:


“Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact.”


Let’s take a look at these words carefully. “Somebody” was in his home, but there was proof that “they” were in their home. Who are they? Is professor Gates Legion? Were there codefendants known to Obama that have not been reported upon? How many people were arrested?

The President seems to have a problem with pronouns: he frequently misuses the reflexive pronoun: “Michelle and myself…”

He also frequently utilizes the pleonastic phrase: “The reason is because…”

So one must ask: does the President so famous for his ability with words, know how to speak English?

Is this what he learned at Columbia and Harvard?

This may all seem pedantic and nit picky (it is) but I raise these issues because what, other than his ability with words, were supposed to have been his qualifications for the presidency?

Or was there another qualification?

Perhaps liberals are guilty of racial profiling.

Palin's Conservative Critics

Many conservative intellectuals don’t much care for Sarah Palin.

Among these are: David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, David Frum, and Peggy Noonan.

On the other hand, some conservative intellectuals don’t seem to have a problem with her at all.

This group includes: Joseph Epstein, Victor Davis Hanson, Roger Kimball, and Thomas Sowell.

I think I discern a pattern here.

For Epstein, Hanson, Kimball, and Sowell, have credentials and expertise independent of their punditry. They are not considered to be intellectuals because of their political views or activities, rather they are intellectuals with non political bona fides, who also comment on political matters.

You could learn something from each one of them, without ever getting into politics.

For instance, Joseph Epstein could teach you about literature and about the history and theory of literary criticism; Victor Davis Hanson could teach you about philology, about Greek and Latin grammar and literature, and about ancient history and philosophy; Roger Kimball could teach you about the history of art and the theory of art criticism; and Thomas Sowell could teach you about the history of economics, and the theory and praxis of various economics models and philosophies.

All of the above have written scholarly books in their fields whose worth transcends politics or fashion.

David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, David Frum, and Peggy Noonan, on the other hand, can only really tell you about themselves: how they feel and what they think about current trends and events.

They are considered to be “intellectuals” not because of their knowledge or their accomplishments, but because of their style.

They share an intellectual patois, a sesquipedalian vocabulary, an impressive academic pedigree, a snobbish and pretentious demeanor, an impressive roster of friends and acquaintances, and an overwhelming sense of their own importance.

Sarah Palin, who does not share any of these traits, and yet whose actual accomplishments far exceeds any of their own, seems to horrify them to no end.

I wonder why?

Science and Consensus

Let us set aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not there is truly a consensus among scientists that global warming is both real and anthropogenic.

Let us stipulate—for the sake of argument—that such a consensus exists. The next question to ask is: so what? What is the value of consensus in science?

I contend that its value is not very great.

In fact, I would argue that were it possible to integrate the opinions of scientist over time and space, that is, to know the opinions of all the scientists in the world, for the entire history of science, you would find that the consensus opinions were, more often than not, wrong.

Most scientist before Pasteur believed in spontaneous generation; most scientists before Einstein believed that Mercury’s precessional anomaly of 43 seconds of arc per century was in no way an indication of the inadequacy of Newtonian Dynamics; the general consensus among biologists, before the experiments of Griffith, Avery, and Harvey and Chase, was that proteins, not DNA, were the molecules responsible for inheritance.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Scientific consensus is usually wrong.

This is in no way an indictment of science. In fact, just the opposite, it is a consequence of science’s greatest strength: that it is self-correcting.

Because of the fundamental weakness of (nonmathematical) inductive reasoning, scientists must always be on the lookout for counter examples, and scientific theories must be falsifiable.

One can have absolute certainty in mathematics and, in a different sense, in religion, but in science, all truths await (and welcome) falsification.

Appeals to consensus (argumentum ad populum) are appropriate—perhaps--in matters of theology or politics, but they have no place in science.