Bayou Renaissance Man

I'm sure many of my readers have had the experience of getting an "instant lube" or "fast lube" for their vehicles from businesses like Jiffy Lube and others (there are thousands of them, all over the USA).  Basically, they promise to change your engine oil and get you back on the road within ten or fifteen minutes.  Of course, that doesn't always work that way.  I've several times been accosted by a service clerk showing me a dirty air filter, and suggesting I need to change it as well.  One time I demanded to see my vehicle with an empty filter casing, and the employees (and the manager) tried for all they were worth to stop me doing so.  Sure enough, my vehicle's filter was still in place - they'd shown me another one, hoping I wouldn't check.

Thing is, twice in a couple of months I've had the service department at an auto dealer (once at Nissan, the other at Toyota) show me dirty air filters, suggesting they need to be changed.  That's never happened before, and it's making me wonder.  Are manufacturers' service departments trying the same trick these days, hoping to generate extra revenue?

Of course, I have no way of knowing that:  but if more of us are experiencing the same thing, it might be worth investigating.  Therefore, readers, if that's happened to you at a branded service department, please let us know about it in Comments, as well as roughly how long ago it happened.  I'm curious to see whether this is becoming an industry-wide racket.

Thanks!

Peter

Yesterday Jeff Childers laid out the growing danger of fully autonomous robotic weapons, which have no conscience and no moral code, and can (and already do) kill without reference to a human operator or a controlling battlefield system.  I agree with him that it's a very disturbing element in warfare, one that threatens not only to make human combat more or less obsolete on the battlefront, but also pass an automated death sentence on anybody - combatant or civilian - in or near that battlefront.

Until very recently — so recently you will be forgiven lack of notice of the change — it was fashionable among elites to wring their hands over letting robots decide whether to kill people. Countless conferences were devoted to the subject, new UN departments were designed, and new job descriptions were drafted, spawning battalions of specialized military bioethicists.

Zing! What was that? That was bioethics flying out the window. Sorry, chaps, pack it in. All those new ethics experts and professors and opinion influencers just became redundant. They are moot.

. . .

On June 4th, 2024 — mark the date — the Washington Post quietly ran an unobtrusive “good news” op-ed headlined, “The Pentagon is learning how to change at the speed of war.” To call it “just an op-ed” would do violence to its malevolent significance. First of all, the author, spy novelist and columnist David Ignatius, is one of WaPo’s most senior writers, and it’s a poorly hidden secret he is inextricably intertwined with the deep security state.

. . .

David’s op-ed began gently chiding the U.S. military for, with the very best of intentions, its antiquated ‘addiction’ to overly complicated, finicky, insanely expensive, super high-tech, human-directed weapons systems, rather than cheap, practical, reliable, and effective alternatives like the Russians are using to beat the Dickens out of Ukraine.

. . .

Most folks now agree the Russians’ pragmatic, entrepreneurial approach in Ukraine has decisively proven its battlefield superiority over our fancy, high-tech, acronymized weapons that took decades to develop: our top-tier M1 Abrams tanks, our PATRIOT air defense systems, our HIMARS and ATACMS missiles, our JDAMS flying bombs, and our networked cluster munitions.

They all literally or figuratively bogged down in the Ukrainian rasputitsa. In other words, stuck in the mud.

But the bigger problem is that all our defense systems, from the most modest mobile artillery unit to the sky-scraping F35 intelligent fighter jet, are all e-something, or i-something. They are all linked together, connected to the internet, in a networked global battlefield information system (GBIS). They were designed to be centrally controllable from the confines of an op center safely concealed under two hundred feet of granite below the Pentagon in Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, the Russians — those ‘incompetent,’ slipshod, gas-station-with-nukes ice jockeys — somehow overtook us in electronic jamming technology. And then kept going, without looking back. The Russians are jamming all our toys!

Our Borg-like, electronically interconnected technology is dead in the water, or in the mud, if it can’t talk to the other parts of itself. Worse, Russian jamming cuts it all off from its handlers thousands of miles away in America. In other words, it’s damned useless, which is why Ignatius predicted it wouldn’t last five minutes against China.

Ignatius’ description of this perfectly foreseeable development understated the terror and panic on the part of U.S. generals. It all worked so well against Saddam Hussein’s disorganized army! But the generals are slowly and reluctantly coming to terms with the fact our entire arsenal is close to useless against near-peer adversaries like Russia and China.

In desperation, and because Ukraine uber alles, all those ethical concerns over autonomous weapons systems instantly became as obsolete as our trillion-dollar aircraft carriers. The ban on machines that kill on automatic has been swept aside.

It’s an emergency, dummy.

Then, Ignatius described the easy fix to the problem. The simple correction is truly autonomous weapons, weapons that can’t be jammed, weapons that don’t have to talk to each other, weapons that push the pesky humans right out of the picture. In the same way the military is now quietly moving aside the humans, David also glided right over the pesky ethical issues, which earned not a single syllable in his column.

. . .

Who’s responsible when the robot goes rogue and wipes out a village, or a wedding, or a whole city? Who’s tried for the war crimes?

Nobody, that’s who. You can’t expect technology to be perfect, dummy.

You can’t put a robot on trial. Come on, be serious.

The government knows full well that public outcry will only slow down the killer robot train. The military is now moving with mind-blowing, demonic, uncharacteristic speed toward building its dystopian, robot-armed future. The first fully autonomous killing machines have already been designed, built, and delivered to Ukraine.

. . .

Ignatius also assured us that the Air Force is, right now, building robotic fighter jets labeled with the grim euphemism “uncrewed.” The robots can keep on fighting, long after the human crews are gone.

Similarly, last month, the Navy formed a new squadron of hundreds of fully autonomous, uncrewed boats, a water swarm with the unwieldy name, “Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft.” GARC doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but maybe it echoes the last thing dying sailors say.

Instead of applying that awkward acronym, the Navy has nicknamed its new robot squadron the “Hell Hounds.”

. . .

It’s easy to blame Congress for failing to pull the plug, slow things down, or at least hold a public debate. But remember: attractive, well-spoken military analysts constantly deliver confidential, top-secret briefings to Congressmen, direly warning them China will win in five minutes unless we do something.

What can I say? It’s 2024. Here come the terminators, and nothing can stop it. We all knew this day was coming; we just didn’t think it would come from us.

Somebody track down that scrappy Sarah Connor and tell her it’s time to report for duty.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

(Also recommended is this article at Strategy Page, analyzing how drone operations are dominating the war in Ukraine, and assessing their impact.  It doesn't look at the autonomous aspect, but is nevertheless a valuable summary of the current state of the art.)

This is a very ominous development for all the reasons Mr. Childers has stated.  However, think of the wider implications.  Nations ruled by dictatorial elites now have tools at their disposal that can steamroller right over opposition movements, and suppress rebellion and civil war before they even get out of the starting gate.  An oppressive regime no longer needs battalions and regiments and divisions of storm troopers to control its subjects;  it merely needs enough autonomous robots that will do its bidding without moral considerations or ethical hesitation.  A town is rebelling against government authority?  Send in the robots and wipe out every man, woman and child in that town.  There's an outcry afterwards?  Blame the robots, which were "not properly programmed", and put on trial and execute a couple of sacrificial puppets who can be alleged to have been responsible for that erroneous programming.  There!  Problem solved! - and the regime is still in power.  After the third, or fourth, or fifth such town is "depopulated", there won't be many more willing to take a stand for freedom, will there?

If you remove humanity from society, it becomes an inhuman dystopia.  That's what modern warfare is becoming, at least if Ukraine is any example.  What if the rest of society follows suit?

Scary thought . . .

Peter

To my absolute lack of surprise, I learned that cruise lines have been carefully failing to inform their customers of additional fees, charges, imposts, etc. on top of their advertised prices.  For once, California is doing the right thing by forcing them to disclose these charges.

Starting July 1, operators including Royal Caribbean International, Carnival Cruise Line, Celebrity Cruises and Princess Cruises will include the cost of port expenses, taxes and other fees in the price that potential passengers see. The additional charges can tack on more than $100 to the fare, or even double the cheapest base price on some short itineraries.

The changes kick in when California’s “Honest Pricing Law” goes into effect, restricting companies that do business in the state from advertising a price that is lower than what a consumer will ultimately have to pay.

. . .

For now, cruise lines like Carnival and Royal Caribbean promote bargain sailings, such as a seven-night Western Caribbean cruise “starting at” an average of $437 per person. But that number does not reflect the nearly $164 more that’s required for taxes, fees and port expenses and displayed in smaller print. A four-day Mexico cruise from Long Beach, Calif., shows the cheapest cabin for $234 - but the additional charges are an additional $240.

“The current ‘drip pricing’ technique where you show a low price and then tack on a lot of the extra fees later is a great attention disrupter but very misleading,” Doug Parker, founder of the podcast and news site Cruise Radio, said in an email.

Gratuities are also extra for most mainstream cruise lines, but tips will not need to be advertised up front. Cruise lines also offer optional drink or dining packages, shore excursions, and other add-ons that would increase the cost of a trip.

Parker said the cost of a seemingly inexpensive cruise can balloon with taxes, depending on the itinerary. He said the new policy will give families “a better idea on what the vacation will actually cost.”

There's more at the link.

I've been infuriated more times than I can tell to find unexplained, unauthorized charges tacked on to a bill or invoice.  Hospitals are particularly egregious offenders.  "Your procedure will cost you $4,999.99 out of pocket - your insurance pays for the rest!"  Yeah . . . and then comes the anesthetist bill, the rehab bill, the clean sheets every day bill, and all the rest of it.  Together they can add thousands of dollars to our costs, unforeseen and unbudgeted.

I'm glad this particular cesspool of financial chicanery will be drained;  but I'm willing to bet the cruise lines will find new and innovative ways to screw yet more consumer dollars out of us.  In their eyes, we're sheep to be sheared, and they're very good at shearing.

Peter

I came across this on Gab the other day.  I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it's certainly food for thought.

The rules of sewage:

Imagine you have two cups. One contains the purest, clearest, most wonderful water possible. The other, raw sewage. When you mix the two, you get sewage. The same for a cup of sewage and a pitcher of water, or a barrel of water. Regardless of the size of the pure water container, the sewage contaminates it.

This became the root of what I refer to as “The Rules of Sewage” in regards to a person’s character. This one is the First Rule of Sewage, The Non-Proportional Rule of Sewage. It means, as the saying above goes, that you can sometimes learn a thing about a person that taints the entirety of their personality – e.g., a person beats their spouse. It doesn’t matter what else they are, what acts they do, they are polluted by that one thing.

This simmered in my mind over a couple of years, and I started to formulate other Rules of Sewage. Each was based on the same base concept – mixing water and sewage. Thus far I’ve come up with six.

The Second Rule of Sewage is the Non-Compartmentalized Rule of Sewage. You cannot pour a cup of sewage into a container of water, and have it only remain in the place you poured it. Bad character leaks into other elements of character. E.g., a person who cheats on their spouse – thus breaking a sacred oath – cannot be counted on to keep an oath in any other part of their life.

The Third Rule of Sewage is the Immersive Rule of Sewage. Imagine an edible fish taken from that pure water, placed in sewage, and somehow surviving – no matter the fish’s immune system and other defenses, it will become contaminated. No matter how pure you are to begin with, if you are surrounded by bad people or bad content, it will start to affect you. E.g., a good, honest person who goes to work in a place with bad ethics and stays there – for whatever reason – will sooner or later find they are making compromises to their own character and standards, and rationalizing their doing so. (And this is, of course, the root of the proverb “Birds of a feather, flock together.”)

The Fourth Rule of Sewage is Irreversible Rule of Sewage. Simply put, it’s a lot easier to mix the sewage in and ruin the water than reversing the process. While people are certainly capable of change, it takes deliberate effort to do so, and usually also an ongoing awareness and maintenance of that change to avoid slipping back to whatever factor is being avoided.

The Fifth Rule of Sewage is the Odiferous Rule of Sewage. Sewage, to put it bluntly, stinks like sh*t. Bad odors like that can be covered up or contained, but not forever. Sooner or later the malodorous item in a person’s character will out, and be readily apparent. This actually ties in with…

The Sixth Rule of Sewage, the Reactive Rule of Sewage – when faced with a tank of sewage, normal people react negatively. And while a person learning something about another (ref: Rule One) won’t physically turn their head away and scrunch up their face in disgust, I believe the plain truth is that upon learning of such a think will cause a decent person to dissociate – to whatever degree possible – from the other. Failing to do so, or worse expressing approval, could be considered an example application of Rule One about them too.

I can certainly get on board with the Sixth Rule, often expressed as "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas".  What do you think of the rest?

Peter

Stephan Pastis, as usual, says it all.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

Yet again, let me point out that with all the manipulation, lying, cheating and deception going on - from both sides of the political aisle - we should not expect a free, fair election in November.  Shenanigans will be the order of the day.  Do not trust any professional politician (i.e. one who's done nothing else except work in politics since leaving high school or college).  If they've grown up in and through that system, they're as untrustworthy as that system.  By all means pick one's flavor of politician and vote for them, but don't expect that to change or improve our society.  I reckon we could count the moral, ethical, honest, upright politicians in the House or the Senate on the fingers of one hand, two at most.

Remember the acronym TINVOWOOT - There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This - because you're going to be hearing it a lot between now and then.

Peter

Last weekend the New York Times published an opinion piece titled "Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe".  It's filled with ridiculous platitudes about how new "safeguards" in the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in particular Section 702, will protect Americans from intrusive overreach while simultaneously protecting us from evil and all that sort of thing.  Those platitudes are nonsensical, as the article itself points out even while spouting them.

Civil libertarians argued that the surveillance bill erodes Americans’ privacy rights and pointed to examples when American citizens got entangled in investigations. Importantly, the latest version of the bill adds dozens of legal safeguards around the surveillance in question — the most expansive privacy reform to the legislation in its history. The result preserves critical intelligence powers while protecting Americans’ privacy rights in our complex digital age.

. . .

It is also true that the F.B.I. has broken the rules around these 702 database checks repeatedly in recent years. Agents ran improper queries related to elected officials and political protests. The wiretaps of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, also involved numerous violations of FISA rules. The Page wiretaps involved traditional FISA orders, not Section 702, but the bureau’s many errors there raised understandable doubts about whether it can be trusted to comply with other FISA rules.

. . .

The bill passed by Congress contains numerous reforms that will dramatically improve compliance. It sharply limits the number and ranks of F.B.I. agents who can run 702 queries, imposes strict penalties for misconduct and expands oversight by Congress and the courts.

There's more at the link.

It's so stupid it would almost be comical, if it weren't so serious.  Yes, we admit that the FBI and other authorities have for years ignored all the safeguards and legal restrictions built into the FISA process:  but the renewal legislation adds more safeguards and legal restrictions, which we're sure the FBI will not abuse this time!  Really!  We promise!  Pinky swear!

We've seen the uncovering of the festering morass of corruption that has come to dominate our intelligence services over the years, turning them into instruments of political oppression rather than public safety.  We've covered some of that information in these pages.  If you've somehow missed it, Sundance has a long and very informative article covering the subject, which you should read carefully from start to finish.  It's all true.

I hate to have to say that, because I too served in the Department of Justice.  I was medically retired almost twenty years ago, at a time when the DOJ still emphasized justice rather than political correctness.  I still associate with others who were "old-school" DOJ, who regarded the constitution and laws of this country as paramount rather than the partisan perspectives of any political party.  However, the DOJ today appears to have almost completely lost that focus.  The persecution of President Trump, and the victimization of the January 6 protesters, are just the best-known examples of how the Department has been politicized and weaponized.  There are many more.

I've said before that "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  Tucker Carlson has pointed out that "There's a reason the public's confidence in the FBI has plummeted".  Dozens, if not scores and hundreds, of observers, commenters and experts have come to the same conclusion . . . yet the Gray Lady still has no problem playing the propaganda shill for that organization.

Peter

I was cynically amused by the outrage displayed by a shopper at Whole Foods in Boston.

A Boston-based influencer has sparked outrage over inflation after claiming she paid $7 for a single apple at a Whole Foods.

. . .

“Genuinely what economy are we all f–king living in that it costs 7 dollars to buy an apple?” she asked. “I could have sworn that some other like apple that I bought was not 7 f–king dollars. It’s crazy, like 7 dollars for a latte? OK. This apple better be tasting so f–king good.”

There's more at the link.

I agree with her:  that price for a single apple is absolutely ridiculous - but so was her behavior in buying it.  If she'd put it down and walked away, she'd have saved money and the store might have learned a lesson in consumer economics.

Something like this is behind quite a lot of inflation.  Businesses aren't pricing their goods according to what they pay for them, plus a fair and reasonable profit.  Instead, they're pricing them as high as they think they can get for the product.  From a strictly capitalist perspective, of course, they're entitled to do so, because there's nothing forcing us to buy their products in the first place.  We can always look for lower prices somewhere else.  However, that becomes a lot more difficult when the availability of product is restricted (e.g. a breakdown in the supply chain, a natural disaster, etc.).  Under those conditions, products that are critical to life, health and safety may be priced out of the reach of those who most need them.  Is that just?  Is that fair?  "Pure" capitalism says it doesn't matter - that the market determines the price.  Simple human decency (not to mention the teaching of a large number of religious faiths, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam) argues otherwise.  There's no point in debating that here.  Opinions are likely as numerous (and as diverse) as our readership.

Another aspect of that problem is corporations that enter a market offering deliberately low prices, even below cost, in order to gain dominance there.  By doing so, they drive out of business other companies that can't afford to price-match them.  As soon as their competition is gone, they increase their prices to normal levels - sometimes far above normal levels.  Since consumers no longer have anywhere else (local) to go for what they need, they have little or no choice but to pay the now-inflated prices.  I've seen that at work, too.  A few years ago, back in Tennessee, a garbage removal company tried to enter our local market by offering rock-bottom rates.  Our existing service, a small family-owned business, put out flyers to all its customers, pointing out what was happening and saying that if the new entrant succeeded, they'd have to close their doors, because they didn't have the financial resources to fight back.  When a number of us checked, we found that the new entrant had used those tactics in a number of nearby municipalities, and then drastically raised its prices once customers were "locked in" to its services due to the absence of competitors.  Most of us stayed with our existing supplier, and the new entrant, frustrated, took its efforts elsewhere.

In so many words, a lot of the inflation we experience from day to day is actually caused by manufacturers and vendors setting the highest prices they think they can obtain.  They'll cite scarcity, supply chain issues, weather and anything else you can think of - but they won't reduce their prices unless and until market factors force that upon them.  Fundamentally, it's greed at work . . . and greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  Unfortunately, many businessmen appear to ignore such factors.

One major exception to the rule is Waffle House, and they deserve a round of applause.  I'm sure most of my readers have heard of the "Waffle House Index", a widely referenced measurement of how severely an area has been affected by a disaster.  I've seen Waffle House at work through several hurricanes in the South, and one thing is very noticeable;  they never gouge their customers on price.  They get their restaurants back up and running as fast as humanly possible, and they maintain their pre-disaster prices no matter how much extra it costs them to bring in supplies over disrupted and sometimes hazardous routes.  Kudos to them for offering their services to survivors and rescue workers who need them very badly.  There are other stores that do likewise, but that's often at the discretion of local store managers.  Waffle House is the only chain I know of that does so as a matter of policy.  (If any readers know of other chains that do business that way, please let us know about them in Comments.)

Peter

It seems that Novo Nordisk, producers of Ozempic (a popular treatment for diabetes) and Wegovy (ditto for weight loss), has been gouging the hell out of US customers to subsidize much, much lower prices elsewhere in the world.

It costs Novo Nordisk less than $5 per month to produce its top-selling diabetes injection, Ozempic, even as it charges nearly $1,000 for a month’s supply before insurance, according to a new study.

. . .

The foundational price for a weekly dose of injectable semaglutide—the generic name for Ozempic—ranges from $0.89 to $4.73 per month, the study found. By contrast, a vial of human insulin can be manufactured at a cost between $2.37 and $5.94 per month.

A month’s supply of Ozempic is $935.77 for those in the United States without health insurance, according to Novo’s website. The Danish company’s GLP-1 weight loss drug, Wegovy, is listed as $1,349 per month.

. . .

Citing the findings, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on Novo to slash prices for both Ozempic and Wegovy, highlighting the price gap for the identical drugs sold in America and other developed countries.

“A new Yale study found that Ozempic costs less than $5 a month to manufacture. And yet, Novo Nordisk charges Americans nearly $1,000 a month for this drug, while the same exact product can be purchased for just $155 a month in Canada and just $59 in Germany,” the senator said in a statement ... “I am calling on Novo Nordisk to lower the list price of Ozempic—and the related drug Wegovy—in America to no more than what they charge for this drug in Canada,” he continued. “The American people are sick and tired of paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs while the pharmaceutical industry enjoys huge profits.”

There's more at the link.

I'm hardly in the same political camp as Senator Sanders, but I fully support him in this.  Novo Nordisk is far from the only company to charge super-high prices to US consumers, only to provide the same medication to the rest of the world at a tenth, or less than a tenth, of those prices.  The companies parrot the same line about it not being fair to compare non-insurance (i.e. full market) prices to those paid by people with medical insurance, but that misses the point.  The medical insurance premiums we pay are much higher than they need to be, precisely because of the higher prices of medications, surgeries, etc. on the US market.  If drug manufacturers were to lower their list prices to something more appropriate to their costs of research and production, we'd all pay a lot less.

It's easy to say that people can choose where to spend their money, and they can reject items that are too expensive - but medication is all too often essential, not optional, and that forces sick people to either pay the price, or accept decline and an early death.

We criticize US companies for exporting the production of their goods to Third World countries, thereby saving themselves a bundle but throwing literally millions of Americans out of work, or depriving them of work that pays (or used to pay) a decent wage.  Yet, at the same time, we have little to say about the producers of essentials like medication who charge whatever the system says they can get away with, and relentlessly gouge the US consumer, while giving a subsidized ride (at our expense) to the rest of the world.  Why are we not insisting that such companies justify their price differentials, and price their product more equitably in all their markets, including ours?  Why are we allowing them to subsidize others out of our pockets?

Peter

I'm sure everybody who makes preparations for potential problems, no matter how small, has run into the sort of friend who says, "If disaster strikes, I'm coming over to your place.  You have enough to take care of us, too!"  My response to that is usually less than polite, to put it mildly.

This has led to accusations of being "un-Christian", in terms like "I'm your neighbor!  The parable of the Good Samaritan means you have to take care of me!"  The freeloaders will find all sorts of Scriptural quotations to justify their relying on you to take care of them in an emergency, rather than doing it themselves.  They don't seem to like it when I quote the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in reply.  They object, "But that's taking it out of context!  That's for when Christ returns, not a disaster!"  When I point out that, in the event of a disaster, they may be meeting Christ a lot sooner than they'd otherwise planned, they don't seem to appreciate it...

Arguments about context notwithstanding, I think the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is very applicable to preparing for difficult situations.  The "oil in our lamps" is what we need to keep ourselves and our loved ones alive and safe - well, as safe as possible - during hard times.  If we have "oil", we'll probably make it through the problems.  If we don't, it'll be a lot more difficult (and possibly more dangerous), and we may not make it through them.  It's as simple as that.

That being the case, for whom are we building up our emergency supplies?  It's not for every Tom, Dick and Harry who demands them.  I daresay none of us are wealthy enough to stockpile an almost infinite amount of goodies "just in case".  Most of us find it difficult enough to build up sufficient supplies for our own family, which must have first claim on them.  If we're fortunate enough to have a local "tribe" or extended family, people we know we can rely on in an emergency, they too may have a legitimate claim on us, just as we might have the same claim on them:  they help us, we help them.  It's a two-way street.  However, outside that sort of relationship, do we owe anything to those who have suddenly been left to their own resources when trouble comes, and realize they have none?  Do they have a tertiary claim on us?  I would argue they don't, at least not to any great extent.

Here we run headlong into the attitudes of society as a whole.  You can bet your last penny that in a disaster situation, the authorities will rely on local ordinances that empower them to confiscate anything and everything they need to help their people survive.  That will almost certainly include declaring preppers to be "hoarders" - thieves, in so many words - rather than prudent householders, in order to justify confiscating their preparations for the benefit of others.  If you have equipment or buildings that might be useful, expect to have them appropriated as well.  They won't ask your permission - they'll tell you, and if you object, you'll probably be arrested.  In larger cities, the welfare-dependent portion of the population will doubtless demand that the authorities do that, and do so themselves if they won't (yet another reason not to live in big cities).

Even if the authorities don't get that overbearing, my experience in the Third World during disasters is that local "strong men" will try to "organize" a street, or a neighborhood, or an area.  They'll send their followers to "inspect" people's homes and confiscate whatever they declare is needed to maintain order and look after the needy.  (Generally, of course, they'll keep what they confiscate for themselves, and/or demand payment in cash or in kind if you want some.)  If you object, you may be beaten up or worse;  you'll certainly be threatened and browbeaten.  (Think of the local "strong men" as an involuntary HOA, laying down rules and regulations that you may not like, but you'll be forced to follow if you want to live there.  It's just that this HOA is less likely than most to tolerate disagreement, and may be armed to enforce its will.)  Don't expect sweet reason and understanding from such folks.  In a disaster, "Karens" are all too willing to tell others what to do, and to force them to obey if they get half a chance.  (There are far too many of them in government as it is.)

This is why I and others suggest that you split your emergency preparations.  Part can be more visible, perhaps in the form of an "extended pantry", a larger-than-usual supply of canned and dried food in or near your kitchen.  If people demand to know what preparations you've made, and you're not in a position to refuse to show them, you can let them see that.  If they insist on confiscating some of it, by all means object (but not strongly enough to endanger your safety and/or that of your family).  Meanwhile, you should have more (perhaps most of) your emergency supplies hidden elsewhere, out of plain sight, either on your property and/or in a remote location like a storage unit or a friend's place that's less likely to be visited by such marauders, official or otherwise.  (Storage units may not be safe in such a situation.  They're likely to be looted, so plan to get important items out of them as quickly as possible if an emergency arises.)

Finally, expect such situations to arise in the event of a disaster or disruption.  There will be those who've made little or no preparation to endure such events, and who will turn to others such as yourself to tide them over.  It'll take firmness and determination to tell them "No", and you may have to back up words with actions if push comes to shove.  Your family is your primary responsibility, and comes first;  your extended family or "tribe" comes next as your secondary responsibility.  People who are not in those categories may ask for help, but have no right to demand it.  You have every right to refuse them if that would threaten your ability to help your primary and secondary responsibilities.

As a Christian, I do believe it's our duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves.  That's why I keep some extras in our emergency preparations, so that I can contribute at least something to those who may ask for help.  However, when those extras run out, that's it.  If others won't accept that and get pushy, then it's time for me to get pushy right back at them.  (There are those who believe one shouldn't help at all, because that will only encourage those one helps to demand more when the initial help runs out - a potential threat to our safety.  I guess that's a decision for each of us to make, based on our own consciences.)

What say you, readers?  Let us know your thoughts in Comments.

Peter

Remember the sanctions against Russia that were instituted in the wake of that country's invasion of Ukraine?  Looks like those sanctions are (as usual) somewhat less than a stellar success.  Sky News reports:

British carmakers appear to have continued selling hundreds of millions of pounds of luxury vehicles to Russia even after the invasion of Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions, exporting the cars indirectly via former Soviet states, Sky News analysis suggests.

While direct British car exports to Russia have fallen to zero following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, that collapse has been followed by a corresponding increase in car exports to countries neighbouring Russia, most notably Azerbaijan.

Our analysis, based on official HMRC trade data, finds that the UK exported £273m of vehicles to Azerbaijan last year, a 1,860% increase compared with the five-year period preceding the invasion.

Not only is the increase in exports to Azerbaijan unprecedented, it is of a similar magnitude to the annual car exports to Russia in the two years before the imposition of sanctions, which averaged £330m.

Alongside the UK HMRC statistics, Sky News has analysed UN international trade data which shows that over precisely the same period that Britain recorded an unprecedented increase in car exports to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan recorded an unprecedented increase in car exports to Russia.

. . .

Sky News has previously shown that many other banned items, including those known to have been repurposed as weapons, have been sent to former Soviet states in the Caucasus and Central Asia, including Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. Those states have all recorded sharp increases in their exports to Russia.

There's more at the link.

As usual, sanctions are a feel-good panacea, not an effective means of exerting pressure.  All they do is increase the cost of doing business with the nation targeted by them.

South Africa, my country of origin, is an excellent example.  A mandatory arms embargo was instituted against it in 1977.  It certainly interfered with the importation of naval vessels and other major items of hardware:  but that didn't stop South Africa from building its own and/or upgrading existing assets, including obtaining (legally or illegally) all the technology needed to do so.  In addition, major expansion of its domestic armaments industry produced world-leading advances in artillery, mine-protected vehicles (which were the foundation of almost all MRAP designs in the West a couple of decades later) and other areas, as well as supplying almost all components, spares and tools that had previously been imported.  Being at the time the largest producer of gold in the world, South Africa could pay suppliers in utterly untraceable precious metals or in any currency in the world, obtainable by selling that gold.  (Why do you think the Krugerrand became the world's most widely circulated gold coin during that period?)

Needless to say, there were any number of vendors ready, willing and able to do business on those terms, including major companies in the USA, Britain, Germany, Israel and elsewhere.  Also, non-military products that could be applied to military needs were imported on a massive scale:  I mentioned a couple of examples in a previous blog post.  To cite yet another one, South Africa produced its own clones of the DEC PDP-11 computer in large quantities, and imported Japanese clones of the IBM System/370 mainframe.  Imported computers could not legally be supplied to South Africa's military or armaments industry, in terms of the arms embargo:  but they could be (and were) sold to other government departments and organizations for non-military scientific research and administrative data processing.  If those same computers from time to time ran software for other entities as well, who was to know?

Sanctions benefit two groups of people.  First, they benefit the feel-good, do-good emotional types who can at least say, "Well, we're doing something about the problem!"  The fact that what they're doing isn't very useful or effective is neither here nor there - it's the feelings that count (and the public relations value), not the facts.  Second, they benefit all those who are prepared to take money from anybody for anything.  They can ratchet up their prices according to how difficult the sanctions make it to export to the buyer, and according to how badly the buyer needs what they have to offer.  That latter, by the way, is a two-edged sword.  South Africa often encountered sellers who believed they had a lock on the market, and could force South Africa to pay whatever they demanded for what it needed.  They usually found that they were sent on their way without a penny while another, more reasonable (and more realistic) seller got the business.  (If you're going to play hardball with an expert in hardball, you'd better be sure your ball is harder than his, so to speak.  Some would-be sellers who thought they were hard men tried tactics such as threats of exposure, blackmail, etc., only to find that South African purchasers could be harder than their worst nightmare.  Others watched and learned, making it much simpler to do business with them in future.)

To go back to the report above, the British manufacturers involved have clean hands according to the sanctions regulations.  They're not making money out of Russia, but from Azerbaijan.  The fact that anyone with two working brain cells can figure out that Azerbaijani money is, in fact, very thinly disguised Russian money is conveniently swept under the carpet.  After all, one can't expect politicians to do without the bribes payoffs contributions they receive from commerce and industry;  and the thought of causing greater unemployment by asking awkward questions is just too ghastly for them to contemplate.  After all, that might cost them votes!

So much for morality in politics and in business . . .

Peter

A few days ago I pointed out that both the Republican and Democratic parties are as bad as each other, so much so that they effectively formed a Uniparty rather than being in opposition to one another.  Now, to reinforce that perspective, here's news from New York.

It seems like New York’s 3rd Congressional district is destined for drama.

Following the extraordinary saga surrounding George Santos, one of the top two GOP favorites to replace the recently-ousted representative is a registered Democrat — despite having twice been elected as a Republican to the Nassau County Legislature.

Mazi Melesa Pilip, a pro-Israel, Black, Orthodox Jew who served in the IDF, is on the Nassau County GOP’s shortlist for the seat vacated after Santos’ expulsion.

But public records uncovered by POLITICO show Pilip has enrolled as a Democrat since 2012.

Pilip currently holds office as a Republican and ran on the GOP ticket for the Nassau County legislator in 2021 and 2023.

Both Pilip and Joe Cairo, the county’s GOP chair, did not respond to numerous requests for comment, including through allies. But the Nassau County Board of Elections’ spokesperson called Playbook on Pilip’s behalf and confirmed she is an enrolled Democrat.

There's more at the link.

So . . . a registered Democrat is running as a Republican candidate, with the full knowledge and approval of the Republican Party hierarchy in the area???

If you wanted proof of the Uniparty's existence - as well as of the essentially dirty, corrupt, dishonest way politics is conducted in large parts of this country, not just the Empire State - look no further.

Peter

Time magazine warns that "The Rooftop Solar Industry Could Be on the Verge of Collapse".  It's a long and very detailed article, but worth reading if you have (or are considering putting) solar panels on your home.  Here's an excerpt.

A decade ago, someone knocking on your door to sell you solar panels would have been selling you solar panels. Now, they are probably selling you a financial product—likely a lease or a loan ... Solar customers across the country say that salespeople obscure the specific terms of the financial agreements and cloud the value of the products they peddle. Related court cases are starting to pile up. “I have been practicing consumer law for over a decade, and I’ve never seen anything like what we are seeing in the solar industry right now,” says Kristin Kemnitzer, who represents Jones and says her firm gets “multiple” calls every week from potential clients with similar stories.

Angry customers aren’t the only reason the solar industry is in trouble. Some of the nation’s biggest public solar companies are struggling to stay afloat as questions arise over the viability of the financial products they sold to both consumers and investors to fund their growing operations. 

These looming financial problems could topple the residential solar industry at a time when solar is supposed to be saving the world.

. . .

At the root of these struggles is the complicated financial engineering that helped companies raise money but that some investors and analysts say was built on a framework of lies—or at least exaggerations. 

Since at least 2016, big solar companies have used Wall Street money to fund their growth. This financialization raised the consumer cost of the panels and led companies to aggressively pursue sales to make the cost of borrowing Wall Street money worth it. National solar companies essentially became finance companies that happened to sell solar, engaging in calculations that may have been overly optimistic about how much money the solar leases and loans actually bring in. 

“I’ve often heard solar finance and sales compared to the Wild West due to the creativity involved,” says Jamie Johnson, the founder of Energy Sense Finance, who has been studying the residential solar industry for a decade. “It’s the Silicon Valley mantra of ‘break things and let the regulators figure it out.’”

. . .

Meanwhile, the pressure for fast sales may have led some companies to look the other way when salespeople obscured the terms of the solar panel leases and loans they were selling in order to close a deal. Consumer lawyers have made allegations about salespeople fudging consumer incomes on loan applications so they could qualify; telling them they’d get a tax refund for solar panels even if their income wasn’t high enough; and sending important documents to fake email addresses so consumers wouldn’t see them and protest ... Consumers don’t catch these extra costs in part because salespeople often present documents to potential customers on tablets or phones, making it easy to skip over the fine print.

There's much more at the link.

Shady business practices - which, in my opinion, amount to outright fraud if they're as described - appear to abound in the industry.  Certainly, the sales pressure from solar vendors is unending.  Over the past year I must have had at least a dozen visits from contractors working in the area, wanting to know if we'd like to sign up too.  My invariable answer is "No" - but that doesn't stop them parroting their sales spiel, trying to change my mind, refusing to take "No" for an answer.  Unfortunately for them, I did the math years ago, and that decided me not to bother with rooftop solar as a permanent electricity solution.  I have solar panels, sure, but only as a backup recharging tool for use with portable power packs in emergencies.

Basically, I guess it's a case of caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.  (Or, as P. T. Barnum was alleged to have said - and fast-talking salespeople appear to have adopted as a mantra - "There's one born every minute"!)

Peter

That's what Raheem Kassam calls the verdict in the Trump-Carrol case.  

The awarding of nearly $90 million to the second-rate advice columnist E. Jean Carroll will doubtless be remembered for generations as the greatest miscarriage of justice in contemporary American history. Jean Carroll’s case was not just ludicrous on the face of it, but between the judge, the “experts” who testified, and the mechanisms by which the case even came to be, it’s impossible for any ordinary person in the West to see this as anything more than the continuation of a series of hoaxes perpetrated on former President Donald J. Trump with the desire to keep him from re-entering the Oval Office in January 2025.

. . .

Show trials like this are not commonplace in the Western world. But it happened in New York in 2024. And everyone should be wary. If someone can accuse Trump, without evidence, of a crime committed 30 years ago. If the judge demands Trump may not defend himself. If they can get away with a wildly arbitrary number concocted by a lawyer trying to repair her own reputation, and an overtly partisan “expert” who admits no real-world experience in her supposed field of expertise – all against one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world. Well, then, think about what they can do to you.

There's more at the link, including a detailed examination of every point that makes the Carroll verdict a very dubious proposition.  If you haven't followed the trial, you really need to read Kassam's summation.  It shows very clearly how "lawfare" is being used against President Trump at every turn, to try to frustrate his efforts to be re-elected.

I'm not a particular fan of President Trump, and never have been.  Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge that he's not just fighting for public opinion, but against the entire legal and administrative system of this country, both of which appear to have been hijacked by his opponents to block him from ever again holding office.

Will they succeed?  Your guess is as good as mine . . . but President Trump is putting up the best fight he can.  That, in itself, is praiseworthy, given that he's fighting forces greater than any that have opposed any politician in our history.

Finally, think about Mr. Kassam's closing line:  "Think about what they can do to you."  I suggest the trials concerning the alleged "insurrection" on January 6th, 2020, tell their own story about that.  Basically, the message being sent through them, as through the Trump-Carroll case, is that "If you oppose us, we will crush you."  Historically, Americans have had a blunt answer to that message.  I wonder if we still have that same determination and independence of spirit today?

Peter

Last week, writing about the findings of an in-depth audit of Disney's tame "government" of its land in central Florida, I observed:

The more I read about this mess, the more it appears - assuming the audit is correct in its findings - that Disney has been engaged in criminal activity (i.e. in clear violation of black-letter state and Federal law) for literally decades, and expected to continue to do so.

I now think that was an understatement, to put it mildly.  The more we learn about the situation, the worse things look for Disney.

Disney wasn’t just greedy, it was stupid greedy. Mickey the Great and Terrible didn’t just have his hand in the cookie jar, he’d crawled inside and ate everything in it to include the bottom of the jar itself.  

Here’s a fun example, Reedy Creek owns some power plants, and these are taxpayer-supported. Although, they are primarily to be used as emergency backups. Please excuse this next bit because I’m going to have to say allegedly a LOT. Allegedly, it would take years to bring one of them online. The other has allegedly been turned into an air conditioning plant, but they both allegedly still collect subsidies. I mean why pay for something out of your pocket when you can get Uncle Sucker to buy it for you? 

The auditors weren’t permitted entry into these plants because the employees that run these Reedy Creek government facilities DON’T WORK FOR REEDY CREEK ... They are Disney employees.

. . .

The chief auditor stated that Reedy Creek produces no electricity at all. This startled the hell out of a lot of us because Disney World has huge banks of solar panels. In fact, they’ve committed quite a bit of ecological damage to the local wildlife trails to build them. To say nothing of how badly those filthy things will poison the land when the inevitable hurricane blasts through and wrecks them.  

Disney nonetheless ignored real-world environmental terrorism to pat itself on the back over a being phantom friend of the Earth. Disney World loudly and proudly proclaimed that these panels provide 40% of WDW’s power, cleanly!  

Allegedly, all of the electricity provided by those solar panels is sold to a third-party utility. Disney World allegedly buys 100% of its power from Duke Energy and only 10% of that is allegedly provided by anything approaching “clean energy.” 

. . .

The alleged activities have been going on so long it would meet the legal definition of a “criminal enterprise” if these allegations are proven in a court of law ... And no, the IRS can’t ignore this. If they do, every business in the country will start doing it.

There's more at the link.

How on earth did Disney think it could get away with such shenanigans forever?  One is irresistibly reminded of the ancient Greek connection between Hubris and Nemesis.  To put it another way:  "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."  It begins to sound very much as if that fate has been visited upon successive generations of Disney board members, directors and top management.

One might almost feel sorry for the Disney Corporation, if it hadn't systematically and with malice aforethought trashed the legacy of its founder and led untold millions of children around the world astray with its deliberate denigration of "traditional" values and morals.  I'm afraid that if Nemesis is to be visited upon anybody, the Disney Corporation is more deserving of that fate than most.

Pass the popcorn . . .

Peter

In his latest column, Fred Reed goes into detail about the complications that would ensue if the USA decides to deport all those illegals who've flooded over our border during the Biden administration.  He concludes:

I think the consequence of attempting to deport illegals on such a scale would be to throw the country into the worst crisis it has ever experienced without deporting much of anybody. Of course, I have noticed that what I think does not control the workings of the universe, doubtless a cosmic oversight of some sort. Still, it might be a good idea to think things through before undertaking them. Granted, this would be a break with tradition, but a little adventure spices up life.

I'm not going to cherry-pick points from his article, but I do highly recommend that you click over there and read the whole thing.  He's quite right about the difficulties that would be involved - so many of them, and so vast, that they might make the entire project impractical, literally impossible.  It may be that, as far as immigration is concerned, we as a nation have crossed the Rubicon and there's no going back.  I hate the thought - and I'm a legal immigrant myself - but that may be the case.

If you can think of any practical method of achieving the deportation of millions of unwanted illegals, without ripping the country apart in the process, I'd love to hear it.  Please give us details in Comments.

Peter

We're witnessing preparations in Israel for a massive counterstrike against Hamas after the latter's recent terrorist onslaught.  Tragically, many innocent people are very likely to be caught up in that counterstrike.  Many will probably be injured or killed.  Morally speaking, that's repugnant at the very least, if not actually forbidden, under the moral and ethical code of most (but not all) mainstream religious faiths - but it's going to happen, regardless.  Can it be justified?

This is a conundrum that's been faced many, many times before in human history.  Considerations of what's "right" have far too often been supplanted by what's "necessary", at least in the eyes of those taking the actions concerned.  They've looked for justification for their actions in many ways, and many of them claim to have found it, no matter how spurious it may be.  Some of the earliest examples can be found in the holy books of many religions, where you'll find claims that "God told us to kill the people at this place" or "God gave us this land to be our own, and told us to kill or enslave those already living there".  It's fairly likely that those statements wound up in those "holy books" several generations after the events in question, when justification was needed for actions that were anything but "holy".  That way, those questioning them could be accused of profaning God's revelation (as the tribe or clan or nation concerned saw it), and conveniently silenced instead of the "establishment" having to confront their doubts.

So-called "just war theory" is all about this dilemma.  Is it right/moral/ethical to go to war?  If so, what is the right/moral/ethical way to conduct that war?  What about treatment of the survivors after that war?  It's a vast subject, far too large to treat adequately in a brief blog article like this.  Go read the linked article, and follow the links it provides.  It was applied in various ways at different times, with results that often seem incongruous at best.  For example, at the sack of Béziers in 1209 AD:

Caesarius of Heisterbach relates this story about the massacre:

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to [the Papal Legate in command, the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric] "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius – Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

While there remains doubt that the abbot said these words – also paraphrased as "Kill them all; God will know His own", "Kill them all; God will sort his own", or "Kill them all and let God sort them out" – there is little if any doubt that these words captured the spirit of the assault, and that the Crusaders intended to slaughter the inhabitants. The Crusaders allowed the routiers to rampage and kill without restraint, sparing neither women nor children, but swiftly put a stop to looting.

Kill civilians without restraint, because you can't identify the guilty, but don't loot their belongings?  That's a rather warped application of allegedly Divine moral law, isn't it?

A more modern example may be found concerning the bombing campaign against Germany during World War II.  Bishop George Bell was outspoken in his opposition to the bombing of non-military targets.

In November 1939 he published an article stating that the Church in wartime should not hesitate

to condemn the infliction of reprisals, or the bombing of civilian populations, by the military forces of its own nation. It should set itself against the propaganda of lies and hatred. It should be ready to encourage the resumption of friendly relations with the enemy nation. It should set its face against any war of extermination or enslavement, and any measures directly aimed to destroy the morale of a population.

In 1941 in a letter to The Times, he called the bombing of unarmed women and children "barbarian" which would destroy the just cause for the war, thus openly criticising the Prime Minister's advocacy of such a bombing strategy. On 14 February 1943 – two years ahead of the Dresden raids – he urged the House of Lords to resist the War Cabinet's decision for area bombing, stating that it called into question all the humane and democratic values for which Britain had gone to war. In 1944, during debate, he again demanded the House of Lords to stop British area bombing of German cities such as Hamburg and Berlin as a disproportionate and illegal "policy of annihilation" and a crime against humanity, asking:

How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization?

He did not have the support of senior bishops. The Archbishop of York replied to him in the House of Lords: "it is a lesser evil to bomb the war-loving Germans than to sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen..., or to delay the delivery of many now held in slavery".

In strictly Christian terms, Bishop Bell was, of course, entirely correct.  Tragically, by then the events of the war had overtaken morality.  Britain got around the moral dilemma of bombing "innocent civilians" by an official policy of denying that there was any such thing.  Civilians worked in armaments factories or supported war production in other ways;  and if civilian housing was destroyed, it would require diversion of a large part of the German economy to repairing or replacing it, thereby affecting war production and weakening Germany's armed forces.  Therefore, bombing the civilian population was, in fact, an attack on Germany's ability to make war.  (The same rationale was applied to killing prisoners of war and slave laborers during attacks on German infrastructure.  Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of them were killed during such air raids, but their loss was regarded as "collateral damage" - unintended, yet unavoidable, and justified under the circumstances.)

My parents lived through the Second World War, my mother enduring bombing as a civilian on the ground, my father as an officer in the Royal Air Force.  I was able to ask both of them for their opinion of Bishop Bell's position.  My mother put it something like this:  "The Golden Rule says to do unto others as you want them to do unto you.  The Nazis 'did unto us' when they bombed Warsaw, and Rotterdam, and Coventry, and London;  so I always reckoned that the Golden Rule gave us the right to 'do unto them' what they first 'did unto us'."  My father's response was somewhat more pungent and profane, but basically agreed with hers.  "They started it:  we finished it."

I imagine that a similar justification - classifying "innocent civilians" as no longer innocent, but instead as part of the problem - is driving Israel's preparations to deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  From that perspective, if the local population supports Hamas, and - willingly or not - provides cover for its operations, then that local population is itself part of the terrorist problem, and must be dealt with as severely as the terrorists in order to eliminate the threat.  I don't think Bishop Bell would agree, and from a Christian moral perspective I don't either, but nobody's asking us for our opinions.

Tragically, in applying that perspective, Israel will be storing up yet more hatred against itself that future generations will express in one way or another.  When Israeli bombs or bullets kill Palestinian children, their siblings will remember, and hate those who did that.  They won't ask whether it was justified, or necessary, or moral . . . they'll just hate, and want revenge against those who did it.  It's been that way throughout recorded history.  I wrote about it after the Bataclan Massacre in 2015.  What I said then remains true today, and will remain true for all time, whether or not you agree with the ethical and moral issues involved.  That's just the way it is.  (The comments from readers after that post are also worth viewing, particularly those that disagree with me.  They have the right to their opinions, too.)

What it boils down to is what's possible rather than what's theoretically ideal.  It's absolutely not possible to deal with Hamas terrorists in isolation from the population in which they live and from which they derive their support.  Think of Mao Zedong's famous dictum that "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea".  In so many words, to get at the fish, you have to either remove it from the water, or remove the water from around the fish.  The same applies to dealing with the guerrilla/terrorist:  if he can't be distinguished from the people, you must remove all the people that are sheltering and supporting him.  We have to acknowledge that there are undoubtedly many individuals and families within that population who do not support violence and terrorism, and have never done anything to support it;  but their presence nevertheless offers protection to the terrorist, and provides him with cover and concealment.  To deal with him, it's unavoidable that we have to deal with "the sea in which he swims" - the people around him, innocent or not.

Tragically (and I mean that very sincerely), that means Israel has literally no choice but to deal with the entire population of Gaza as if they were all guilty.  I hope and pray it exercises as much restraint as possible;  but when you look at what the terrorists in Gaza did to Israel, the latter has no moral choice at all but to protect its citizens against further such atrocities.  That means the people of Gaza - all of them - are about to find themselves between a rock and a hard place, with no alternative but to be treated as guilty unless and until proven innocent.  Many of them will probably die before such a determination can be made, because in the middle of a war, you can't stop and put yourself at risk to find out.

That doesn't make it right.  That doesn't make it moral.  It does, however, make it inevitable.

Peter

... here are two items of interest.  Both deal with sensitive issues, and may be offensive to some readers, so I suggest you don't read further if you want to avoid such difficulties.  Also, if you haven't yet read yesterday's article, I suggest you do so before continuing.

First, here's a TEDx talk by Gail Dines titled "Growing Up in a Pornified Culture".  It shows very clearly the sort of society in which our young ladies are growing up - and it's terrifying to anyone of a more traditional morality.  If you're a parent, you should watch the whole thing.

Next, an article that appeared this morning at The Free Press titled "The Woman Who Stood Up to the Porn Industry—and Won".  Here's an excerpt.

Not only has Schlegel curbed the billion-dollar online porn industry for the first time in history, forcing websites to protect kids in Louisiana and pull out of at least three U.S. states, she has offered a legislative blueprint for others across the country.

“I am truly humbled to see that we began a movement that has swept the country and began a long overdue conversation about how we can protect kids from hardcore pornography,” she says. 

Schlegel’s crusade started back in December 2021. She had listened to The Howard Stern Show and 21-year-old pop sensation Billie Eilish talking about online porn. Eilish told Stern that she began watching “abusive” images at the age of 11, and that this had warped her sense of how to behave during sex and what women’s bodies look like.

“No vagina looks like this,” Eilish told Stern. “I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn.”

Schlegel was struck by Eilish’s openness, that she was “just a young girl being vulnerable enough to share those details with the world.”

The singer’s story also chimed with Schlegel’s professional experience both as a sex addiction therapist and a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children in the foster care system. She knew the issues facing young clients raised on unlimited free online porn—the decoupling of intimacy from sex; the inability to get aroused without porn playing in the background; a warped idea of what your partner actually wants. 

“If you’ve never had your first kiss but you’ve seen hardcore pornography, it’s going to mold the way you view sexuality,” Schlegel said. “You’re not dealing with a fully formed adult brain that's like, ‘Oh, so I shouldn’t strangle my partner?’ ” 

If Schlegel understood the damage pornography causes, she also knew how easy it is for children to access it. And she realized that now she was a state legislator, she was uniquely positioned to do something about it. 

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Both of these resources help to explain why modern relationships are so sexualized, and how they exclude so many traditional aspects of femininity and the marital bond that we discussed yesterday.  I hope they help make sense of the mess so many of our relationships are in.

Peter

I recently read an article in The Atlantic titled "Nobody Should Care About a Woman’s ‘Body Count’".  The original is paywalled, but a non-paywalled version may be found here.  I'm not going to excerpt it here, but I recommend reading it for yourself if the subject interests you.  Basically, the author is arguing that it doesn't matter how many sexual partners a woman has had, and it shouldn't affect her as far as desirability is concerned.

I'd argue that it does, indeed, matter:  and that it also matters as far as men are concerned.  Admittedly, my viewpoint is conditioned by my Christian faith and having many years' experience as a pastor in dealing with relationships, good and bad.  I will add that it wasn't always that way.  In my younger days, I had relationships that I now regret, that were more "what can I get out of it?" rather than "what can I put into it?".  I fear many of us can say the same.  I wish we could have greater wisdom when we were young . . . it would avoid a lot of the damage we do to ourselves, and others, in those "salad days, when we were green in judgment".  Unfortunately, life's not like that.

The huge damage inflicted on meaningful relationships by the "hookup culture" is that it's taken what is (or should be) the most important bonding experience a couple can share, and turned it into a cheap commodity, a voyeur's pornographic fulfilment, a search for new toys to give a more "profound" physical experience.  For centuries - indeed, millennia - the sexual relationship was considered the physical expression of an existing spiritual and societal bond or "contract".  Whether in a romantic relationship or an arranged one, the contract of marriage was supposed to precede the act of marriage (i.e. sex).  Admittedly, this was often honored more in the breach than in the observance, but the theory nevertheless held sway, and governed human society for a very, very long time, no matter what culture or nationality or religion was involved.  The sexual revolution stood that theory on its head.  Sex was no longer a means of expressing that pre-existing bond.  Instead, it became divorced from the bond, becoming no more than a casual encounter that might, or might not, lead to something more intimate in the mental and spiritual sense.

I think the general acceptance of that divorce, and the "commoditization" of sex, have caused immense damage to human relationships.  It's long been said that a woman can't give herself sexually to a man without inevitably committing a part of her personality, her very being, in the exchange.  I know modern psychologists and anthropologists decry this, but in my pastoral experience, I'd say there's a lot of truth in that old saw.  I think women do, inevitably, commit a lot more of themselves when things get physical than men do.  After all, the woman is letting someone else enter her.  She's involved in an act that, absent external chemical or other intervention, is supposed to open the way to new life growing within her.  In other words, the creative aspect of sex is something intrinsic to her reaction and response.  It can't be otherwise, because only she can bear a child.  Men can participate in the initial act, but they don't face the prospect of carrying another living human being inside them for nine months.  Inevitably, for them, sex is more physical, less mental and spiritual, less bound-up in creation and more in recreation.

I've been struck by the number of women who've expressed regret to me about having had too many casual sexual encounters in their younger days.  It's far from infrequent.  They speak of having "wasted intimacy on those who didn't deserve it", or "gone along to get along", or submitted to the "if it feels good, do it" zeitgeist.  Now, in later life, they wish they hadn't, and feel that the intimacy they've achieved with a long-term partner just isn't the same as if they'd been less experienced and more committed.  They've seldom linked that to the creative aspect of sex from a woman's perspective, but I think that relationship can be demonstrated - at least to my satisfaction.  Others may differ, of course.

Even men, if they're honest, will agree that there's a vast difference between "having sex" and "making love".  The former can be impartial, almost agnostic, a mere exchange of bodily fluids, sometimes a commercial transaction rather than a human interaction.  The latter is a giving of self combined with a receiving of the gift of self from another, an exchange, a sharing, a duality.  I had a conversation once with a woman who was far more sexually "liberated" than I was.  She challenged me to describe how making love to my wife was any different from making love to any woman.  I thought for a moment, then answered that I wouldn't be "making love" with someone I didn't actually love.  The physical act of sex, under those conditions, would not be "love-making" at all.  On the other hand, making love with the woman I love was like coming home.  I belonged there.  When she welcomed me into her body, she welcomed me into her soul as well, and renewed her presence in mine at the same time.  The other woman thought for a long, long moment in silence, and then said, with tears in her eyes, "I've never known anything like that... but now I wish I did."

The tragedy is that the more we devalue sex, the more we make it merely another physical transaction instead of something soul-deep, the less it can be a pathway to that level of intimacy.  I've worked with couples where one or both partners had previously had literally hundreds of sexual encounters with others before they married.  Almost universally, I found that their own physical relationship lacked any aspect or feeling of union, of becoming one spiritually and mentally as well as physically.  It was effectively no more than mutual masturbation, because they had reduced sex to that level before they met each other.  They no longer were able to give themselves in the act of marriage, because it was no longer the act of marriage at all.  It was just another thing, something to do to pass the time or feel good before tackling other, more important things.  Other couples who'd had dozens, rather than hundreds, of prior sexual relationships experienced something of the same difficulty, although to a lesser extent than those who'd "burned out" their sexuality by going to extremes.  As a rule of thumb, I found that couples who'd had few romantic and (particularly) physical relationships before marriage found their marital bond (including the physical) much more meaningful and fulfilling than others who'd been more "experienced" ("jaded" or "burned-out" might be better terms).

Notice that I haven't brought God or religion into this at all.  These appear to be human actions and reactions regardless of faith.  When a couple has religious beliefs as well, the latter appear to reinforce and strengthen and elevate their bond to a whole new level, and I'm profoundly grateful to have been able to help some of them achieve that.  However, even in the absence of faith, the basic make-up of the human psyche appears to be consistent.  Abuse intimacy, and one can no longer experience it to its fullest extent.  At its worst, one may no longer be able to experience it at all.  The number of sexual partners one has had - whether one is male or female - is therefore, in my experience, a significant indicator of the likelihood - or otherwise - of potential or actual problems in a subsequent permanent relationship.

I know my views will be controversial, particularly to those with a more liberated perspective.  Therefore, I invite readers to contribute their thoughts in Comments.  I think we might all benefit from a wider discussion of this issue.

Peter

This folk wisdom has been circulating on the Internet for years.  I was reminded about it via e-mail the other day, and enjoyed re-reading it:  so I thought some of my readers might feel likewise.

Advice from An Old Hillbilly:

• Your fences need to be horse-high, pig-tight and bull-strong.
• Keep skunks, bankers, and politicians at a distance.
• Life is simpler when you plow around the stump.
• A bumble bee is considerably faster than a John Deere tractor.
• Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled.
• The best sermons are lived, not preached.
• Forgive your enemies; its what GOD says to do.
• If you don't take the time to do it right, you'll find the time to do it twice.
• Don't corner something that is meaner than you.
• Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
• It don’t take a very big person to carry a grudge.
• You cannot unsay a cruel word.
• Every path has a few puddles.
• When you wallow with pigs, expect to get dirty.
• Don't be banging your shin on a stool that's not in the way.
• Borrowing trouble from the future doesn't deplete the supply.
• Most of the stuff people worry about ain’t never gonna happen anyway.
• Don’t judge folks by their relatives.
• Silence is sometimes the best answer.
• Don‘t interfere with somethin’ that ain’t botherin' you none.
• Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
• If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin’.
• Sometimes you get, and sometimes you get got.
• The biggest troublemaker you’ll ever have to deal with watches you from the mirror every mornin’.
• Always drink upstream from the herd.
• Good judgment comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgment.
• Lettin’ the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier than puttin’ it back in.
• If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around.
• Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll enjoy it a second time.
• Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God.
• Most times, it just gets down to common sense.

Advice for the ages, and most of it good, IMHO.

Peter