God Hates Children?

 

“God hates children.”

For a moment Viking Man is too lost in his reverie to have heard, but then he turns to the other man. “Can’t say I ever thought of it that way, vicar.”

“God is always killing children in the Bible, or threatening to,” says Vikar. “He kills His own child.”

Viking Man nods slowly. “That’s a hell of an observation,” he says.

— Steve Erickson, Zeroville

If You Gotta Go, Go Now

 

One of my students says she was so frustrated with an assignment she was ready to throw her computer out the window.

“What floor do you live on,” I ask.

“Second.”

“Oh, well that probably wouldn’t kill anyone, just a bump on the noggin. But you can’t say for sure if it hit them just right. Be sure you’re wearing a mask though when you do that.”

She lives in New York. My son also lives in New York so I had to call to warn him to be on the lookout for falling computers.

“Because I know someone who may be throwing one out a window. But only from the second floor so you’ll probably be able to see it coming and step out of the way.”

If I lived in New York and it came down to being killed by COVID or by a falling computer, I’d take the computer. And not just because I’m a computer professional — live by the computer, die by the computer.

But it would be quick. If everything went well, I’d never even know what hit me. I don’t want to waste away in a hospital bed.

My wife was saying the other day that if she’s ever incapacitated and unable to do things for herself, we should just let her go. Pull the plug, so to speak.

I said, “I can get a pillow and smother you with it tonight if you want. Oh . . . and Happy Valentines Day.”

Chess Game of the Day: Queen’s Pawn Game, Chigorin Variation

 

One of my online chess games. Some annotations below . . .

2. …d5 Queen’s Pawn Game: Chigorin Variation

12. Ne5 12. Nd2 might be better, as the queen’s bishop runs into a wall in this line.

16. Bg3 A sacrifice that’s maybe not easy to find in a 2+1 blitz game is 16. f4 gxe5 17. fxg5 followed by O-O.

22. Rxf6?!

22. …Qxf6?! 22. …Kxf6 is better just in terms of material but this is playable.

22. Kxg2? This can wait. 22. Rd1 brings another piece into the fray.

29. Rd2? I like 29. h4 because the king can use h2 as an escape square, and the rook is going to be better at d3.

30. Qe4?? Losing. Advancing the h-pawn keeps the game alive.

30. …Bh3+ Mate to follow.

I Think I Could Turn and Live With Animals

 

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain’d,
I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.

— Walt Whitman

COVID Vaccines

 

At the start of 2020, when COVID first came to our shores, we didn’t know anything about it, we didn’t have a vaccine, and by the end of the year 400,000 Americans had died from the virus.

By the start of 2021, we had a year of research and a vaccine. We’ve been vaccinating people for a year, and yet we have more COVID deaths under the Biden administration than under Trump, every day more vaccinated people are getting sick, so while the vaccine may keep you out of the hospital or the graveyard, it doesn’t provide immunity, it doesn’t stop the spread, I’m not sure it even slows the spread, given that we have more cases and deaths than ever.

For a long time now, anyone saying “I don’t think vaccines are stopping the spread of COVID” or something similar have been persona non grata in public discourse. Is that still the case? If so, why?

COVID vaccine

Let’s Go Brandon

 

I have a shirt that looks similar to the one in the photo. The shirt is a conversation starter and the conversation often goes like this:

“I don’t like your shirt.”

“Mmmm, I don’t really like yours either.”

“Ha ha, you know what I mean.”

“I think I do and I have to say that it concerns me like a whole lot of nothing at all.”

Never Retract, Never Apologize

 

I know you’ve never heard of Ilya Shapiro so first let me tell you that he is on administrative leave from Georgetown University Law Center while the school decides whether to retain him as executive director and senior lecturer for the school’s Center for the Constitution.

Georgetown Law Center

The rest you can glean from this excerpt from a recent essay by Bari Weiss:

I’ve been thinking a lot over the past few days about a tweet by a Georgetown professor.

Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement.

All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.

That tweet was written in 2018 by Georgetown professor Carol Christine Fair about Republican senators who supported Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Fair also writes a blog called Tenacious Hellpussy, which she describes as “a nasty woman posting from the frontlines of fuckery.” There she notes: “Cunty women get shit done.”

I fully agree, though I might call it chutzpah. For evidence, we need look no further than Fair herself.

When asked to apologize or explain her policy recommendation of mass castration and death she said this: “I will not use civil words to describe mass incivility.” She added: “Don’t expect me to. It’s an absurd request. I will use words that make you as uncomfortable as I am with this regime.”

Though Twitter temporarily suspended her, Fair’s chutzpah here paid off where it mattered: Georgetown defended Fair’s right to speak. “The views faculty members expressed in their private capacities are their own and not the views of the university. Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable.” Fair continues to teach at Georgetown.

Hold Fair’s tweet in your mind as you consider the story, still unfolding, of constitutional law scholar Ilya Shapiro.

Shapiro is a Soviet emigré and highly regarded scholar who, until last week, seemed like a perfect match for the job as executive director at the Georgetown Center of the Constitution. He was scheduled to start February 1. But late at night, on January 26, he took to Twitter to express his disapproval of President Biden’s pledge to appoint only a black woman to fill Justice Breyer’s seat on the Supreme Court. Now, his career is on the line.

Here’s what Shapiro wrote:

Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?

Because Biden said he’s only consider[ing] black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.

Many others wrote similar tweets the same day, expressing outrage at the president’s promise to reserve the seat for someone of a specific race and gender. . . .

First, the view that President Joe Biden should hire a replacement for Justice Breyer’s seat based on merit and not identity is not some fringe position. It is one shared by 76% of Americans. According to a new ABC/Ipsos poll, more than three-quarters of Americans say they want Biden to consider “all possible nominees.” Only 23% want President Biden to “consider only nominees who are Black women, as he has pledged to do.”

Shapiro has admitted that his tweets were “poorly drafted,” and they were. But it was obvious to anyone reading him in good faith that what he intended to say was that Biden should pick the most qualified person for the job.

The second thing Shapiro ought to point out is the case of Professor Fair. Her statement about feeding castrated corpses to pigs inspired a defense of free speech from the school. Shapiro’s tweet—which he deleted and apologized for—was called “appalling.”

Is there a double standard at work here? Is it politically motivated? Some people say there is no such thing as a politically motivated double standard with regard to free speech. I’m not so sure.

Never retract, never apologize. Decency is a one-way ticket to exile.

Chess Game of the Day: Ruy Lopez

 

One of my online chess games. White had a significant advantage, squandered it, then misplayed a forced draw. Some annotations below . . .

3. Bb5 Ruy Lopez

3. Bxc6 Exchange Variation

5. …f6 Gligoric Variation

17. …c4? This opens up the b-file for White’s rook, although he ends up not using it.

20. a5? 20. Rb1 is better.

20. …Bxd3?? This looks like a losing move. I could have defused the king-side problems with 20. …b5.

21. Rxd3 21. axb6 was probably worth a try.

22. …b5 This is now a little late.

23. d4? White is still winning but 23. Rb1 Qd7 24. Nxb5! axb5 25. a6 was the way to go.

36. Rb6? At this point, White has pretty much defused his own attack. 36. Rd4, opening b6 for the queen, looks better.

37. e4? Don’t like it because Black can survive 37. …Rxe4 38. Qf7+, and White is going to have back rank problems.

40. …Re5? Believe it or not, Black can draw with 40 …Qf5+!! 41. Kxe1 followed by an endless series of checks. The rook move actually gives White some chances.

49. Rf2 White should have no worse than a draw at this point.

64. g7?? Losing. White can draw with 64. h5 or 64. Kg7

I Wish You Peace

 

I wish you peace when times are hard
A light to guide you through the dark
And when storms are high and your, your dreams are low
I wish you the strength to let love grow on,
I wish you the strength to let love flow on,
I wish you the strength to let love glow on
I wish you the strength to let love go.

— Bernie Leadon & Patti Davis, “I Wish You Peace”

The Natural Law Argument for God

 

The whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which way you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question “Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?” If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others — the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it — if there were a reason for the laws that God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage from introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength it used to have.

— Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian”

And That’s the Truth: Sidney Poitier

 
Sojourner Truth

[And That’s the Truth is a feature by our guest blogger, Sojourner Truth — PE]

God he was a handsome man. I seen that he died. He was described as a “legendary actor and civil rights activist.”

Black folks got to get over the notion that all they problems are caused by other people.

Nobody likes Jews but Jews done very well for theyselves. We had a Jewish man, Bernie Sanders, run for president two times and I never once heard him even mention that he was Jewish or that you was a Jew-hater if you disagreed with him. A black person run for some office, everything about race. You can’t disagree on the merits, you can only disagree because you a racist.

I would like to hear someone explain Asian success to me in the context of white supremacy. America has always treated Asians very badly . . . it’s not so well known, but it’s true.

Maybe there’s a Asian civil rights activist but if there is, I couldn’t name one.

In my lifetime, racism was a real thing. Racism is dead in America, almost . . . the only thing keepin it alive is “civil rights activists” and people who feel better about themselfs by callin someone else a “racist.”

And that’s the Truth!

Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?

 

My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.

— Bertrand Russell, “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?”

Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth

 

Then Christ says, “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” and he goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. . . . I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture, and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as his chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

— Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian”

Could Right and Wrong Exist Without God?

 

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God . . . One form is to say that there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.

— Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian”

Chess Game of the Day: French Defense

 

One of my online chess games. Black builds a probably winning advantage but is running short on time (in a 3+2 blitz game). I offered a draw, which Black declined. This was followed by some not-so-good moves on both sides, including a losing blunder by Black on the last move. Some annotations below . . .

1. …e6 French Defense

39. Qa5? Black has probably a winning advantage and it’s hard to find a strong move.

39. …Ba6+? Black could start to capitalize on the pawn advantage with 39. …c4.

41. Qa1? I didn’t see it coming but 41. Kh2 would have avoided the upcoming knight sacrifice on g3, which opens up the diagonal to the White king. Black is winning but has only 21 seconds left (I have 43) so I offered a draw, which Black declined.

42. Qa4? 42. Qc3 would have guarded g3. It’s too late for 42. Kh2 because of 42. …c4.

42. …Nxg3!

45. b4! Believe it or not, I think this is better than saving the knight with 45. Nf3 because after 45. …c2, I can’t see a line that isn’t a disaster for White. This at least removes the immediate threat of Black queening the c-pawn.

46. …g6?? Black could safely tuck the king away at g8 instead of offering a target at g6.

47. Qxd2? I should have hit g6 right away with 47. h5.

47. …Bc4?? This seems like a real nothing move compared to 47. …d4, opening the diagonal to the White king.

48. h5?? It’s too late for this. With the White queen off the white diagonal, Black can defuse the attack with 48. …g5. 48. Nh3 has more possibilities for White.

48. …Kg7??

50. …d4?? Giving away pieces is not the best strategy in this situation. Black has completely squandered the advantage but it’s still an even game after 50. …Kf8. Black loses the g-pawn, so material is even, and both kings are completely vulnerable. Unfortunately, he has only 4 seconds left on his clock (I have 28) and lets it run out.

Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?

 

I do not myself think that the dependence of morals upon religion is nearly as close as religious people believe it to be. I even think that some very important virtues are more likely to be found among those who reject religious dogmas than among those who accept them. I think this applies especially to the virtue of truthfulness or intellectual integrity. I mean by intellectual integrity the habit of deciding vexed questions in accordance with the evidence, or of leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive. This virtue, although it is underestimated by almost all adherents of any system of dogma, is to my mind of the very greatest social importance and far more likely to benefit the world than Christianity or any other system of organized beliefs.

— Bertrand Russell, “Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?”

Djokovic is Not Your Big Problem, Mate

 

Thirty days ago, Australia had reported a total of 247,000 COVID cases. As of today, the case count has risen to 1.8 million.

And they think their biggest problem is Novak Djokovic?!

Note that Djokovic was not even deported for public health reasons. He’s had a positive COVID test, followed by a negative COVID test, and everyone agreed he was safe via natural immunity.

He was deported because as some point in the past, he expressed skepticism about vaccines and to have him in Australia, well, he might influence others in the country to become skeptical about vaccines.

I’d say what’s more likely to cause Australians to become skeptical about vaccines is the fact that COVID is spiraling out of control while 80 percent of their population is fully vaccinated.

More Words and Phrases I’m Sick Unto Death Of: “Science”

 

Here’s a meme finding its way around the internet:

If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it’s actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong. Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.

That is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading.

  1. “Science” doesn’t have an opinion. Scientists have opinions but they often differ.
  2. When a scientist disagrees with another scientist, which one is wrong?
  3. If science is not truth, why is it wrong to disagree?
  4. If “science” can change its opinion, then everyone who previously held the new opinion was right, and “science” was wrong.

Why must people who know nothing about science attempt to give science lessons to the rest of us like we’re all morons?

OK, I know the answer. It’s this COVID thing. For people who share his views, Dr. Anthony Fauci IS “science” and anything he doesn’t like is “misinformation.” But for the record, there are scientists who believe the Fauci strategy to be misguided for one or more reasons. And it would be hard to make an evidence-based case that the strategy has been a great success.