Archives for category: Uncategorized

Call me crazy, but taken to the logical extreme, wearing face masks and observing (and enforcing) social-religious purity rites will disrupt most humans beyond our capacity to live civilly.

For thousands of generations, for heritage beyond all but the memory written in our genetic code, we humans have lived in close communion with one another, often touching for work, for communication, for cooperation, for comfort, for comradery, for communion, and for intimacy.

After a successful run of more than 100 years hardly observing more than common-sense hygiene practices and routine handwashing, we’ve all the sudden lost our collective mind and we are afraid, not only to touch each other, but to even approach each other, and the gravest, hateful sinner is the one you fails to don a face covering.

No, for the sake of humanity, no.

We humans cannot survive without closeness.

I suppose the face-mask fad will wax and wane like all fads and cults, but what if it doesn’t? What if politicians and the powerful find it useful? What if the authoritarians find the lust for control overwhelming and unrelinquishable? What if mob-mentality rules and nonconformists are scapegoated and actually stoned or shot or caged? That is not a world I would wish on the vilest among us. It is certainly not a world I’d want to live in.

More than enough experts have weighed-in regarding mask efficacy and lack thereof, and nuance is lost to most. Masks obviously do some with regard to reducing respiratory expulsions, but is it enough? Are normal respiratory expulsions, even with the currently feared virus, significant as a vector for infection and transmission? Evidence is mounting that it is not.

Evidence is leading to the standard vectors of face-to-hands-to-face and direct contact with infected people. Yes, transmission of this virus and some other viruses through the air do occur, but they are rare. Most occur with intimate or jubilant physical contact. We’ll be wise to not be too familiar and close in crowds and with strangers, but we cut ourselves off from physical contact at existential peril.

Coercion is evil.

Coercing and mandating certain behaviors establishes you as part of evil and part of the problem. Even if the mandates and coercion are actually for the better and efficacious, we destroy our humanity, we destroy our souls, in the enforcement. We cheapen life and individuality to the ever-increasing central power and authoritarian control. We become the brave new world, and, figuratively or literally, we all die.

Wear a mask if you feel like it, but please respect others and do not try to force or shame behaviors that you happen to prefer at the moment, especially with such new and unproven behaviors, behaviors that certainly go against all of human history.

I wonder if the policy makers ever considered other infectious diseases. Have we ever effectively countered seasonal flu? We have effective vaccines against flu each year, and standard treatments, and many thousands die annually regardless.

I noticed this pretentious article:

A ginormous team funded handsomely by the WHO found only 44 useful studies in over 20,000 research papers reviewed. In other words, there is no science to speak of on the matter. No one can deny the science. There is no science as of today. The authoritative claims are simply pretentious.

I maintain my assertion that there is inadequate evidence to support any policy measures, especially masks. Leave people alone and encourage them to be conscientious and wash their hands, while practicing general good hygiene. Face covering and all other presumed or proposed measures should be left solely to the discretion of every individual.

Given the lack of explanation, it is difficult to ascertain anything regarding the article’s assertion that closer than 1 meter is too close. People seldom linger that close to one another. It seems a difficult assertion to support. I assert their claim that the more the distance the better is specious wishful thinking. They are hyping their own prejudice.

Is six feet a good guideline? I’m okay with that. I am opposed to codification and enforcement. Nothing says, “We care,” like sending armed enforcement officers to shoot you if you fail to comply.

It is amazing to see assertions that amount to speculation about idealized suppositions garnered from precious little evidence. It is simply wishful thinking proposed to justify the failings of imposed policy and restrictions of universal freedoms.

“The odds of developing an infection with a coronavirus were reduced by 78% when wearing any mask, compared with the odds of infection when not wearing a mask. When using masks that conform to the N95 standard, this figure increased to 96%.” Come on! That is nonsense. The assertion as made indicates essentially no one wearing an N95 mask could get sick. Absolute fantasy! Why are healthcare workers getting sick then? When researchers make such obviously absurd claims, they must not be countenanced. It is insanity. If there is any truth in the statements, it has been lost in the delivery. “Although the direct evidence is limited,” we will speculate in our favor anyway. Orwell would be proud.

“the authors acknowledged their analysis has some limits.” Far tighter limits than they are willing to admit.

The article even admits NONE of the studies considered were actual tests, randomized and controlled, NONE!!! Put plainly, there is no evidence to support policy imposition. Coercion is evil. Don’t be evil.

Finally, look at the old information. Various studies were suggesting that masks in all situations were an unjustifiable expense. None that I found directly suggested eliminating masks, but they argued that available evidence didn’t support the use of masks, even in operating rooms, and they suggested well-designed studies to answer the question. No one cared until it mattered to policy failure and politics.

Look it up for yourself. You won’t trust my evidence regardless.

From April this year,


A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.”

Worth repeating, “Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.”

The actions of Captain Crozier really bother me. The fact that so many laud his selfishness disturbs me deeply and weighs heavy on my heart.

Consider the following:
Guam is reasonably comparable to the combined cities of Moore and Norman, Oklahoma.

Assume 5,000 foreign-language refugees under USAF care are headed your way, to Moore-Norman. More than 100 of them are known to be infected with COVID-19, four of the infected were already mediflighted in. What do you think? By the way, you cannot leave. You are in lockdown and surrounded by the ocean (comparing to Guam). Would you be bending over backward to work with Tinker AFB to put all these refugees in your local hotel rooms, your local hospital? Think what military leaders would be facing. Consider how much the military did on Guan practically instantaneously, in mere days, accomplishing most of it before a letter went out that made more than one hundred million mothers in our country hate the military leadership, including the Commander in Chief.

Oh, and did I mention that taking these refugees into your community disables one of the most powerful weapons in the world? A weapon hundreds of millions of lives depend on being ready to fight, standing ready to defend?

Crozier shut out his leadership, his chain of command, telling them he was satisfied all was going as well as it could. Crozier didn’t care for you. He didn’t care for his crew. He was simply selfish. He considered his own safety above his career. If he cannot value his career, I certainly cannot.

Further, if Crozier loved his sailors, why is his concern superseding the love of Governor Lou Leon Guerrero for her fellow Guamanians? What if she had refused to let the ship enter her harbor? What if she had deployed Guam’s defenses with orders to stop the ship at all costs? Would the Captain unleash the weapons under his command against a US protectorate? What if?

Further, why is Crozier’s selfishness lauded while Governor Guerrero’s concerns are dismissed? The military is supposed to protect the civilians, not impose on them, and not make demands of them. Crozier emphasized the USA is not at war. Fact, the Constitution forbids the quartering of troops in peacetime. It is un-American for the military to demand lodging. The US Navy was requesting and making agreements as fast as possible. All that could be done was being done without violating American principles and our Constitution. At the very least, Crozier’s demands were un-American. Knowing such officers exist in our military bodes ill for our enlisted service members. The requirement to relieve Crozier was absolute.

Is it a fair assertion to state our military has become a cancer?

I advocate for a strong military, but haven’t we gone too far?

We must have a standing navy. I assert we do not need a standing army, at least not one capable of conducting warfare. We need reservers. We need standing capabilities, but an active army needs activity. Armies, by nature, need war. (War is hell.)

Air force? We need some. Don’t we have too much? Space force? Well, maybe, but too much seems inevitable from inception.

I advocate for less government, especially less entitlements. Isn’t our military treated as an entitlement in many quarters? Don’t we Oklahomans feel our military in our state is essential, that we are entitled to it here?

We need more balance and less government, including the military.

Because I work alongside many members of our military, I know it as a good thing. Our military service members are as good as any, any people regardless of grouping, every people of every grouping.

I’m promilitary, but I do think we have too much. We can cut back in ways that benefit all in the long run.

The article speaks to the institution of the military. It seems to me the article is correct. I cannot envision a military coup d’état in any conceivable future scenario, but understanding how our military might work against our society, “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” is needful. We cannot fix problems we refuse to acknowledge.

While I find the point of the article valid, the article and the professor are too whiny for my taste. I think the problem is identified. We need it better and more rationally defined, and we need solutions. I suggest starting with refocusing the national objectives for the military, and refocusing the overall national policies, including foreign policies, to serve the interests of liberty here at home. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is applicable to all, to every individual, to every institution, including our government. I aver the greatest good in the world is individual liberty and responsibility. Refocus and reduce objectives, and reduce budgets accordingly.

“West Point’s high national rankings on annual college lists are due to its resources and reputation for the highest student academic standards. A closer look reveals, first, that the “resources” are courtesy of the American taxpayer—an over-inflated budget of $500 million a year, even though the school graduates only 950 cadets annually.” Three minutes of internet search did not let me confirm or refute. Anyone have references? Half-a-megabuck per graduated is unreasonable. We cannot continue such a course if it is even close to true. Much too much government.

While I find the point of the article valid, the article and the professor are too whiny for my taste. I think the problem is identified. We need it better and more rationally defined, and we need solutions. I suggest starting with refocusing the national objectives for the military, and refocusing the overall national policies, including foreign policies, to serve the interests of liberty here at home. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is applicable to all, to every individual, to every institution, including our government. I aver the greatest good in the world is individual liberty and responsibility. Refocus and reduce objectives, and reduce budgets accordingly.

For reference.

Be blessed.

Important enough I want to share it any way possible.

Source: Thread by @bearshrugged: “I was not going to do this as I do not like too personal information on the internet, but the latest Greta Thunberg video is too impactful. […]”

I was not going to do this as I do not like too personal information on the internet, but the latest Greta Thunberg video is too impactful. I do not care what one believes about the climate, but I do care that people understand what is happening with this young lady. 1/
I have a child with high functioning autism (aka Aspregers). Not every person with this syndrome experiences all of the resultant effects, and the effects vary by degree. Sometimes you cannot tell if a person has Aspregers at first blush, but it will eventually emerge. 2/
Two common characteristics that seem to follow in all cases are “literalism” and “rigidity” of thought. Also, hyperfocus on narrow topics is common. Aspregers was known as the “little professors” disease, because Aspregers kids could become experts in narrow topics. 3/
The expertise is not a creative expertise but a rote one. Causation and emotional understanding are difficult for Aspregers sufferers, especially children. Aspergers suffers also are very strict adherents to “the rules” once established in their heads. This ties to rigidity. 4/
If an Aspregers sufferer establishes a set of “facts” in their minds, it is very fixed. It is so fixed that even contrary facts presented to them are rejected in favor of the previously established “facts.” If the counter-information continues, the sufferer becomes frustrated. /5
The frustration turns to hurt and anger, because of the literalism, rigidity, and the way their minds attach to rules and items they have already establish as concrete. The concrete fact is often the first “fact” on the subject they hear. /6
Now imagine a person with these predisposed inclinations hearing for the first time 1) the earth is atmosphere is heating at an incredible pace; 2) humans are causing this rapid heating; and 3) the whole planet is going to die if it is not fixed in 12 years. /7
These three items, for a person not on the spectrum can be weighed, evaluated, and put into perspective. Contrary points can be reviewed and expectations adjusted. For an Aspregers sufferer, this is not easily, if at all achieved. The anxiety compounds. /8
You have both the anxiety of being told you are going to die, coupled with the anxiety and frustration of having contra-facts butting against your established “facts” and literal implications. Parents of children with Aspregers struggle against this convergence every day. /9
How does one teach perspective and thought flexibility to a person whose mind demands literalism and structured “facts” (this is why some Spectrum people are great coders)? The answer is patiently doing so. Demonstrating the safety of exceptions to rules, and alternatives./10
When I see Ms. Thunberg, I see all 9f the frustration of my child, with none of the attempts at perspective and flexibility of thought. In some ways Spectrum people appear robotic because of their rigid mindset, but they are not. The are frustrated, and hurt, and angry. 11/
For a person like me, seeing her rigidity makes me unhappy. However, seeing her frustration and tears at the UN makes me angry. Those pushing her into the spotlight on these issues deserve shame. She is not a robot. Her beliefs are tainted by the Spectrum that frames them. /12
She is being compelled into corners her mind has difficulty navigating, and does nothing but feed her fears (of literal death), and frustration that her mind’s eye does not square with the messy, grey, emotional world. Apregers sufferers must learn to navigate these areas. /13
These areas are instinctive for those of us not on the Spectrum. No matter where you are on this issue, remember Ms. Thunberg’s view is not your view. Someone should be helping her navigate her rigidity and anxiety, not using it as an “automatia” prop. /14

Reality overwhelms alarmism. For better or worse, we are going to continue to burn everything that will burn until we are generating more electricity than we need (globally) from nuclear energy. Deride the third-leg of the stool of life all you want. It will continue in spite of you. (Life depends on water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. Without one, all life on earth dies. CO2 is by far the least destructive of these three absolutely essential ingredients of life.)

Source: Developing nations surging energy use shatters UN & California’s climate alarmism crusade | Watts Up With That?

Freedom triumphs over coercion.

If we view children as anything other than their own, we do err and commit grievous offense against them. Children are not our future. They are our present partners. Children are not our future workforce. They are their own. Your desires for their education and training may be good for you, yet counter to their own self and well being.

Government always moves to coerce and impose, falling to force over the least resistance. “Send the guys with guns!” they cry. Coercion is evil. Being afraid of how a child might use guided freedom is a sin. We owe our children more confidence. They have to learn for themselves anyway. Our efforts are mostly futile until they do it on their own.

Source: Freedom Triumphs Over Coercion | Cato Unbound


This morning, we sang a hymn.

For some background,

For the beauty; watch. This one is not just for listening. Trust me, you will be glad you took the time and watched. Jean Sibelius – Finlandia

In school orchestra, we played that. (I was a second violin.)

A simple rendition of the hymn.

The hymn:

This is my song, O God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine;
this is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine:
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country’s skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine;
but other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine:
O hear my song, thou God of all the nations,
a song of peace for their land and for mine.

This is my song, O God of all the nations,
a prayer that peace transcends in every place;
and yet I pray for my beloved country —
the reassurance of continued grace:
Lord, help us find our one-ness in the Savior,
in spite of differences of age and race.

May truth and freedom come to every nation;
may peace abound where strife has raged so long;
that each may seek to love and build together,
a world united, righting every wrong;
a world united in its love for freedom,
proclaiming peace together in one song.

This is my prayer, O Lord of all earth’s kingdoms,
thy kingdom come, on earth, thy will be done;
let Christ be lifted up ’til all shall serve him,
and hearts united, learn to live as one:
O hear my prayer, thou God of all the nations,
myself I give thee — let thy will be done.


More beauty (and a different lyric),

For good measure, another one to watch and enjoy. Polytech Male Choir and the Helsinki Philharmonic

Worth something? It was to me.

Source: Apollo 11 in Real Time

I assume this will work from here. I assume it will be available for some time to come. Too cool.

Source: Losing the Class – The American Mind

Interesting read, speaking to the depths.

The current system is a dried-out tinder box.

Living the Truth

Humans need a few things to survive—air and water, food, shelter and sleep, for instance—and a few more things to thrive: companionship, pleasure, purpose, health and a little money come to mind, maybe also wisdom and beauty. This latter list is somewhat negotiable, at least for a time. We can think of times and places where one or another thing was in short supply. But long-term spiritual sustainability is another matter. Dostoevsky once defined a human as “the animal who can get used to anything,” and while I’m loath to disagree much with the author of The Brothers Karamazov, subsequent Russian history suggests that this adjustability has its limits.

Without air, a few minutes, without water, a few days, without food, a few weeks, without shelter, well, it depends on the weather, but maybe a few months, and sleep, well, it is scary to contemplate.

We need these things, but the others are more important to living life. We have spiritual needs. We die, even if we keep breathing, without spiritual sustenance.

Mr. Corbin picks “living in truth” to elaborate on. Not telling lies is easy if one practices. Telling the truth requires courage. It also requires humility to know one might be wrong. Still, it is our duty as honest individuals to stand against what we know is wrong.


Source: Exploring the History, Science, and Consequences of the Atomic Bomb

Treasure trove.

Source: Los Alamos: Beginning of an era | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents |

Ready reference.

%d bloggers like this: