Author: Bill Vallicella

Illegal Alien on NYC Subway Rapes Corpse!

Story here:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) slammed The New York Times Saturday over a story about a suspect who allegedly raped a corpse on a New York City subway, saying the reporters failed to mention the man was in the U.S. illegally. 

The defense will no doubt argue that the man cannot be guilty as charged inasmuch it is impossible to rape a corpse. Have the journos over at the NYT degenerated so far that they have never heard of necrophilia?  

Or maybe the defense will argue that since illegal entry is no crime because no one is illegal, the same should hold for illegal entry into a living human's body, and for illegal entry into the corpse of a human.  There cannot be illegal entry in any sense since everyone has the right to go wherever he wants.  The corpse should have "welcomed the stranger."

Saturday Night at the Oldies: The Cowboys of the Open Road

Advanced AI and robotics may push us humans to the margin, and render many of us obsolete. I am alluding to the great Twilight Zone episode, The Obsolete Man. What happens to truckers when trucks drive themselves?  For many of these guys and gals, driving trucks is not a mere job but a way of life. 

It is hard to imagine these cowboys of the open road  sitting in cubicles and writing code. The vices to which they are prone, no longer held in check by hard work and long days, may prove their destruction. The topic is huge and beyond my paygrade. In any case it's Saturday night,  I'm drinking a Jack and Coke, and dreaming of the open road.

Sunday morning addendum: we need to think about the infantilization brought about by our technology.  Laura Trump interviewed Elon Musk last night on her show.  He will be scaling back his work on DOGE to get back to his various projects, including work on self-driving cars. One upside, though, is that the elderly will be able to retain their independence when they are no longer able to drive safely. Musk made  a comment to the effect that it won't be long before seeing a person driving a car will be as unusual as seeing someone traveling via horse and buggy.

Eddy Rabbit, Drivin' My Life Away

Dave Dudley, Six Days on the Road

Buck Owens, Truck Drivin' Man

Red Sovine, Phantom 309. Tom Waits' cover. 

Lynyrd Skynyrd, Truck Drivin' Man

Cody Jinks, Lost Highway

Tony Justice, One Mile at a Time 

Seatrain, I'm Willin'

I've been warped by the rain
Driven by the snow
I'm drunk and dirty, and don't you know
That I'm still, yes I'm still willin'

I ride the highway, late at night
I see my pretty Alice, in every headlight, Alice, Dallas Alice

[Chorus] I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehachapi to Tonopah
I've driven every kind of truck that's ever been made
I've even rode the backroads so I wouldn't get weighed
If you give me weed, whites, and wine
 Show me a sign, and I'll be willin' to keep on movin'

. . .

And I've been from Tucson to Mexicali, Tehachapi to Tonopah
I've driven every kind of rig that's ever been made
I've even rode the backroads so I wouldn't get weighed
If you give me weed, whites, and wine
Show me a sign, and I'll be willin' to keep on movin' 

How Trump Won the Canadian Election

Philip Cunliffe:

In electing a consummate globalist to defend Canadian sovereignty, Canadian voters exhibited a voluble national pride more commonly seen south of the border. In that sense, even if Trump may not get his 51st state of the Union, he has nonetheless imposed the value of sovereignty and national independence on the archetypal post-national state. Far from signalling a global liberal rally against Trump, the fact that the liberals were only able to beat Trump by embracing the language of national independence, national interest, and sovereignty make clear that Carney’s electoral victory happened on Trumpian terrain. 

Finally! An End to Taxpaper Subsidization of NPR and PBS

We conservatives have been talking about this for years, but it's all been talk. Until now.  A re-post from 10 December 2014:

National Public Radio and the Tit of the State

"If the product is so superior, why does it have to live on the tit of the State?" (Charles Krauthammer)

One answer is that the booboisie  of these United States is too backward and benighted to appreciate the high level of NPR programming.  The rubes of fly-over country are too much enamored of wrestling, tractor pulls, and reality shows, and, to be blunt, too stupid and lazy to take in superior product.

Being something of an elitist myself, I am sympathetic to this answer.  The problem for me is twofold.  NPR is run by lefties for lefties.  That in itself is not a problem.  But it is a most serious problem when part of the funding comes from the taxpayer.  But leftists, blind to their own bias, don't see the problem.  Very simply, it is wrong to take money by force from people and then use it to promote causes that those people find offensive or worse when the causes have nothing to do with the legitimate functions of government.  Planned Parenthood and abortion.  NEA and Piss Christ.  Get it?

And then there is the recent anti-Christian nastiness.  Just in time for Christmas.  What a nice touch.  Would these 'liberal' pussies mock Muhammad similarly? 

Second, we are in fiscal crisis.  If we can't remove NPR from the "tit of the State," from the milky mammaries of massive Mama Obama government, what outfit can we remove from said mammaries? If we can't zero out  NPR how are we going to cut back on the waste, fraud, and abuse of 'entitlement' programs such as Social Security?

Ah, but no one wants to talk about a real crisis when there is Ferguson to talk about.

Don't get me wrong.  I like or rather liked  "Car Talk" despite the paucity of automotive advice and the excess of joking around.  I even like the PBS "Keeping Up Appearances" in small doses.  But if frivolous flab like this can't be excised, what can?

Life is Hierarchical

An old lie of leftists is compressed into one of their more recent abuses of language: 'equity.' So-called 'equity' is wokespeak for equality of outcome or result. 'Equity'  in this obfuscatory sense cannot occur and ought not be pursued.

It cannot occur because people are not equal either as individuals or as groups. That is a plain fact. Leftists won't face it, however, because they confuse the world as they would like it to be with the world as it is. 

'Equity' ought not be pursued because its implementation is possible only by the violation of the liberty of the individual by a totalitarian state apparatus precisely unequal in power to those it would equalize.

Life is a ladder.  It is many ladders, as many as there are directions of achievement. On any ladder, some are above, some below. Look up without envy; look down without contempt. Climb as high as you can on as many ladders as you are on.  Lend a hand to those below; if any you help should surpass you, take satisfaction at your mentorship and pride in their accomplishment. 

The Fall of Saigon

Fifty years ago today. I wrote in my journal (30 April 1975):

Saigon was overrun by the communists today. 150 billion dollars and 50,000 American lives wasted during the war.

58,00 is now the standardly cited figure. Goeffrey Wawro, The Vietnam War: A Military History (Basic Books, 2024, 652 pp.):

The war had killed 58,000 Americans, 250,000 ARVNs, [South Vietnamese army] half a million South Vietnamese civilians, and 1.4 million NVA [North Vietnamese army] and Viet Cong. Four million Vietnamese . . . had been killed or wounded. [. . .] In their rushed evacuation, the Americans left behind important files, including the names of 30,000 Vietnamese who had worked in the Phoenix Program. These people were the first to be rounded up, tortured, and killed by their "liberators." Two and a half million South Vietnamese were placed under arrest as nguy — "puppets." Anyone affiliated with the old regime was sent without trial to one of the 300 "thought-reforms" camps in rural areas. (529)

Wawro goes on to describe the brutality of the labor camps and the 165,000 political prisoners who died in them. Like the Khmer Rouge, the NV commies lied to their victims, promising them a detention period of only ten days for "re-education." The vast majority of them fell for the lies and ended up detained for up to fifteen years in starvation conditions.

The great David Horowitz died yesterday.  Here is a worthwhile article about the former red-diaper commie who came to his senses. Charlie Kirk pays his respects on X. Now I know how Stephen Miller came to be so astute:

Twenty-five years ago, David mentored a high school student named Stephen Miller. He supported him through Duke, through the Senate, and into the Trump White House. Today, Stephen is one of the most impactful architects of America First immigration policy. A legend thanks to David's mentorship. As Politico wrote, “If you want to understand the immigration policies [Trump] has put into place, you have to also understand Horowitz.” David's fingerprints are all over the populist revival of the last decade.

What did I do during the war?

Around  the time of the Tet Offensive in January of 1968, I was ordered  to downtown Los Angeles for my "pre-induction physical." Due to a birth defect I have hearing in one ear only, and so I failed the physical. I was  classified 1-Y, which was later changed to 4-F.  In any case I had won a California State Scholarship to attend college, and that would have kept me from harm's way for four years, after which the lottery kicked in.

That's my story in a few words. What's yours?

Political Crapulosity

In the early 'eighties I subscribed to The New Republic. But in those days it hadn't yet become the politically crapulous rag it is now.  Try to wrap your head around this load of garbage:

There is much to say about these 100 days. The odor of fascism is unmistakable—and entirely intentional. The bullying of universities and law firms . . . the purposeful lawlessness of so many actions, designed to force showdown after showdown at what Trump assumes will be a pliant Supreme Court; the daily inversion of reality peddled by Karoline Leavitt, Cabinet officials, and not least Trump himself.

Refutation would be easy enough. But this stuff is beneath refutation. You don't refute lunatics or engage them in conversation. 

We have a war on our hands, friends, and you'd better man and woman up.  Especially you young people who can expect to be around for a while.

How much of this vitriolic filth is TDS and how much willfully perverse self-enstupidation? How could anyone in his right mind fail to see the good that  Trump has done in a scant 100 days?  

You are well-advised to invest in precious metals in the broad sense of the term.  Our political enemies are just that, enemies: there can be no peace with them. I now seriously question whether we should remain polite in our dealings with them.

Such a Wonderful Pope!

Simon Caldwell via Jim Bowman:

He [Pope Francis] used his authority to protect sinister friends from justice, such as Father Marko Rupnik, a fellow Jesuit who was accused of the serial rape of more than a dozen nuns, sometimes in quasi-satanic rituals. Rupnik was excommunicated latae sententiae (automatically) after he granted absolution in the confessional to a woman with whom he was having sex. This was an offence of such enormity under the Code of Canon Law that only the Pope could lift the sentence. Rupnik was rehabilitated and to this day is a priest in good standing who is living in a convent (where else?). It is good to have friends in high places.

This  is hard to believe. Can you corroborate the above from your sources, Vito?

De mortuis nil nisi bonum has an expiration date, and in the case of some it comes up quick.

A-Eternalism and B-Eternalism

In an earlier thread, I raised the following problem for eternalism:

Long ago, in ancient Rome's Coliseum, gladiatorial battles took place. No one will say that such battles are still going on, or that any such battles are occurring at present. But if eternalism is true, and a past gladiatorial battle is as real/existent as a present battle in the Ukraine, say, except that the first occurs at an earlier temporal location than the latter, then it seems that the gladiatorial battles are tenselessly occurring — which is highly counterintuitive.

Suppose time travel is possible. Suppose we travel back in time to the gladiatorial battles in the Coliseum. Will we find slaughter going on there? If so, then the name 'eternalism' will be most apt: the slaughter will continue eternally. But this is highly counterintuitive!

Malcolm Pollack responded:

Well, there's the problem for eternalism, as I've noted before: it offers no explanation for the subjective experience of time's passage; for why the fundamental fact of our experience is a succession of "nows" that come and go; for the sequential privileging of small (but not infinitesimal!) slices of M [the four-dimensional manifold of events/spacetime points] as "now". I think it must be connected deeply, or even somehow identical with, that other titanic mystery, namely that of consciousness.

But the problem I am raising is different.  It arises whether or not we bring consciousness into the picture.  We will be able to appreciate the difference between Pollack's problem and mine if we distinguish between two types of eternalism, A-eternalism and B-eternalism.

A- and B-eternalism both reject the presentist restriction of what exists*, i.e. what exists simpliciter, to what exists (present-tense). Thus both types of eternalist hold that past, present, and future items exist*. The two positions agree as to temporal ontology: they agree about what there is in time.  The ontological question, Quine famously said, is the question formulable in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: What is there?  So the temporal-ontological question is: What is there in time? On this question, both types of eternalist agree.

The two types differ, however, in that the A-eternalist accepts that there are such irreducible non-relational properties as presentness, pastness, and futurity – the so-called A-properties – whereas the B-eternalist denies that there are any A-properties: there are only the B-relations. Thus the two types of eternalist differ over the nature of time, but not over what there is in time.  The A- and B-eternalists differ over the nature of time in that they differ over whether real time, time as it is in mind-independent reality, is exhausted by the B-series, the series of events ordered by the dyadic B-relations, earlier than, later than, and simultaneous with. The B-eternalist says that real time is exhausted by the B-series. The A-eternalist demurs: there are, in addition to the B-relations, the A-properties, the monadic or non-relational properties of presentness, pastness, and futurity.

The A-eternalist is equipped to admit the non-subjective passage of time. Temporal passage is real  independently of our subjective time-conscious inasmuch as it consists in the shifting exemplification of  the monadic (non-relational) A-properties by the events in the B-series. Consider, for example, three events/processes: my birth, my present blogging, and my death.  My death exemplifies the property of being future but will soon enough lose that property and come to exemplify the property of being present, after which it will come to exemplify the property of being past, and then ever more past.  My present blogging — the blogging of this very post — will become past and ever more past. My birth which is now past will become ever more past.  The three events themselves are 'eternal' in the somewhat strained sense of existing, though not occurring, at every time.

The A-eternalist's admission of A-properties allows for the real separability of temporal presentness from existence. This allowance in turn allows for a 'moving spotlight' theory of time according to which temporal passage is real (and thus neither merely apparent nor illusory). So when I die I lose the purely temporal property of being present but I remain in existence* and come to acquire the purely temporal property of being past.  When I die I will 'move away' from the present by becoming wholly past and ever more past. Or you could think of the 'moving spotlight' of the Now moving forward and leaving me 'in the dark,' i.e., non-present. Non-present but not non-existent*!

In sum, on A-eternalism, temporal passage is real and non-subjective, hence neither merely apparent nor illusory (as the great McTaggart thought).

Political Nominalism

One form political nominalism takes is loyalty to a political label. 

In late November I heard a self-described "life-long Democrat" on Fox cogently explain why Kamala Harris lost the election and why her political career ought to be over. Despite the accuracy of his analysis, the fool remains a Dem! That makes no sense. When the thing labeled no longer exists, why cling to the label?

It is not as if the old Democratic Party can be brought back. The transmogrification unto wokery has proceeded too far. The young Turks have taken it over, the 'woke' squadristi mainly, AOC et al.,  and the members of the old guard (Pelosi, Schumer, et al.) are on their last legs. But there is no fool like an old fool, and a huge, but dwindling, number of useful idiots still vote Democrat out of misplaced loyalty to an empty label or else because of their delusional opposition to Trump. But they, like Pelosi & Co., will soon pass into the night, and the sooner the better, not that I wish them physically dead; I wish them politically dead. The physically dead can't make political mischief.

But wait a minute! Don't the dead vote in Dementocratic precincts?