Monday: Hili dialogue

57 thoughts on “Monday: Hili dialogue”

1. I told PCC(E) in my email for the nylon demo that I’d now have to look up who George Porter is and said “he’s probably super famous”

   a superb science background story lies in wait for those who do – I won’t leave any spoilers!

   😁

   1. That Royal Institution lecture hall has hosted so many wonderful lectures and demonstrations for the public. A real treasure.

      1. +1

         And as we know, “our own” Matthew Cobb as well!

   2. My father-in-law was taught by Prof Porter at the University of Sheffield in the late 50s/early 60s and in a tale he has recounted many times, after the lecture my father-law-turned to his friend and said ‘I didn’t understand a f word of that’.

      He’s much better in this clip. You’ve got to love the Royal Institution lectures. What a treasure trove. And he was definitely a great scientist!

2. A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
   Live and let live, be and let be, / Hear and let hear, see and let see, / Sing and let sing, dance and let dance. … Live and let live and remember this line: / “Your bus’ness is your bus’ness and my bus’ness is mine.” -Cole Porter, composer and songwriter (9 Jun 1893-1964)

3. smearing Pinker, trying to make him out to be a racist because of who he’s associated with.

   Not only that, but the “associates” are also being smeared by innuendo. None of the named actually promote “racial genetic essentialism” or “biologically determined racial hierarchy”, while the labels “far right”, “eugenicist” and “pseudoscience” are just smear words added to avoid having to actually rebut any of the actual evidence being discussed.

   Take the last paragraph quoted, for example, what is wrong with considering that suggestion? The Guardian re-heats this sort of article every 6 months or so, merely to try to reinforce taboos.

   PS, on rhubarb, simply wash it then stew it with quite a bit of sugar and a little water until it is no longer “bitter, hard and gritty”. Then serve with custard. 🙂

   1. YES Coel!
      The Guardian so DO reheat those articles every six months or a year. Witness their doxing of “Lomez” awhile ago. If they don’t find a WAAACIST a magically evil WHITE SUPREMECIST! every year … presumably these chicks at the Mean Girls Table run out of merlot.

      Shameful. I hope Pinker went on Aporia to bait and troll idiots like the Guardian.
      Aporia isn’t some Idaho panhandle mouth breathing Nazi hangout compound.
      cheers Coel,

      D.A.
      NYC

   2. I live for Jerry’s regular dissing of strawberry-rhubarb pie. I make it often in winter (with frozen fruit and “vegetables”) but as tarts. Little taste of summer.

      1. Ditto! I don’t disagree with our host too often, but I love strawberry rhubarb pie. As Coel noted above, prepare with lots of sugar! Warm the pie and add some vanilla ice cream – yummy 🙂

         1. If you cook the hell out of it and sweeten and season it till doesn’t taste like itself anymore — then pair it with something else that tastes good — you’ll find that rhubarb can be quite palatable.

            True for most things, I think.

            1. Indeed! 🙂

            2. Like escargots which just taste like garlic butter😋

      2. I made a delicious rhubarb and peach crumble recently. I had some peaches in my freezer from last year and fresh rhubarb growing in my garden. Add lots of brown sugar and butter and it’s heavenly.

   3. I got permanently banned from the subreddit r/anthropology today in a post about the Guardian article. Someone asked what the objection to Pinker was and I responded “he thinks evolution did not stop at the neck”. That was my entire comment.

      This was deemed “race realism” and got me banned. I was warned not to try to sneak back under another userid.

      There was a whole string of comments in response to mine, but they were all deleted by the moderator so I have no idea if there was a single reasonable person commenting in that post. But from what I did see, it appeared not.

      1. For the record, yours was a great comment!
         Well done, Denise.

      2. You’d think woke types would be all onboard with “race realism” since race essentialism is the essence of woke ideology.

   4. Jerry, I’ve subscribed to your blog for many years, and read it daily. It is well written and insightful with one exception: your comments about rhubarb. Rhubarb makes a great desert whether prepared as sauce, crisp, strawberry-rhubarb pie or straight rhubarb pie.
      Your objections to rhubarb in any form baffle me: BITTER, no way, sour yes. Definitely needs to be sweetened to taste. HARD, sure is if you don’t cook it enough. GRITTY, sure is if you don’t wash it.
      No wonder you don’t like anything rhubarb – BITTER, HARD, and GRITTY. I wouldn’t like it either. Find someone who knows how to prepare your choice properly and you’ll ask for more.

4. I used to watch the Royal Institution’s Christmas lectures every year as a kid. They were educational and entertaining, in the best tradition of the BBC back in those days.

   Our chemistry teacher showed us the nylon synthesis experiment when I was around 13 or 14, just as in the RI demonstration.

   1. An FYI for readers who are unfamiliar with the RI: it keeps a huge you tube archive that includes years of those Christmas lectures.

   2. I saw a rerun of one or two of Dawkins’ Christmas lectures a few years ago. I wish we had them broadcast in Australia in the 1980s when I was a kid.

      Wasn’t the BBC impressive back then? Reliable. Respectable. Like Radio Liberty or the VoA these intuitions gave hope and truth to millions behind the Iron Curtain and the Third World.

      Less so now perhaps…

      D.A.
      NYC

5. For the political items, I think the following two points (with links) are worth knowing about – but, of course, one must make up their own mind :

   [ 1 ]
   Simone Biles is being used to advance the directives of “Friends of the Children”, which took $44 million “Lifetime Contribution” member MacKenzie Scott :

   https://x.com/jenn_mcw/status/1931404452537221144?s=46

   Put another way : it’s a business model being played out. Nothing organic, personal, or “from the heart” at all.

   [ 2 ]

   L.A. (IMHO the current thing which did not take place after Baudrillard) :

   Here is a thread which shows how the performances and acting we see connect directly to Beautiful Trouble – A Toolbox for Revolution, leading with the intro quote :

   “The riots happening in LA are not organic or spontaneous.

   They’re designed to look chaotic to cover up the fact that they’re well funded, exceptionally organized, and carried out by well trained activists using intelligent, highly developed tactics.”

   See

   https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1931953269775188449?s=46

   I note the successful operation of Lead with a sympathetic character. In particular, Play to the audience that isn’t there makes a lot of sense to me.

   1. I’ve read that the same people go from city to city protesting any one of several hot button issues. True paid professionals. Of course, many of them hide behind the usual garb so that it would be difficult to recognize them.

      1. While I’m here – and Iran-related, in fact :

         I recently found eXtwitter / YouTube user Nate Friedman who exposes such “protesters” – for example :

         https://x.com/natefriedman97/status/1936585093608329534?s=46

         Or the YouTube version :

         https://youtu.be/uHXEVpb2NkM

         Friedman shows the money-laundering chain connected to Soros.

         … this really changes the dynamic – it’s all a big-budget show, as in literally – I mean, maybe some are sincere – but what does it mean in this context?

         At best, it might be similar to when a small business does volunteering – perhaps good service for a good cause, but the individuals are not exactly operating independently – would they go volunteer all the time otherwise? And is their message sincere?

         I think this would be of great interest to readers here, but that’s IMHO.

         1. Hey Bryan. Just now reading your comment. I followed and listened to the links you posted and, yeah, I believe it. This thread goes back to the beginning of the LA riots held in response to Trump’s illegal immigrant roundups. The ones that prompted him to call in the National Guard and the bleeping Marines (!). It’s not unusual for Tucson to have protests — it’s typically the same group of gray hairs in their late 70s who never seem to run out of issues they deem worthy of carrying placards about on the corner of Pima and Swan. While those protests were occuring in LA (and this is before the “no kings” business) we had our usuals which nobody typically pays one iota of attention to but later the same day a group of them showed up on the southside of town (an area where most people are too busy working minimum wage jobs to be privy to anything worthy of protesting) and, sure enough, this group showed up in their requisite ski masks and Arafat shawls and proceeded to break windows and spray paint nearby buildings. I’d bet money they were “professionals”. Nobody else broke or defaced anything.

   2. Lovely photo of Hili today. Will ya just look at those bright green eyes set off by the green of the grass she’s sitting on. I’d love to pet her.

   3. Update :

      Simone Biles – or her associates – deleted her X (née Twitter) account.

      A search for “Simone Biles” does not retrieve the original account.

6. The Guardian’s hit piece on Pinker was up to quality for that rag. It is a terrible publication written for and by upper middle class high neurosis British (and American, alas) alcoholic housewives with too much time and wine on their hands and not enough intellect. It is a disreputable particularly man hating newspaper which, like the BBC, wasn’t always so terrible.

   And so woke… EVERYTHING is “Waaacist”. We don’t have confessionals for drunk neurotics to confess their real or imagined “sins”.. so they read the Guardtrash.

   It has been a joke for longer than the UK has been in serious trouble as it is now and as I see it, contributed to that state of affairs there. (No offense our British friends at WEIT I hope).

   Aporia and Noah Carl have some opinions that are out there for sure but most are legitimate arguments, always delivered without prejudice or hateful intent. I understand why Pinker sat down with them. I would.

   best,

   D.A.
   NYC
   (you can bet I’ll loudmouth shout about a certain Swedish truant later today. Something to look forward to? – 🙂

   1. OMG – but tell us what you really think!

      😆

   2. Shout it from the balconies above eighth ave.

      1. HAAHA! Thanks Jim. I would shout it down to 8th b/c I do live here. We’ve got the Pride Parade next weekend I think… always fun. A little more “spicy” and adult in recent years which isn’t to many peoples’ liking, but whatever… it is a big city and as per John Updike (on living in NYC): “The true new yorker secretly believes that people living anywhere else have to be, in some sense, kidding.”
         🙂

         On another topic – I’m getting a feeling of satisfaction that the LARPers of the Gaza flotilla are being treated to a film by the IDF today – the Oct 7th movie put together with “Resistance” help: they go-pro’d their own terrorism. I’ve only seen bits – snippets were enough for me personally.

         I’d love to learn what reaction these idiots had to the movie. It is so terrible that Israeli officials haven’t released it publicly though in a media screening Owen Jones (The Guardian, of course) ducked, weaved and lied, betraying his black heart after watching.
         We’ll see Jim.
         best,

         D.A.
         NYC

         1. David, I think the reactions of most of “these idiots” would be along the lines of those deniers around the world in the weeks after The 7th when some of the “more palatable” (say) examples were released and that was to find all sorts of excuses for that barbarism, if not outright denial and accusations of Israeli fabrications. Perhaps if the Israelis held them in the way Alex in Clockwork Orange was – strapped in a chair with eyes forcibly held open – and they had to watch the Go-Pro barbarities for several hours that might have some effect.
            But, deep down, I think their anti-semitism is so ingrained I fear they are inoculated against seeing Hamas for the savages they are.

7. Simone Biles herself did a video with a male gymnast— “Simone Biles vs. Frederick Richard” with each other, a good-natured try at copying each other’s techniques.

   Unsurprisingly strength made a huge difference: https://www.youtube . com/shorts/scC-9i871KU?feature=share

   1. My grand daughter a former level10 usa gymnastics competitor until injuries knocked her out of club competition at age 14, said that it is really an issue of center of gravity/muscle mass distribution) for guys who train for rings, high bar and pommel horse versus gals who train for beam and uneven bars. And of course genetics that lead to those mass distributions and simple muscle memory of exercises one does thousands of times over the years. She says it is fun to exchange routines and watch each other and laugh, but not to seriously compete.

      1. Sorry that your granddaughter couldn’t compete due to injuries, and at such a young age! Exchanging routines and appreciating strengths and weakness should be fun, and even celebrated.

         When did it become such an awful thing to simply acknowledge physical reality between boys and girls (who become men and women) and not turn everything into a political football?

8. Rhubarb is only “bitter, hard, and gritty” if it hasn’t been washed properly or cooked properly..

   My mum’s rhubarb crumble was heaven. When she made it, we used to grab a stick and eat it raw dunked in sugar. Bliss.

   1. My mother called it “tusky”

      Forced and raw rhubarb dipped in sugar and devoured. But the she lived in Leeds in the “Rhubarb Triangle”

      https://northernbelle.co.uk/news/the-mystical-rhubarb-triangle

      1. Fascinating article, thank you.

9. Jerry says people who are to be deported should have a legal hearing first. Why? They are being deported because they are in the United States without a valid visa (or citizenship.) What other finding could a hearing make that would cause the petitioner not to be deported? If the legal hearing decided, “OK, you’re here without a visa, just as the Government says, but you can stay anyway,” what would be the legal basis of that decision? What facts would bear on determining that this non-visa holder can stay but this one must go? Does the Executive have the power to deport non-citizens administratively or not? (Hint: it does.)

   To put a finer point on it, does your argument for a legal hearing mean you think the Administration is breaking the law here by not granting one in every case? Or is it just something you think it should do even if it doesn’t have to? But again, (other than for political reasons), why? Or do you concede it is following the law but you think Congress should change the law to say something else?

   If you want to argue that the State Dept. can’t revoke a valid visa without a Court hearing, that’s another argument that doesn’t apply to these undocumented aliens. (In fact the State Dept. can revoke (and grant) visas at its pleasure so you would be arguing for a change in the law there, too.)

   The only basis for a hearing in these California deportations would be if the visa-less aliens were eligible to make asylum claims, and did so. A person who makes an asylum claim can’t normally be deported until the claim is adjudicated and rejected.

   Allowing hearings (with the inevitable appeals) for all these non-asylum aliens before deporting them would gum up the process until President Trump’s term ends and you go back to open borders, which is presumably the point of the protests against ICE. But I think I can make a principled argument for no hearings at all: the law doesn’t require them. No visa = deportation.

   We follow this situation with interest in Canada.

   1. My point is simple: if someone cannot prove in court that they are here legally, or there is evidence that they are here illegally or broke rules like overstaying a visa, then that should be a short proceeding. I think that every deportation should have such a thing.

      That’s my position and I hope you understand it now.

      1. Thanks for this. PCCE’s point is that a proceeding, while it may be a short proceeding, recognizes the point that people who are going to be deported do have some due process rights. The rights are limited but they do exist, and the Supreme Court has recognized this.

      2. I understand PCC(E) but “pretend judge” D.A. NYC – me – has to give it to Leslie on this one as a matter of law.

         If an illegal immigrant commits a “proper” crime they have all the rights we do – and this is morally decent of course.

         Deportation however is an administrative action not a criminal one – and it has a lower barrier of rights than criminal issues. Practicing immigration law occasionally, in ICE courts, I remember the routine is a 15 minute at max Q and A sort of like:
         Is “this” you? (refer to papers)
         Are you here legally?
         Do you have any legal claim to stay despite your illegal status? (at this point refugee or persecution, errors of documentation etc can enter the conversation).
         No?
         Then adios.

         For immigration/administrative law that IS due process. Decades of precedent uphold this – in part because of the impossibility of staging a huge trial for millions of people here illegally.

         I think a lot of the misunderstanding here is that by itself immigration law is an administrative issue, not a criminal one.

         D.A.
         NYC
         (thankfully I was never a judge – just a lowly attorney roped into doing some immigration work now and again. No expert).

         1. Thank you for your response. My question then, is if the people being rounded up now and deported have received this hearing in ICE courts? Does anyone know?

            1. I have to think there is a lot more going on with this than we are being told.
               The implication from media and open borders folks is that the authorities are just grabbing people at random, and those who are not carrying their passport or other ID are hustled away to third world countries.

               It seems more likely to me that there is a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy involved. Which would surely mean that the identity, citizenship, and history of each deportee has been well documented before they get on the plane.

               Deportation is not in itself a punishment. Few of the people under discussion are stateless individuals. They are citizens of another country, with all the rights and responsibilities of the rest of their countrymen.

   2. If ICE knocked on my door and demanded to see my visa, I’d be $#!T out of luck.

      You don’t think it’s possible that could happen? Really?

      Okay, full disclosure. Some years ago I got nervous and sent away for a copy of my birth certificate. I know lots of folks born in the US of A like me who don’t have theirs. I think that’s at least part of the point of due process.

      1. Does the name on your birth certificate have “Obama” crossed out, and “KenS” substituted?

10. Oh boo hoo on pricey concert tickets. Consider… when did you or I last PAY for music?
    Now remember the pre-internet era when if you/we wanted a copy of Sgt. Pepper to become an atheist while listening to (say… just for example, hehehe) or any album you had to pay a bunch of money. Now nearly all of it is essentially free.

    So pricey concert tickets… ? I’m not so bothered (though like PCC/E I don’t go to concerts). I’ll take today’s world any day.

    D.A.
    NYC
    “Turn off you mind relax and float downstream..”

11. Israel seems to be handling the Madleen incident with aplomb. From the many articles I’ve read, they have taken the perpetrators into custody and will deport them to their home countries. Israel will be distributing the aid they brought via established channels. This seems to me to be the best outcome possible, assuming that it runs to completion safely.

    1. Being deliberately provocative: Ought Israel to give them all hearings in immigration court where the Government will have to show cause why they should be deported? Or can it just put their sorry asses on planes back to their countries of citizenship?

       Now here’s a thought. What if Sweden refuses to allow Ms. Thunberg’s flight from Tel Aviv to land (which means it won’t be allowed to take off)? Countries are supposed to take their deported citizens back but some drag their feet on issuing travel documents and airspace permissions, knowing that only really powerful countries can do much about it. And with Israel being a pariah state, this might be Sweden’s big moment. What does Israel do with her then?

       1. Funny you should say that, Leslie b/c it refers to other matters at WEIT.

          I notice some of the countries on Trump’s new No Entry list – like those in 2016 are on those lists because they flatly refuse to accept their own (criminal, deported) citizens back home. (Mainly commie ones of course, but a few other 3rd worlders)
          Which have nothing to do with terrorism.

          D.A.
          NYC

          1. Has nothing to do with terrorism. If it did, Saudi Arabia would be #1…let alone Egypt, where the latest terrorist in CO hails from. He excludes terrorist supporting countries that he does or wants to do business with. It’s also a distraction and red meat for his base. Just like the National Guard/Marine deployment in L.A.

       2. Could Israel not send Greta and the rest of the Madleen group back to Catania, Sicily, the port from which their unauthorized tourist vessel departed? Each of the tourists
          would be responsible for finding their own way from Sicily to wherever they wished to return.

    2. +1

    3. Israel not only took the little band of brave making-a-pointers into custody, they apparently fed them first. Which is Jewish nice.

12. I think it was Damon Runyon who called rhubarb “a very foolish fruit” and said he wouldn’t give a nickel for all of the stuff that could be packed in the Hudson Tubes.

13. Re troops in LA, this is a plausible tipping point. If the Commandante In Chief sends in the Marines, with orders to use lethal force where necessary to deal with the so-called rebellion, then the military along the whole chain of command will have some very difficult decisions to make. Do they consider this an illegal order? Do they refuse to follow it? When push comes to shove do they actually gun down the “rebels”.

    As a student in the Vietnam era I now find myself in the odd position of considering that the military, with i’s culture of honour, training in dealing with illegal orders, and to oath protect the constitution of the USA (not the Leader thereof), could be our last best hope to preserve the rule of law.

    I very much welcome comments from those with expertise in these matters.

    1. Having just looked it up to check, the oath taken by commissioned officers seems particularly strong:

       I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

       (And I do wonder how atheists, polytheists, etc. manage the second sentence without any mental reservation. Maybe it’s considered a coda to the oath, like “amen”, and not part of the oath itself. It is after all a separate sentence.)

       1. Since no one came forward, I thought this except from the U.S. Navy Regulations as they appeared during the Second World War might provide some insight.
          https://playbill.com/production/the-caine-mutiny-court-martial-circle-in-the-square-theatre-vault-0000003267#carousel-cell160492

          Article 185. Conditions to fulfill refers to the onerous thought processes a subordinate officer must entertain when deciding if he is justified in relieving his superior officer of command (and substituting himself.) I imagine that a similar grave onus is placed on an officer contemplating disobeying an order on the grounds that it is unlawful, and therefore violates his duty to the Constitution (or, in Commonwealth countries, to the King.)

          (The play’s opening instructions in the text require that the information linked here be inserted in all programs, which is why they appear in the Playbill.)

Comments are closed.