How 2016 Is Like 1967

I think I understand the Russian Collusion hysteria on the political Left.  It lies in bone-deep incredulity, and we have seen this sort of thing before.

In the "Six Day War" between Israel and her Arab neighbors, the Arabs became convinced that Americans were directly involved in the fighting, especially the American air force.  And they were convinced of this, not out of delusion, but for specific, technical, perfectly understandable, and wrong, reasons.

The Arabs knew exactly what planes the Israelis were flying and how many.  Every plane needs some number of hours of maintenance on the ground for every hour of flight.  E.g. (I am making up the numbers), a plane might need 6 hours on the ground for every hour in the air.  These numbers are widely known for each type of plane and you can calculate the theoretical maximum number of sorties an air force can operate in one 24-hr period.  This is an essential calculation for every staff officer drawing up operational plans, whether you are flying the sorties or defending against them.

Based on perfectly good Arab calculations, the Israelis were flying way more sorties than was theoretically possible.  There had to be more planes than the Israelis possessed, and they could have come only from the U.S.

There was nothing wrong with the logic, but the Arabs were not aware of Israeli capacity for innovation.  At the time, the Arabs could not know that the Israelis made modifications to their combat aircraft and, with excellent training of their ground crews, the Israelis were able to dramatically reduce ground time.  All else equal, if you can halve the ground time you can double the sorties.  It's a big deal.

No doubt, most of the Arab military officers now understand this.  But, for most people, ignorant of the technical issues, American complicity is easier to understand.  And it is a far more comforting narrative than the superior technical abilities of a contemptible enemy.  The myth of American complicity is very much alive and well in the Arab world.  Indeed, it has only grown in the telling.

I think something very like this happened in 2016.  The Trump team had a superior campaign strategy, not well understood by the Democratic Party at the time.  Combined with an especially bad Democratic candidate, Trump pulled off a victory the Democrats were sure was impossible.  In military parlance, besides an innovative strategy, Trump was "lucky in his enemies".

But, if you are the Democratic Party and Trump is the contemptible enemy, outside help is a far more comforting narrative, and it grows in the telling.  Many people on the Left sincerely believe the Mueller investigation will discover what they "know" has to be true, and they will take that belief to the grave, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

The American Embassy in Jerusalem

I guess I just wasn’t paying attention.  Only recently I learned that some real people think the American embassy move to Jerusalem is a bad idea.  I don’t mean the anti-Semites, or sufferers of Trump Derangement Psychosis, or Left-wing pundits, I mean normal people.  Even an Israeli friend thinks the move is a needless provocation that endangers her family.  I think it is important to understand why these sincere and decent people are wrong and President Trump is right.

First of all, the Muslims cannot be provoked.  Their mission is to destroy Israel, they will kill as many Jews as necessary to do it, and they have been undeterred since 1947.  So, the comment about unnecessarily provoking the Muslims is especially disturbing coming from an Israeli because Israelis cannot afford to misjudge their enemy.

Nonsense aside (and there is just so much of it whenever the subject is Israel), the one great danger to my friend and her family is the never-ending war between Israel and her Arab neighbors.  Today, Israel is secure because she is strong and her enemies are divided and weak, but what will be ten years from now?  A hundred years from now?  There are more than 400 million Arabs surrounding Israel, and the day they get their shit together will be Israel’s last day on earth.  Time is not on her side and Israel needs to make peace now, while she can do it from a position of strength.  But, how to do that?

All wars end in only one of two ways.  Either one side is comprehensively defeated, or they both realize victory is impossible and continued hostilities are pointless, and too expensive in blood and treasure.  There is nothing else.

The great modern example of the first case is World War II, which ended only when the Germans were pulverized, and the Japanese were incinerated, into submission.

The great modern example of the second case is the U.S. in Vietnam.  The Americans won every battle, including the notorious and much misunderstood Tet Offensive of 1968, which was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese.  And yet, although devastated, the North Vietnamese clearly and convincingly signaled their intent to continue the war.  The Americans concluded that victory, if it could ever be achieved, would come at a price they were not willing to pay, so they packed up their entrenching tools and went home.

I should mention that the North Vietnamese were able to continue the war because they got enormous political support world-wide and enormous material support from China and the USSR.  So, the war was not just the U.S. against N. Vietnam, it was the U.S. against N. Vietnam and half the world.

Even in the Middle East, Egypt treated for peace with Israel only after the “Yom Kippur War”.  Although Egypt could execute a complete tactical surprise and battlefield advances at the beginning, in days their 3^rd Army was surrounded and nearly annihilated in the Sinai Desert.  And, due to some astonishing “out-of-the-box” thinking by Ariel Sharon, elements of the Israeli Army crossed the Suez Canal, out-flanked Egyptian forces, and stopped a mere 100 km (60 mi) from a defenseless Cairo.  Explaining the stop, one Israeli soldier quipped, “What would we do with Cairo?” but Anwar el-Sadat understood the threat.

Israeli arms convinced Sadat he could not win on the battlefield.  Shortly thereafter, Sadat signed the first of two agreements with Israel and, in 1977, made his historic visit to Jerusalem for a peace treaty with Israel.

In all of human history, here is what never happened.  It has never happened that one belligerent says to the other, “Stop being a dick”.  Whereupon the other side slaps their forehead in realization and says, “You know what?  You’re right.”  And then they kiss and make up and live happily ever after.  So, if your strategy for peace depends upon one side or the other being persuaded by a smooth-talking Obama-like figure, don’t bet the safety and security of your children on it.

Which brings us to Arab-Israeli wars.  The Arabs lose every battle but continue the war.  Why do they do it?  How is that even possible?

The Arabs are neither stupid nor crazy.  They continue to fight because they think they can win, and they are reasonable in that expectation.  Like the N. Vietnamese before them, the Arabs get enormous political support world-wide, and they get enormous material support from Muslim countries, even some European ones.  They see Israel’s hand being restrained, even by America, putatively her closest ally.  They, too, can read a map (Israel is a speck in an ocean of Arabs), and their memories are long.  The Arabs remember it took them 200 years to expel the Crusaders, and they are willing to spend another 200 years, if that is what it takes, to expel the Jews.

The Arabs will never stop.  Unless they are convinced that victory is impossible, and they are made to endure too much pain at too high a cost.  I’m sorry, but there is no other way.

To the Arabs, the American embassy move to Jerusalem is a clear signal the political climate is changing against them.  Of course, the move counts for little, by itself, but it is not nothing.  And, if it is the first of many signals that they are losing support, and that Israel is gaining it, the Arabs will make peace with Israel.

How can I be so sure?  Think of it this way:  we know how wars have ended, in all other places in all other times.  For 70 years, we have tried a different strategy to end the Arab-Israeli war, and this strategy has failed, utterly.  I think we should use the one strategy that has the highest chance for success:  the Arabs must be convinced victory is impossible.

The American embassy move sends exactly the right signal.

Lucius Junius Brutus and the Lesson for DACA

By any objective measure, Western Civilization is spectacularly successful.  One important reason for this is the Rule of Law.  It is said "we are a nation of laws, not men" and that "no man is above the law".  Well, "Rule of Law" is easy to say, but it can be agonizing to do, and Lucius Junius Brutus teaches us this lesson.

At the dawn of the Roman Republic, in the sixth century B.C., Brutus was one of the first consuls of Rome.  The establishment of the Roman republic involved an insurrection against their Etruscan king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (Tarquinius the Proud).  Tarquinius conspired to regain his throne and Brutus's own sons, Titus and Tiberius, conspired with Tarquinius against the republic.

The conspiracy failed, and "Brutus gained respect for his stoicism in watching the execution of his own sons, even though he showed emotion during the punishment."

It is not easy to build a nation of laws.

There are surprisingly difficult ramifications of the Rule of Law.  One important ramification is that a criminal should not profit from his crime.  That is why, e.g., New York State passed the "Son of Sam Law" in the 1970's.

Until the serial murderer, David Berkowitz ("Son of Sam"), nobody imagined that a criminal could profit from his crimes by publishing his story.  There is the additional problem of the First Amendment, so the Son of Sam Law had to go through several iterations.  But, the basic principle is clear:  a criminal should not profit from his crimes.

Now, consider the problem of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  Barack Obama, that vaunted professor of constitutional law, theorized that the children were small so breaking the law was not their fault.  Immediately, the children benefit from the criminality of their parents.

Then, once the children gain citizenship, their families---possibly including the very parents who originally broke the law---will benefit from chain migration.  Under Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, everybody benefits from criminality.  Except you.  What other inconvenient law should we ignore?  If DACA survives, the Rule of Law will not.

There are about 800,000 people at risk of deportation because of DACA.  Is that too big a number for the salvation of our Republic?  It is often said that about 620,000 citizens died fighting in the American Civil War.  That is true.  But if you include deaths from wounds and disease (disease being a serious problem in armies at war) then, including both sides, nearly 2 million people gave their lives to save our Republic.

In World Wars I and II, together, the United States sacrificed nearly 1 million dead and wounded, mainly for the benefit of others.  In the Vietnam war, nearly 50,000 Americans died.  And so on.

We are asking 800,000 DACA children to go home, most of whom are not children, anymore.  This is not such a big number, and nobody is asking them to die.  They just need to go home.

Furthermore, DACA is not about 800,000 individuals.  It is about the foundation of our society.  It is about the Rule of Law.  It is about the survival of "The Last Best Hope of Man on Earth."  If Lucius Junius Brutus could watch the execution of his own sons, to save the Roman Republic, you can deport the DACA children to save the United States of America.

The World Is So Confusing to Leftists

In a NY Times op-ed, the social justice warrior, Audrea Lim, notices the Alt-Right's fetish for Asian women and proceeds to construct an elaborate fantasy---I mean theory---for what that might mean.  Lim seems not to notice that lots of men find Asian women attractive.  Years ago, as a Jewish man dating my future Chinese wife, I had no idea I was a walking, talking stereotype until the movie "The Social Network".

Early in the movie, a party at Harvard's Jewish fraternity is well attended by Chinese girls (hmm, maybe Chinese girls find Jewish boys attractive?).  Three Jewish nerds are speculating about this, one saying he is developing an algorithm to explain the attraction.  A second boy says the question is not that complicated, "They are smart, hot, not Jewish, and they can't dance."  (Interestingly, the HuffPo misquotes the movie, having the boy say "they can dance".  I guess nobody at the HuffPo has ever watched Chinese girls dancing.)

The theme of Jewish boys and Asian girls runs through the movie.  In real life, Mark Zukerberg married a Chinese woman.  My favorite scene in the movie is the very pretty, and very crazy, Chinese girlfriend burning a gift her Jewish boyfriend gave her.  (The actual theme of the movie seems to be Jewish boys being very attracted to, and very scared of, their very pretty and very crazy Chinese girlfriends.  I do not approve of this racial stereotype, but I do understand it.)

An alternative explanation to Lim's fevered imagination is that White Nationalists are not what Lim thinks they are.  On the principle of Occam's Razor, I'm going with the second explanation as my working hypothesis.

But, never mind all that.  What I really find interesting is Audrea Lim's desperate need to hold on to "Model Minority" as a myth.  Of course, I have heard of this "myth", and a mighty strange myth it is, being supported by a mountain of empirical evidence, from a vanishingly small crime rate (when was the last time you braced yourself for trouble, seeing a Chinese man walking towards you?) to astronomically high educational attainment, and a higher average income than Episcopalians.  Asians, who constitute less than 6% of the American population, hold more PhDs---in absolute numbers  (sic!)---than Blacks, who constitute about 13% of the population.

Part of the problem may be simple innumeracy:  the inability of most people, especially Social Justice Warriors, to read a graph.

You see the problem:  Audrea Lim does not understand the world she lives in, and she admits as much in her opening paragraph,

"The white supremacists on the far right have “yellow fever” — an Asian woman fetish. It’s a confusing mix."

Rather than accepting her confusion as a sign that she needs to do something about her own ignorance and misapprehensions, Lim proceeds to unmake and re-make the world in her own ignorant and racist image.  And a nasty, social justice, world it is.

BTW, in addition to being a racist, Audrea Lim is also an anti-Semite.

A Geopolitical Pipe Dream

Six days after the Muslims attacked America on 9/11/2001, President George W. Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. and declared Islam a religion of peace.  I could not know, at the time, that the imbecile actually believed this.  By November, American forces were in Afghanistan, and I had not yet come to any conclusion.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are rather small fish, but Iran is a larger, far more dangerous, beast.  So, in 2003 when G.W. Bush sent the American army into Iraq, "a thrill went up my leg".  The bullshit over weapons of mass destruction always seemed like a ruse to me (there were good reasons to attack, so why the bullshit?), but you have only to look at a map to know why the thrill.  Iraq is to the west of Iran, Afghanistan is to the east of Iran, and the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, putting a powerful Navy to the south of Iran.

In other words, G.W. Bush surrounded Iran on three sides, and I was sure G.W.'s real purpose was clear.  I expected to wake up one morning to the news that Marines were in Qom hanging ayatollahs and the Army was sweeping up the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) across the country while special teams were dismantling Iran's nuclear facilities which, quite unlike Saddam's vaporous WMD's, have a distinctly concrete existence.

To my bitter disappointment, none of that happened because the imbecile actually believed, and may still believe for all I know, that Islam is a religion of peace.  If you base your strategies on stupid ideas, you are bound to be disappointed in the outcomes.  In due course, Barack Obama became president and Iran is now a global disaster waiting to happen.  (Although the Iranians are not waiting for anything.  They are busy bees building up their nuclear capabilities.)

Which brings us to President Donald J. Trump, who just announced a new military initiative in Afghanistan.

No words, fit for polite company, come to mind to describe sixteen years of wasted blood and treasure in a place of no strategic value to America, and Trump appears to be doubling down.  Unless Afghanistan is not the point.

Of course, G.W. and Barack had smart generals, too, but they were not about listen to their generals.  They had IDEAS.  But, if Donald Trump is not G.W. or Barack, and if he listens to the impressive James Mattis, his defense secretary, we might just wake up one morning to the news of American Marines in Qom.

That's my Christmas wish.  That's my geopolitical pipe dream.

Climate Change And The Church of Latter Day Aztecs

With all this talk of climate change, I can't get the Aztecs out of my mind.  Particularly, the Aztec religion.

The central doctrine of the Aztec religions was, "Blood fed the gods and kept the sun from falling."  So, to keep the sun from falling, the Aztecs killed people.  Lots and lots of people.  It has been asserted, for example, that at the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over four days.  Other sources say, "Nah", over four days they could not have killed more than about 4,000 victims.  (Oh, ok then.)

In a good year, goes one extravagant claim, the Aztecs sacrificed 250,000 people.  Others say 20,000 is the more likely figure.  It's all pretty extravagant to me.  And to have that many people to sacrifice, every year, the Aztecs were in a state of perpetual war with their neighbors, solely for the purpose of harvesting humans for sacrifice.  You can admire one of their skull racks, a "tzompantli".

So, the Aztecs believed that if they did not spill human blood, the sun would not rise.  You have to meditate on this idea, for a moment.  Where could such an idea possibly come from?  The sun has been "rising" over the earth every day for about, oh, four billion years.  Without fail.  No exception.  No living creature on this planet can have any personal experience of the sun not rising, or anything like that.  Except, possibly, for the solar eclipse, an event that you might---might---see once in your life in the place you live.  (The solar eclipse can be perceived several times a year, somewhere on earth, but in any one spot, say Mexico City, it will be perceived, on average, about once every 350 years.)

Now, think of it.  Some guy sees the sun rise and set, rise and set, rise and set, every day of his life.  Until, one day, for no apparent reason, unless it is the seven minutes of a solar eclipse, he is consumed by the fear that unless he starts killing people, he will never see the sun again.  (Even though the seven minutes have passed and, having done nothing, he already sees the sun, again.)

Not only does Guy Zero (like "patient zero") believe this, but he has to convince his fellow citizens of this bizarre fear.  Convinced, they reorganize their entire society around this fear.  An entire society dedicates its physical and spiritual energies to perpetual war with their neighbors to harvest, sacrifice and, often, eat other human beings.  Consumed with this effort, there is nothing left for progress, as we understand the concept.

All this to influence a natural phenomenon over which they had no control, whatsoever.  Which brings me to climate change.

The earth has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled every year for the last, oh, four billion years.  No creature on earth, with a lifespan of more than a couple of years, can have any personal experience of a planet that does not warm and cool every year.

A little harder to comprehend, and yet something we understand perfectly well, is that our planet has cycled into and out of ice ages many times over the millions of years of its existence.  Millions of years during which industrialization did not exist---indeed, during which human beings did not exist.

And yet, one day Al Gore is seized by the panic that if we do not completely re-organize our society the earth will---well, I'm not sure what it will do.  Al used think it will get too warm, but there seems to be something wrong with that theory so we do not call it "global warming" any more.  Rather, we talk of "climate change".  So, Al Gore is afraid that a global climate that has been changing all his life, that has changed for millions of years will, all of sudden, do something I'm not sure what, if we don't do something, I'm not sure what.

Actually, I'm pretty sure what.  Climate change appears to require of us two things:  truly massive wealth transference from the First World to the Third World, and de-industrialization.

Oddly, de-industrialization has been a plan since industrialization.  See "Luddite".  And income distribution has been a plan since socialists first walked the earth.

In other words, it's the same old socialists and the same old luddites with their same old master plans for social engineering, this time with the excuse that you will influence a natural phenomenon over which you cannot possibly have any control, whatsoever.

Just like the Aztecs.  And, just like the Aztecs, if we fall for this tripe, we will fall for some weirdo with a few men and some guns.  If we are not first crushed under the weight of our own stupidity for falling for the same old hustle.

Evolution Is Like Pork

My thoughts on the occasion of Earth Day and the March for Science.

Why does everybody know that Jews do not eat pork, and why does anybody care?  It seems to be a big deal.  It did not used to be a big deal.  Pork was not a big deal among the Jews in that the pig was not singled out, among all other ritually unclean animals, as being uniquely unclean.  The pig, not specifically named and along with other animals, merely falls into that category of animals with a split hoof that do not chew their cud.  That's it.

There is nothing special about the pig, except that for the long centuries that Jews lived among their Christian hosts in central and eastern Europe, pork was the chief distinction in the dietary habits of Christians and Jews.  And people tend to notice differences, no matter how small, no matter how meaningless.  And such differences, the less meaningful the better, are frequently the focal points of bigotry and violence.

So now, let's think for a moment about the debate over teaching evolution in the schools.  Why do we do it?  Is it because evolution is true and important?  I doubt it.  Taxation is true and important, and vastly more relevant to the lives of most Americans, but we don't teach that.  Think of it this way, would an auto mechanic be better at his work because he was taught the theory of evolution?  A tax accountant?  A lawyer?  Not even physicists and electrical engineers would be better at their work for knowing about evolution.

Pretty much nobody needs to know the theory of evolution, except biologists.  So educators are making an awful big deal of a subject that is irrelevant to most people.  They talk about the teaching of evolution as if every public school child is a budding research geneticist.  This is preposterous, and it requires some thought.

One of the main arguments for the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools is that American citizens should know something about the principles of science.  I agree with that, but that is an argument for a general science curriculum, not for evolution.  Not even for biology.  Not only does biology not need to be part of a general science curriculum, but if you are teaching biology, evolution should not be part of the biology classroom.

The study of biology does not begin with evolution.  Rather, you have to explore a lot of elementary biology before you have any hope of making sense of evolution.  This is quite like the teaching of the theory of relativity in physics.  Physics does not begin with relativity.  Rather, you have a lot of work to do in physics before you can hope to understand relativity.

Absent a good scientific foundation in physics, relativity is just catechism.  And, absent a good scientific foundation in biology, evolution is just catechism.  So here is the position in which we find ourselves.  Educators insist on teaching a subject that is

(a) unnecessary for their stated aim (conveying the principles of scientific thinking),
(b) irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Americans, and
(c) in the wrong place in the curriculum if you do insist on teaching biology;

And they are hysterical about this.  If we do not teach evolution in the schools, they say, we would descend into medievalism.  Hardly, so what is really going on, here?  Since the teaching of the theory of evolution does not make sense on its own terms, I feel free to speculate.

I believe that evolution is a central issue in the debate over public education because it is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists.  In other words, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that conflicts with, say, the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or quantum mechanics.  Christians do not object to factoring polynomials or to the double-angle formula in trigonometry.  Christians have no problem with any part of the general curriculum, and with no part of the science curriculum---except the theory of evolution, a theory that is wholly irrelevant to everybody except that minuscule fraction of the world population that is occupied with research in biology.

I should add that the people who care about the theory of evolution least of all, and understand it least of all, are the Leftist educators who so shrilly insist upon it.  If Leftists actually understood the theory of evolution we would never hear that race is a social construct, and we would never, ever hear that gender is a social construct.

Clearly, the theory of evolution is important to the Leftists not for the science of it, but because it is a central part of their war on Christianity in particular, and on Judeo-Christian civilization in general.  The theory of evolution is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists in just the way pork was the chief distinction between Christians and Jews in Medieval Europe.  And, just as pork was the focus of anti-Jewish bigotry in Medieval Europe, the theory of evolution is the focus of anti-Christian bigotry in 21st century America.

And that is how evolution is like pork.