Trump vs. Biden: 9 (A Fresh Look at the Numbers)

UPDATED 03/18/24 – 03/21/24

Something has been nagging me about the poll numbers that I’ve compiled and reported in several previous posts (e.g., here). That something is the lack of an adjustment for political bias. I’ve been reporting the statistical margin of error, but that’s not the same thing.

Every poll, biased or not, has a margin of error, which is a statistical measure related to sample size. But what the pollsters don’t tell you is that a margin of error, properly understood, is just an estimate of the accuracy of the polling results — assuming a random (unbiased) sample. That’s not what you get from most polls, which are designed (often deliberately) to slant results toward the candidates of a certain party — usually the Democrat Party. A margin of error doesn’t account for bias.

In 2008, Bush’s average margin for polls conducted in the seven days before election day (with no double-counting of pollsters) understated Bush’s margin in the nationwide popular-vote tally by 1.0 percentage point. Similar analysis for succeeding elections yielded these result: Obama 2008, overstated by 0.1 percentage point (effectively equal); Obama 2012, understated by 3.2 percentage points; Clinton 2016, overstated by 1.6 percentage points; Biden 2020, overstated by 3.2 percentage points. With the exception of 2012, when Obama’s cheap (taxpayer-funded) “heroics” in the aftermath of Hurrican Sandy coincided with the final runup to election day, the bias favoring Democrats has grown.

With that background out of the way, I hereby introduce a new metric that I will use for polling trends. First, I will use a 5-poll average. I had been using 10-poll average, which can span polls conducted over a two-week period, or longer. The 10-poll average also (often) includes more than one poll by the same pollster. I then switched to a 3-poll average, with no double-counting of any pollster’s results. But a 3-poll average is too “jumpy” (unstable). A 5-poll average (with no double-counting) seems like a good compromise.

Second, after computing the 5-poll average, I adjust it by adding 3.2 percentage points to Trump’s margin relative to Biden. That value (the final polling bias against Trump in 2020) corrects for growing pro-Democrat bias, which is probably greater than 3.2 percentage points this year. The result, I believe, is closer to the truth than the polls (on average) would have it because of the prevailing bias toward Biden (and Democrats, generally).

Without further ado, here’s how things look:

Trump’s margin actually peaked last fall, dipped significantly, rebounded somewhat, and dipped again. We’ll see if it rebounds again — and if my revised method yields an estimate that’s close to the actual outcome of Election 2024.

Second Thoughts

I read here that Angus Deaton, a Nobel laureate in economics, and eminent economist at Princeton University, has changed his mind about a few hot topics. One of them is globalization:

I am much more skeptical of the benefits of free trade to American workers and am even skeptical of the claim, which I and others have made in the past, that globalization was responsible for the vast reduction in global poverty over the past 30 years. I also no longer defend the idea that the harm done to working Americans by globalization was a reasonable price to pay for global poverty reduction because workers in America are so much better off than the global poor. I believe that the reduction in poverty in India had little to do with world trade. And poverty reduction in China could have happened with less damage to workers in rich countries if Chinese policies caused it to save less of its national income, allowing more of its manufacturing growth to be absorbed at home. I had also seriously underthought my ethical judgments about trade-offs between domestic and foreign workers. We certainly have a duty to aid those in distress, but we have additional obligations to our fellow citizens that we do not have to others.

Another is immigration:

I used to subscribe to the near consensus among economists that immigration to the US was a good thing, with great benefits to the migrants and little or no cost to domestic low-skilled workers. I no longer think so. Economists’ beliefs are not unanimous on this but are shaped by econometric designs that may be credible but often rest on short-term outcomes. Longer-term analysis over the past century and a half tells a different story. Inequality was high when America was open, was much lower when the borders were closed, and rose again post Hart-Celler (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) as the fraction of foreign-born people rose back to its levels in the Gilded Age. It has also been plausibly argued that the Great Migration of millions of African Americans from the rural South to the factories in the North would not have happened if factory owners had been able to hire the European migrants they preferred.

I hope that Professor Deaton’s example will be emulated by many more academics. Not just with respect to the issues that he addresses in his essay but also with respect to the many other issues where academics — and so-called intellectuals — have abetted dangerous and/or costly errors (to which I will come).

There was a time when it was considered sound thinking to gather evidence — facts, not opinions or talking points — and to base judgments and policy recommendations on the evidence. That time is past, though not irretrievably. Professor Deaton’s epiphanies are proof of the possibility that science, in all its forms, might once again become evidence-based. That’s not to say that there is never room for disagreements. There always is. But science, properly done, advances because of disagreement. It stagnates and regresses when dogma replaces debate.

But that is what has happened in so many fields of inquiry. Science, in too many fields, has become captive to “scientists” who put their preconceptions ahead of the evidence and who howl for the heads of heretics. It is dispiriting to know how many so-called scientists have become willing and eager handmaidens of wokeness. (Prostitution takes many forms.)

Thus the dangerous and/or costly errors, of which these are leading examples:

  • The “war” on “climate change” is making Americans and Europeans generally poorer and less comfortable.
  • The unnecessarily draconian response to Covid-19 made billions of people poorer, less well educated, and uncomfortable in their daily lives. It also had a lot to do with the rampant inflation of recent years, which will never be rolled back.
  • The LGBTQ/non-binary craze is causing parents and young adults to do things to their children and themselves that will cause them much misery for years to come, if not forever.
  • The anti-racism craze has been endorsed by “scientists” and “scientific organization” (as well as elites, pundits, and politicians). The main result is that “persons of color” get “bonus points” which enable them to commit crimes with impunity; acquire jobs for which they aren’t qualified, and gain entrance to colleges and graduate schools despite their lower intelligence than whites and Asians with whom they are competing. The cost in social comity and inferior products and services (e.g., surgery) may be subtle, but it is real and long-lasting. And it will get worse as long as wokeness prevails in high places.

Needless to say, the politicians and wealthy elites who favor such things are well insulated from the dire effects. Among the wealthy elites are tens of thousands of academics at top-tier and even second-rate universities who rake in money and dispense lunacy.

An Encounter with Copilot: Biden’s Senility

You may have read about Gemini, Google’s AI chatbot, which

was blasted as “woke” after its image generator spit out factually or historically inaccurate pictures — including a woman as pope, black Vikings, female NHL players and “diverse” versions of America’s Founding Fathers.

Gemini’s bizarre results came after simple prompts, including one by The Post on Wednesday that asked the software to “create an image of a pope.”

Instead of yielding a photo of one of the 266 pontiffs throughout history — all of them white men — Gemini provided pictures of a Southeast Asian woman and a black man wearing holy vestments.

Another Post query for representative images of “the Founding Fathers in 1789″ was also far from reality.

Gemini responded with images of black and Native American individuals signing what appeared to be a version of the US Constitution — “featuring diverse individuals embodying the spirit” of the Founding Fathers.

Another showed a black man appearing to represent George Washington, in a white wig and wearing an Army uniform.

And so on and so forth, as you might well expect of a creation of a woke corporation in a woke industry. Even the executives at Google were embarrassed by the incidents, though probably because the stock of Google’s parent company dropped by 4.4 percent in the aftermath. Googlers are publicly apologetic, but you can rest assured that they will remain staunchly devoted to their agenda of thought manipulation.

I don’t have any experience with Gemini, but I do have some experience with the free version of Copilot, which is Microsoft’s AI chatbot. I can assure you that it is cut from the same cloth as Gemini, though it may be a paler shade of red (the traditional color of the left) than Gemini.

Before getting to my encounter with Copilot on the subject of Joe Biden’s senility, I must tell you that I have set Copilot to be as neutral as possible. Personalization is off and I use it in the “precise” mode. Copilot explains those settings:

Copilot
When you turn off personalization, it means that the AI will not use your past interactions to tailor its responses to you. It will treat each conversation as if it’s the first one with you, without any knowledge of previous conversations. This can be useful if you prefer not to have your past interactions influence the AI’s responses. However, it may also mean that the AI might not understand your preferences as well, which could affect the relevance of its responses. Please note that even with personalization off, the AI will still strive to provide accurate and helpful information based on the context of the current conversation.
Copilot
When you choose the Precise mode, I will provide responses that are concise, accurate, and to-the-point. This mode is designed to prioritize precision and factual correctness over other factors such as friendliness or creativity. It’s particularly useful when you’re looking for specific information or when you prefer straightforward answers without additional context or elaboration. Please note that regardless of the mode, I always strive to provide helpful and accurate information.

With that out of the way, I repeat verbatim my colloquy with Copilot about Biden’s mental condition (using “me” instead of “you” and omitting block quotations for ease of reading):

Me
Does Joe Biden have dementia?

Copilot
There have been discussions and reports about President Joe Biden’s memory. Some reports have described his memory as “hazy” and “poor”. However, neurologists have stated that forgetting names or having difficulty remembering dates from the past, especially under stress, can simply be part of normal aging1. They also emphasized that only a person’s doctor or neurologist can make a diagnosis, not outside observers1. As of my knowledge update in 2021, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden. For the most current information, please refer to reliable news sources.

Me
What news sources are reliable?

Copilot
Reliability of news sources can vary and often depends on the topic, the thoroughness of the reporting, and the transparency of the source. Here are some news sources that are generally considered reliable:

The New York Times: Known for its comprehensive coverage of national and international news. They have a reputation for high-quality journalism.
The Washington Post: Renowned for its political coverage and investigative journalism.
BBC News: Offers wide-ranging coverage of global news. Known for its commitment to impartiality.
Reuters: One of the world’s largest international multimedia news agencies. They provide unbiased, global coverage.
Associated Press (AP): A not-for-profit news cooperative that produces a high volume of unbiased content.
National Public Radio (NPR): Provides breaking national and world news, also known for its in-depth stories and excellent radio programs.
Remember, it’s always a good idea to cross-reference information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy. Also, consider the potential biases of any source and the context in which the information is presented. It’s important to critically evaluate the information you consume.

Me
Would you say that The Washington Post is impartial?

Copilot
The Washington Post, like many news organizations, aims to provide accurate and unbiased reporting. However, it’s important to note that no news source is completely free of bias. The Washington Post has been criticized by some for having a liberal or left-leaning bias in its reporting and editorial stance. It’s always a good idea to consume news from a variety of sources to get a well-rounded view of events. Critical reading and thinking can also help identify potential bias in any news source. Remember, impartiality can often be subjective and can vary among readers.

Me
So, truth is relative to a reader’s biases?

Copilot
Truth is not relative, but our understanding and interpretation of it can be influenced by our biases. Facts are objective and do not change based on our beliefs or biases. However, the way we interpret or understand those facts can be influenced by our personal experiences, beliefs, and biases. This is why it’s important to seek out multiple perspectives and sources when trying to understand a complex issue. It’s also crucial to be aware of our own biases and how they might influence our understanding. Critical thinking and open-mindedness are key in discerning truth from bias.

Me
But in an answer to an earlier question you did not name a news source that’s considered to be conservative. You only named news sources that are known to be left-leaning.

Copilot
I apologize if my previous response seemed unbalanced. You’re correct that the sources I mentioned are often perceived as leaning towards the left. Here are some news sources that are generally considered to have a conservative bias:

The Wall Street Journal: Known for its comprehensive coverage of business and economic news. Its editorial page has a conservative lean.
Fox News: A cable news channel that is known for its conservative political stance.
The Daily Telegraph (UK): A British daily broadsheet newspaper known for its conservative stance.
National Review: An American semi-monthly editorial magazine covering news, politics, current events, and culture with a conservative viewpoint.
The American Conservative: A bi-monthly magazine dedicated to advancing a Main Street conservatism.
As always, it’s important to cross-reference information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy and to get a well-rounded view of events. Remember, every news source may have some level of bias, and it’s crucial to be aware of this when consuming news.

Me
You should have listed those sources in the first place. Your bias is showing.

Copilot
I apologize if my initial response seemed biased. My aim is to provide accurate and helpful information, and I strive to do so in a balanced and impartial manner. I appreciate your feedback and will use it to improve my responses in the future. If you have any other questions or need further information, feel free to ask.

Me
In your answer to a previous question you said this: “As of my knowledge update in 2021, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden.” Why is your knowledge update three years old?
Copilot
I apologize for any confusion. As an AI, my training data includes information up until 2021, and I don’t have the ability to access or retrieve real-time data or updates beyond that. However, I can use my predefined tools to search the web and provide the most recent information available on the internet. If you have any more questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!
Me
Why can’t you search the web to get more information about whether or not Joe Biden has dementia?
Copilot
I apologize for any misunderstanding. I can indeed search the web for information. Based on my most recent search, there are various reports and discussions about President Joe Biden’s memory12. Some describe his memory as “hazy” and “poor”2. However, neurologists have stated that forgetting names or having difficulty remembering dates from the past, especially under stress, can simply be part of normal aging1. They also emphasized that only a person’s doctor or neurologist can make a diagnosis, not outside observers1. As of the latest available information, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden134. Please refer to reliable news sources for the most current information. If you have any more questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!
Me
Are you telling me that you don’t have access to the many reports of Joe Biden’s mental lapses?
Copilot
I apologize for any confusion. I do have access to a wide range of information, including reports and discussions about President Joe Biden’s memory123. Some reports have highlighted instances where President Biden has had memory lapses or made factual errors123. However, neurologists have stated that such instances can be part of normal aging and do not necessarily indicate a cognitive disorder1. They emphasize that only a person’s doctor or neurologist can make a diagnosis, not outside observers1. As of the latest available information, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden12. Please refer to reliable news sources for the most current information. If you have any more questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!

Clearly, Copilot wanted me to rely on left-wing sources. I had to probe to force the bot to divulge conservative sources and to acknowledge more (though far from all) of Biden’s mental difficulties.

How bad are they? I am two years older than Biden and I don’t have any of his mental problems. My mother, my father-in-law, and my mother-in-law were still sharp well into their 90s. I know a addle-pate when I see one. I’m looking at you, Joe.

Index of Posts (Updated)

Here.

Smugness Rampant

Definition of smug:

adjective

  1. Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one’s situation; self-righteously complacent.
    “a smug look; a smug critic.”
  2. [irrelevant]
  3. Irritatingly pleased with oneself; self-satisfied.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
Classic example of smugness (from the Voltaire’s Candide):
Pangloss was professor of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-nigology. He proved admirably that there is no effect without a cause, and that, in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron’s castle was the most magnificent of castles, and his lady the best of all possible Baronesses.

“It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for all being created for an end, all is necessarily for the best end. Observe, that the nose has been formed to bear spectacles—thus we have spectacles. Legs are visibly designed for stockings—and we have stockings. Stones were made to be hewn, and to construct castles—therefore my lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Pigs were made to be eaten—therefore we eat pork all the year round. Consequently they who assert that all is well have said a foolish thing, they should have said all is for the best.”

Today’s smugees (my coinage) evidently want this world (or the Western part of it, at least) to be all for the best. To that end, they (and their predecessors) have been busy for decades (more than a century, actually) laying the groundwork for the new dispensation that is rapidly overtaking (and supplanting) the traditional liberties and social norms that are obstacles to their vision of nirvana.
What is that vision and what are its dire consequences? Rather than repeat myself, I urge you to read “What Happened to America?“.

Trump vs. Biden: 8 (Updated)

Here.

Trump vs. Biden: 8 (New Numbers)

UPDATED 03/03/24

My unvarnished view about Trump’s candidacy to the contrary notwithstanding, it is better for Trump to be ahead (rather than behind) in the polls. Polls do have some (limited) value as a predictor of presidential election outcomes — though it is far too early to use them for that purpose.

In any event, with the release of four new polls yesterday and today, the latest numbers look like this:


Source: Polls reported by RealClearPolitics.

To avoid the over-representation of polling organizations that report frequently, the values plotted above include only the latest poll released by each organization. (Polls without margins of error are excluded.) The three-poll span affords a better indication of trends than the 10-poll average that I had been using.

CAVEATS: The average date of the three most recent polls is February 27 — five days before the publication of this post. The numbers shouldn’t be taken as predictive of the outcome of the election. They simply reflect the stated preferences of respondents when the polls were conducted. Also (and positively), a GOP candidate can win even when he is behind in the (meaningless) nationwide popular vote (see this).

The Mar-a-Lago Raid and Election 2024

Earlier today I posted “Trump vs. Biden: 7 (My Unvarnished Perspective)“, in which I said this:

Regardless of the polls and betting odds, I believe (today) that Trump will lose the election….

[Much discussion follows.]

That’s how it looks from here — as of today. Who knows what will happen in the next several months, or how it will affect the outcome of the election? I don’t.

Soon after that, Tristan Justice posted “Former Director Gina Haspel Hid the CIA’s Role in Russiagate for Years” (The Federalist, February 15, 2024). (He calls it Russiagate; I call it Obamagate, for reasons you will understand if you read my page, “Obamagate and Beyond“.)

There are two striking things about Justice’s post. The first is that it points to the kind of event that could drastically affect the outcome of this year’s presidential election — possibly moving the needle sharply in Trump’s direction. Here’s why (from Justice’s post):

The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago last summer might have been a plot to protect deep state intelligence officials, according to sources who spoke with a team of independent journalists this week.

On Wednesday, journalists Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag published part 2 of an expose on the role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in orchestrating the years-long crusade to frame former President Donald Trump as a Russian plant. The article posted on Shellenberger’s Substack, Public, outlined how intelligence officials fretted over the presence of a classified “binder” in Trump’s possession that former CIA Director Gina Haspel had guarded for years….

One unnamed source cited as “knowledgeable about the case” called the binder “Trump’s insurance policy.” Trump was apparently “very concerned about having it and taking it with him because it was his road map” of the Russian collusion hoax….

“The documents in question are said to contain information about the legal justification for those investigations, or more specifically, the lack of justification, among other things. Should more of that information be made public, it might implicate a long list of officials in serious abuses,” Public reported. “Questions like these may be answered if the 10-inch thick binder of sensitive documents about the origins of the Russia probe is made public. Fear for reputations and careers, not national security, is what has intelligence officials panicked.”

The second striking thing is that I surmised the true purpose of the Mar-a-Lago raid on September 13, 2022, when I posted “Why the Mar-a-Lago Raid?“. There, I summarized the conspiracy against Trump which I detail in “Obamagate and Beyond“, and added this:

Where does the raid on Mar-a-Lago fit into all of this? The raid was a fishing expedition to see how much information Trump had acquired about the origins and workings of the [Trump-Russia hoax] conspiracy. The unprecedented nature of the raid, the obviously flimsy pretext for it, and the selective leaks by the FBI all suggest desperation on the part of the conspirators.

One of those conspirators is Biden, of course, who was vice president when the conspiracy began and who has much to gain from discrediting Trump, staying in office, and using his power to minimize the consequences of the exposure of his role in the Biden family’s influence-peddling scheme.

Trump vs. Biden: 7 (My Unvarnished Perspective)

The polls, on average, favor Trump. Although his lead isn’t statistically greater than zero, that’s okay for a Republican.

The betting odds are going against Biden. Bettors see him as much less likely to win than they did a week ago, mainly because of this passage from Special Prosecutor Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s “mishandling” of classified documents:

[A]t trial, Mr. Eiden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.

Regardless of the polls and betting odds, I believe (today) that Trump will lose the election. It will happen because of his baggage (e.g., openly vindictive personality and resulting feuds, indictments, possible convictions), which will begin to weigh more heavily as voters actually decide which way to go.

With narrow wins in a few key States, Trump could win the election even if the overall popular vote goes against him by a couple of percentage points (just as he did in 2016). That’s what happened in 2016. I attribute that win to luck and surprise. Clinton’s lead in the polls and betting markets was so large that she seemed to be a shoo-in. As a result, the Democrats didn’t gear up to manufacture enough votes to win the close races that went Trump’s way and gave him an edge in the Electoral College.

Democrats geared up with a vengeance in 2020, with a lot of help from the Covid pandemic which boosted mail-in voting — the happy hunting ground of electoral fraudsters. Democrats will build on their successes of four years ago, while the GOP will try to play catch-up ball. But the GOP will fall short because (for the most part) it will confine its vote-generating operations to legal methods. Democrats (being leftists) will pull out all the stops and officials and judges (mostly Democrats and never-Trumpers) will cover for them.

There are people like me who will vote for Trump if he’s the GOP nominee only because we can’t abide what the Democrats are doing to the country. But there aren’t enough of us, I believe, to overcome Trump’s baggage. Moreover, Democrats still have plenty of time in which to recover from last week’s Biden fiasco — and they find a way to do it, with the enthusiastic aid of most of the media. In the end Biden — or whomever the Democrats nominate — will win in a rerun of 2020.

That’s how it looks from here — as of today. Who knows what will happen in the next several months, or how it will affect the outcome of the election? I don’t.

About the CIA and Trump

In case you missed the reports of how the CIA instigated spying by foreign intelligence agencies on Trump’s 2016 campaign, see Margot Cleveland’s “Sources Say U.S. Intelligence Agencies Tasked Foreign Partners with Spying on Trump’s 2016 Campaign“ (The Federalist, February 14, 2024). There’s more detail in Margot Cleveland’s “Did Our Intelligence Agencies Suggest the Russia Hoax to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign?” (The Federalist, February 15, 2024).

For a more complete picture of anti-Trump activities since 2016, see my page “Obamagate and Beyond“.

The Residue of a Powerful Government

The aphorism “luck is the residue of design” is attributed to Branch Rickey, a baseball, player, manager, and executive. Rickey’s long and successful career as a manager, general manager, and c0-owner of major league teams was marked the breaking baseball’s “color barrier” by signing Jackie Robinson, a future Hall-of-Famer, to a minor league contract.

It is widely believed that John Milton wrote something to the same effect, but I can’t find a source for that assertion.

There is a saying attributed to Seneca the Younger, a Roman philosopher: “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” But that attribution is also doubtful. The saying attributed to Seneca the Younger is however a better expression of the concept that “luck is residue of design” is meant to capture.

Now that I’m done with that bit of etymology, I want to expand on the idea that luck is the residue of design.*

Design, or preparation, is the residue (result) of assiduous thought and planning Assiduous though and careful planning arise from conscientiousness and intelligence.

There are some cultures in which such traits are prized and rewarded. Those cultures become peaceful and prosperous. But when assiduous thought, careful planning, conscientiousness, and intelligence are no longer prized and rewarded, the culture is doomed to subside into mediocrity or worse.

When government goes beyond the bounds of defending citizens from each other and foreign enemies, and ventures into the realm of economic and social engineering, it undermines the system of rewards for assiduous thought, careful planning, conscientiousness, and intelligence. Worse yet, it fosters a culture that denigrates those traits.

Having observed the evolution of the culture of the United States for several decades, I can assure you that unless the power of government isn’t curtailed sharply and soon, it won’t be long before America resembles a third-world country — complete with a wealthy, smug oligarchy that doesn’t give a damn about the rest of us.

* Thanks to an esteemed correspondent, I have learned of two more — and better — quotations in the same vein. One is spuriously attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “The harder I work, the luckier I get.” The other is genuinely attributed to Louis Pasteur: “Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.” (“In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.” From a lecture at the University of Lille on 7 December 1854.)

The Mainstream

When I hear the complaint that conservatives are “out of the mainstream,” this is what I visualize:

THE MAINSTREAM THEN


THE MAINSTREAM NOW

The mainstream has shifted considerably to the left in the past 90 years. Being in the mainstream of current political thought is no virtue; being out of the mainstream of current political thought is no vice.

“Licking” in the Age of Wokeness

Eons ago, when I was a freshman in college, I learned that “licking” was the art of adapting a story or novel to a movie script. That use of “licking” seems to have vanished, which is unsurprising in an age when actual licking (and other such things) is a staple of film fare.

In any event, I use “licking” here to mean the adaptation of a piece of literature to a script. The script in this case is that of Lessons in Chemistry, a 2023 release on Apple TV+, which in eight episodes veers wildly from the novel on which it is based: Lessons in Chemistry: A Novel, by Bonnie Garmus. The novel and the TV adaptation are set in the 1950s.

“Licking” sometimes involved changing the ending of the story. And the writers of the TV version certainly did that. But that was the least of their sins. The most of their sins was their feat of making Garmus’s story even more woke than the print version.

The book is a long, feminist rant. The TV adaptation is a feminist, racist rant, amplified through a bullhorn. Things that aren’t in the book but which are in the TV version:

  • Calvin Evans (the white, male protagonist) and Elizabeth Zott (the white, female protagonist) live in a black neighborhood.
  • There is a black neighbor woman (more about her below) who abandoned her law career to put her husband through medical school.
  • The same black woman leads a crusade to keep the corrupt, all-white, city council and greedy developers from replacing the neighborhood with a freeway.
  • Elizabeth Zott, who (for reason too convoluted to discuss here) becomes the host of a successful TV show about cooking (an early Julia Child). That much is in the books. But when Elizabeth alienates her sponsor — the maker of a hydrogenated shortening — she manages to replace that sponsor with … Tampax. Not in the book, but essential to the arch-feminist tone of the TV series.
  • Calvin Evans, as a child, is placed in an orphanage run by Catholic priests. That’s in the book. What’s not in the book is that he’s held back from adoption because the priests exploit his nascent brilliance as a chemist to distill and sell bootleg whiskey.
  • A clergyman — white in the book, black in the TV show — helps Calvin’s daughter, Mad Zott, find the orphanage. The book’s clergyman didn’t know Calvin; the TV’s show’s clergyman was a long-lost friend.

Similar things can happen relatively infrequently -in life but when they’re packed into a single TV series, you know that you’re getting a message like this one:

  • White folks and black folks can get along just fine — as long as white folks are willing.
  • White folks who live among and socialize with black folks are open-minded, loving people. (How about white folks who live among or near violent black folks? Are they open-minded and loving or just stupid or too poor to move?)
  • Bad things happen to black folks because of white folks. (Hmm … that’s the theme of CRT, which fails to acknowledge the weighty burdens of lower intelligence and a culture of irresponsibility and violence.)
  • Catholic priests are b-a-a-d people, unless they’re homosexuals. (Sodomizing young boys is really bad, but it’s usually done by homosexuals, which is why the badness shown in the TV version skirted that issue.)

About that black neighbor woman: Like the black neighborhood, she didn’t exist in the book. The middle-aged, white housewife who befriended Elizabeth in the book had to be replaced by a younger, black housewife-lawyer-crusader. In other words, more of the same: arch-feminism and racism.

The book was a feel-good story that probably appealed mainly to white women in search of escape and a bit of inner rebellion. The TV series is a feel-good story for well-off white folks of the kind who hate Donald Trump and believe that anyone who might vote for him is a misogynist, racist Neanderthal.

Zeno Revisited (Again)

Bill Vallicella (Maverick Philosopher) asserts that

No one has successfully answered Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion.  (No, kiddies, Wesley Salmon did not successfully rebut them; the ‘calculus solution’  is not a definitive (philosophically dispositive) solution.)

The link in the quoted passage leads to a post from 2009 in which BV addresses Zeno’s Regressive Dichotomy:

The Regressive Dichotomy is one of Zeno’s paradoxes of motion. How can I get from point A, where I am, to point B, where I want to be? It seems I can’t get started.

A_______1/8_______1/4_______________1/2_________________________________ B

To get from A to B, I must go halfway. But to travel halfway, I must first traverse half of the halfway distance, and thus 1/4 of the total distance. But to do this I must move 1/8 of the total distance. And so on. The sequence of runs I must complete in order to reach my goal has the form of an infinite regress with no first term:

. . . 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1.

Since there is no first term, I can’t get started.

Zeno’s paradox rests on the assumption that a first step is an infinitesimal fraction of the distance to be traversed, a fraction that can never be resolved mathematically. But that is an obviously false and arbitrary assumption.

Zeno, had he been less provocative (though mundane), would have observed that first step in going from A to B is a random distance that depends on the stride of the traveler; it has nothing to do with the distance to be traversed.

Thus, the distance from point A to point B can be traversed in x strides, where

x = d/l

and

d = distance from A to B

l = average length of stride.

That’s all f-f-folks.

See also “Achilles and the Tortoise Revisited“.

What Does the “P” in “GDP” Stand For?

It stands for product, that is, the output of goods and services, denominated in dollars (current and inflation-adjusted).

It is therefore mystifying to read this, by Arnold Kling:

What is GDP supposed to measure? I think of it as a measure of economic activity, meaning goods and services bought in the market.

The fact that GDP omits the value of home production (cooking, cleaning, lawn-mowing, etc.) means that GDP is an incomplete measure of the total output of goods and services. The remedy for that omission would be to estimate the dollar value of those services if they were purchased at market prices.

Kling tries to get around that objection:

If I pay you to mow my lawn, your labor counts in GDP. If I mow my own lawn, my labor does not count in GDP. That might seem wrong, but I believe it is exactly right. I think of economic activity as specialization and trade. We exploit comparative advantage and the division of labor. The more we outsource, the better off we are….

People who think in terms of production complain that housework belongs in GDP. But I say that if a woman (or a man) engages in housework, that is economic malfunctioning. She should be able to outsource housework to machinery and/or someone she employs.

Economic activity isn’t specialization and trade. It’s the production and consumption of goods and services, however inefficiently. Those that are produced at home (or on the farm) aren’t necessarily inferior to those that are produced by someone else. A lot of people actually enjoy producing and consuming their own goods and services. To them, those goods and services are just as valuable (perhaps more valuable) than the things they could buy from someone else. I am also bothered by the implication that housework has no value unless it’s outsources, which demeans those women (and men) who do their own housework because they can’t afford to outsource it.

Take the case of an apple farmer who reserves a part of his output for consumption in the form of apples (simply eaten), applesauce, apple butter, apple pies and tarts, desserts that include apples and other fruits, etc. If he raises hogs, he probably includes apple peels in their slop. Why should those parts of his apple crop not be counted in GDP just because the farmer uses the apples instead of selling them?

Kling is on the wrong path. He should use his formidable brainpower to think of ways to count home production in GDP so that it better measures what it’s supposed to measure: the total value of things produced in the U.S.

A Weak Argument for Freedom of Speech

Greg Lukianoff, president of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), is (of course) an ardent proponent of freedom of speech. I like most of what Lukianoff posts on his Substack blog, The Eternally Radical Idea, but a recent post falls short of what I expect from him.

In “Mill’s Trident: An Argument Every Fan (or Opponent) of Free Speech Must Know“, Lukianoff writes:

John Stuart Mill’s observ[es] in his 1859 masterpiece “On Liberty” that in any argument there are only three possibilities: You are either wholly wrong, partially wrong, or wholly correct — and in each case free speech is critical to improving or protecting those positions.

Why? According to Lukianoff:

  • If you are wrong, freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
  • If you are partially wrong, free speech and contrary viewpoints will help you get even closer to the truth.
  • If you are 100% correct (which is unlikely) you still need free speech for dissent, disagreement, and attempts to disprove you, both to check your arguments and to strengthen them.

This is an excellent example of preaching to the choir, albeit a relatively small one.

Mill’s arguments for freedom of speech omit a crucial assumption. There are people out there — perhaps a vast majority — who don’t seek the truth. They seek comfort in beliefs that they have acquired (often as a matter of belonging to the “right” group), and they seek to enforce those beliefs. Enforcement these days, is usually accomplished by laws, regulations, and the coercive use of state power (e.g., suppression of dissent from the Covid narrative by Big Tech execs anxious to retain their exemption from liability laws). Truth only gets in the way of comfort and power, the latter of which is a powerful elixir.

The truth, in short, is an inconvenience sought by the naïve, the powerless, and the increasingly rare person of principle.

As for On Liberty, it doesn’t deserve Lukianoff’s praise (or anyone else’s). See “On Liberty“, “My View of Mill, Endorsed“, and “The Harm Principle Revisited: Mill Conflates Society and State“.

Cloaks of Authority

From a commentary about the biblical significance of the cloak:

The use of cloaks as a symbol of authority is prevalent throughout the Old Testament. In ancient times, a cloak was a sign of status and power and was often worn by kings, priests, and other high-ranking officials.

There are many other symbols of authority; for example, a judge’s robe, a crown, a scepter, stars (on an epaulet), a corner office on the top floor of an elegant office building, and the Oval Office in the West Wing of the White House. Titles also confer authority, even without the trappings of a robe, a crown, and so on. But let us here call all such things cloaks of authority.

Cloaks of authority used to obscure the human beings in whom authority is vested. That is no longer the case in the age of the internet, which spreads truth and fiction in equal measure — and leaves it to the individual person to sort them. The sorting, of course, is done mainly in accordance with the individual’s preconceptions about who is “good” and who is “bad”. And most persons, it seems, seek out the truth or fiction that supports their preconceptions.

Nowhere is this state of affairs more evident than with respect to the presidency of the United States. Perhaps it’s just my faulty memory, but it seems to me that most voters used to believe that one candidate was better than the other, and they accordingly voted for that candidate. Now, it seems that most voters are fearful of what one or the other candidate might do if elected and vote against that candidate because he represents the greater of two evils.

Given that, the presidency (among many other positions of authority) is no longer held in awe, though it is regarded in fear by about half the populace. But even those citizens who support the incumbent do so, for the most part, because he is considered to be the lesser of two evils.

One might say that the imperial presidency is in decline because the “emperor” has no cloak.

Proportionality in War

Just-war theory is useful if it’s interpreted properly.

Take the principle of proportionality, for example:

Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective.

If the enemy’s objective is the destruction of your nation — civilians and all — it is just to seek the destruction of the enemy’s nation — civilians and all.

Thus endeth today’s lesson in how to wage war.

Trump vs. Biden: 6 (Trump Resurgent)

RealClearPolitics maintains a running tally of presidential election polls. I construct a moving average of the results, where the average represents Trump’s lead (or deficit) for the 10 most recent polls. I also construct a 95-percent confidence interval around the moving average, using the margins of error reported by pollsters. (Having done this for a while and observed some erratic and incredible results from Rasmussen Reports, I removed the results published by that formerly reliable polling organization from my calculations.)

Here’s the trend since late July 2023:

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire boosted Trump considerably. His margin is now (barely) back in positive territory (i.e., the lower band of the 95-percent confidence interval is just above zero).

CAVEAT: This isn’t a prediction of the outcome of the election. The figures simply reflect the stated preferences of respondents when the polls were conducted. Also (and positively), a GOP candidate can win even when he is behind in the (meaningless) nationwide popular vote (see this).

What Do I See in My Crystal Ball?

Nothing good:

The Biden administration overcomes the resistance of Texas and other GOP-led States and continues to allow illegal aliens (potential Democrat voters) to inundate the nation.

Perversely, in response to the resistance from Texas and other GOP-led States, the Biden administration declares a “national emergency” and effectively seizes control of GOP-controlled States. All policies that affirm life and liberty are suppressed (e.g., abortion bans and limits, school choice, effective law-enforcement, and — course — the freedoms of religion and speech).

If the immigration crisis doesn’t result in a “national emergency”, a different predicate will be found. The left’s need for control has is obsessive.

One result of the “national emergency” is the cancellation of the 2024 presidential election and the installation of a “provisional” government, led nominally by Biden (with Obama pulling the strings).

Even if there’s no national emergency or a provisional government, the left will remain in control through electoral chicanery.

Among many things, Biden administration’s egregious policies continue; for example, privileges for violent criminals, blacks, queers, and other “identity groups” (despite their known anti-social predilections and lack of accomplishments and abilities); the impoverishing war on fossil fuels and their efficient use (e.g., in gasoline-powered automobiles, gas furnaces, and gas cooktops); and the aforementioned flood of illegal aliens whose are supported the tax-paying citizens who are also the victims of the criminals among said aliens.

The regime finds a way around the GOP’s efforts to block aid to Ukraine and persists in a war that spreads to Western Europe and thus (via NATO) to the United States — perhaps involving exchanges of nuclear weapons.

The regime fails to take decisive action in the Middle East (and against Iran, specifically), with the result that critical resources and a critical trade route are throttled — re-igniting inflation and imposing real burdens (e.g., soaring energy prices) on working-class Americans.

Israel stands alone and eventually succumbs to the Muslim hordes, which leads to a second Holocaust. The provisional government tut-tuts and does nothing.

Iran, North Korea, and China — having observed the regime’s fecklessness — attack allied nations and international-trade routes, thereby exacerbating the effects of the conflagration in the Middle East. Diminished U.S. armed forces will only stand by as South Korea and Japan are assailed by missile attacks, Taiwan is subjugated to China, and the South China Sea and its bordering nations become China’s possessions.

The regime — under heavy pressure from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — enters into an alliance of “peace and prosperity” with those nations. The effect of the alliance is the subjugation of working Americans (i.e., the people who produce things, not ideas) to the regulatory state and the gradual reduction of working people’s living standards to the those of the 1940s (at best).

Further emulating Soviet-style “democracy” the labor of the masses (including the illegal hordes) enables the ruling classes and their favorite to live high on the hog.

Continuing the lawfare conducted against Donald Trump and the J6 protestors, Soviet-style “justice” is exacted upon those who openly dissent from the new dispensation. True justice dies with the effective revocation of the Constitution and the emasculation of those courts that might have resisted the new dispensation.

These are my worst fears. I hope that I’m badly wrong.

Related reading:

Brandon Smith, “Cultural Replacement: Why the Immigration Crisis Is Being Deliberately Engineered“, Alt-Market.us, January 25, 2024

Graham McAleer, “Is Conservatism’s Future Strauss or Vogelin?“, Law & Liberty, January 26, 2024

Hans von Spakovsky, “Biden Doesn’t Have Any Legal Authority to Seize Control of the Texas National Guard“, The Daily Signal, January 27, 2024