Brexit

I’m not generally a fan of “direct democracy.” I like our system of constitutionally-constrained representative democracy, and the way it tries to keep both the people and the reprobates they elect from straying too far from the Founders’ plan. When the people are allowed to vote directly on specific issues, it’s good to know that there are safeguards in place to prevent the kind of rookie errors that turn rich countries into Venezuela.

(One more reason to a appreciate the crop of excellent judges this President has installed.)

But when the government asks the people to vote on something that is within their constitutional prerogative, it seems to me that that government should respect the consequence of that vote and the expressed will of the people. When the matter at hand is as momentous as a basic question of national identity and sovereignty, as it was with the British referendum, then the government should not only respect the vote, but should act promptly and in good faith to execute the will of the people.

So no, I don’t think that years of stonewalling followed by a call for another vote, for a rephrasing of the question, for just a little common sense you filthy peasants don’t you know what you’re getting us into is appropriate. The British people spoke, and they should be heard — and if they aren’t, they’ll have been robbed of their sovereignty by an establishment that apparently feels a greater allegiance to the Continent than to that musty old relic of a country that elected them.

Britain once ruled the world. Britain stood alone against the German war machine. Britain can work out the details of the Irish border, and survive the temporary confusion of renegotiated trade deals. Her people have demanded their independence. They should get it.

Beresheet: Condolences

The Israeli spacecraft Beresheet ended its unsuccessful mission about three hours ago when, in the final moments of flight and barely five hundred feet from the lunar surface, it lost communication with earth and crashed on the moon. What would have been an enormous achievement for Israel and for private space exploration ended in disappointment, but nonetheless demonstrated that the era of private space travel is tantalizingly close.

Good effort, SpaceIL and Israel Aerospace Industries.

Joe Biden? String him up.

I don’t think Joe Biden is a sexual predator. I think he’s just a guy who likes to touch people in innocent but too-familiar ways.

But old Joe has spent the last couple of weeks dragging me through the mud. He’s said that “white men” can’t be trusted to give a fair hearing to black women. He’s said that my culture is still the same sad ancient regime that countenanced the beating of women, and lamented that we — that I — haven’t done better.

Shame on me, and on all of my white, wife-beating brethren. Right, Joe?

So Joe can’t keep his hands off of little girls. Innocent or not, he’s a pandering creep who wants to throw me under the bus because of my sex and skin color. The old hypocrite deserves to be ejected, with prejudice, from the political landscape. 

Beresheet: Apolune 466

A few weeks ago I wrote this post about Israel’s efforts to soft-land a spacecraft on the moon and become only the fourth nation to do so successfully.

Today, the Beresheet spacecraft successfully completed a critical maneuver, establishing its orbit around the moon with a greatest distance from the moon — an apolune — of 466 miles, and a perilune (closest distance) of 285 miles.

It is expected to complete its journey this week, as planned, when it lands, on Thursday the 11th, in the Mare Serenitatis — the Sea of Serenity.

Mueller: This Should Not Be The End

Mueller has concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. After two years of concerted attacks by a biased press and a corrupt bureaucracy, the collusion fantasy has been laid to rest.

Now let’s talk about collusion.

In 2016, and for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting administration used the power of federal law enforcement to spy on the opposition party during a presidential election. It justified that spying by citing a fraudulent document (the Steele Dossier), payed for by its own party’s candidate, as the basis for the warrant. The spying was overseen by fiercely partisan officials in the Department of Justice openly contemptuous of the opposition candidate. Other administration officials tried hundreds of times, without explanation or plausible justification, to gain access to confidential information collected during the spying.

If the administration’s party’s candidate had won the election, it seems certain that none of this would ever have come to light: an administration and Department of Justice shot through with corruption would have welcomed its successor, and its misconduct would have been buried forever.

That didn’t happen. Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.


The Mueller Report: A Damning Indictment of… Something

As we wait more or less breathlessly for the release of the Mueller Report, the assumption appears to be growing that it will be, in the eloquent words of Secretary Clinton, a “nothing-burger.”

But it will not be a nothing-burger, even if it reports no evidence of collusion. Because we’ve spent more than two years obsessing over this, driven by a press that pronounced almost daily the beginning of the end for the Trump administration. If there always was no there there, then someone has some explaining to do. Because many of us thought this was pretty obviously cooked up from the start, to hide either Clinton campaign embarrassment or, worse, Clinton/Obama collusion to undermine the 2016 Trump campaign. And if that’s true, then it should not have been the big story for the last two years.

The ladies and gentlemen of the press fancy themselves the guardians of democracy, the bulwark against ignorance and tyranny. If it turns out, as I suspect it will, that they have wasted most of their time and energy and resources, and our attention, over the past many months on a trumped-up non-story, an improbable bit of misdirection foisted on us by a failed candidate with the assistance of a corrupt former administration, then they have made a further mockery of the fourth estate. Democracy dies in darkness — or by being run over by the mainstream media clown car.

If the whole Russian collusion story is without a basis in fact, America’s journalistic “professionals” should consider finding a job they can do without embarrassing themselves.

Israel’s Soft Landing

The moon’s distance from Earth varies from approximately 225,000 miles to about 250,000 miles. Because the moon is much smaller than Earth, and so has a weaker gravitational field, most of the trip to the moon — the first 200,000 miles or so — is up hill: Earth is still trying to pull you back, albeit with an ever-diminishing attraction as you get farther away.

It’s hard to get there, and even harder to land once you do. Several countries have crashed objects on the moon, but to date only three — the old Soviet Union, the United States, and China, and in that order — have managed to achieve soft landings on the moon.

The Soviets were the first to actually land a spacecraft on the moon, back in 1966; the United States was just a few months behind them. The United States, of course, was the first to land a man on the moon, in July of 1969. Though a dozen American astronauts have walked on the moon, no other nation has sent a man (or woman) there.

China, the third country to soft-land a spacecraft on the moon, took a long time to do it: it wasn’t until 2013 that they joined the exclusive club of lunar-landing nations. China can claim, however, to be the first and only nation to land — as opposed to crash — a vehicle on the far side of the moon, the side we never see from Earth. They did that in January of this year.

The moon will be about 225,000 miles away in early April when the Israeli Beresheet spacecraft is scheduled to arrive there. The trip will require the craft to make three orbits of Earth, each a little more distant than the last, until it finally breaks free of Earth’s gravity and establishes an orbit around the moon. The Beresheet will then, if successful, make Israel only the fourth nation to achieve a soft lunar landing.

It will also be the first time that a private concern, as opposed to a government, has landed a vehicle on the moon. In that sense, the Beresheet — which means “genesis” or “in the beginning” in Hebrew — will live up to its name, as it ushers in the age of private, albeit unmanned, lunar travel.

The Beresheet was launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on February 21st, and is scheduled to land on the moon on April 11th. The spacecraft is flying on a shoestring, without the budget for the normal backup systems and redundancies of a normal big-budget space flight. Everything will have to go right for it to successfully complete its mission.

But if it does, Israel, this tiny and beleaguered nation, will once again demonstrate its exceptional ability to stand with the biggest and most powerful nations.

Let’s Talk About [Trans] Sex

Male and Female

Humans are mammals and, like all mammals, propagate the species through a process known as sexual reproduction. Each human is of one of two sexes, male or female, and the sex of any given human is readily and unambiguously identifiable at birth based on obvious anatomical distinctions.

[I’ll say this once and then not mention it again: this is a discussion of normal humans. Just as one can say that humans are born with two arms and two legs, one can say that humans are born as one or the other of two sexes. A small number of humans are born without the normal number of arms or legs, and a small number are anatomically ambiguous as regards sex. But normal humans, and that’s the vast majority of humans, are as described.]

There are distinctive physiological characteristics associated with male and female humans. Males tend to be larger and stronger than females; only females can give birth to offspring; males tend to be more aggressive than females. These are traits that humans have in common with many other mammals, and derive from biology, from the effects of various hormones on the male and female bodies during development.

Males and females play distinctly different roles in reproduction. In particular, the physiological investments made by males and females is quite different: for males, reproduction has essentially no cost associated with it; for females, reproduction is costly both in terms of time and physical investment. It follows that the mating strategies of males and females will likely differ: because reproduction for them is inexpensive, males will seek to reproduce as often as practical and with a wide variety of females; females, for whom reproduction is costly, will of necessity reproduce less frequently, and will tend to be more selective in their choice of mates. This will inevitably lead to different and characteristic behavioral patterns for the sexes.

Beyond those characteristics attributable to physiology and evolutionary pressure, there are additional sexual traits that may be essentially random, not readily explained by biology. These so-called cultural distinctions may, unlike differences rooted in biology, vary from culture to culture and change over time.

There is a constellation of traits which we associate with sex. Those which we associate primarily with males are referred to as masculine traits; those associated primarily with females are referred to as feminine traits. While the sex of any given person is either male or female, the degree to which the person exhibits qualities considered masculine or feminine may vary quite a lot.

A male who exhibits qualities normally associated with femininity is still a male: no matter how feminine he may seem, he does not ovulate, and he can not give birth. Similarly, a female, no matter how masculine, remains a female: she does not produce sperm and can not fertilize an egg.

Gender Diversity and Trans Movements

Gender diversity is the idea that there are more than two sexual states for humans. Gender diversity attempts to assert a quasi-sexual dimension, “gender,” independent of, and not constrained by, biological reality. Humans are male or female, distinctions rooted in biology: other so-called genders are expressions of whim, fantasy, confusion, or sincere but mistaken belief in non-existent human variety.

The trans movement asserts that humans can change their sex, either through pure volition (whim), or as a result of drugs and surgery. In fact, people can alter, to some extent, the degree to which they express typical masculine and feminine traits, but they can not change their sex: males remain males; females remain females.

Identity Versus Quality

Both the gender diversity movement and the trans movement are sexual identity movements. That is, both are founded on the assertion that one can claim a sexual identity, and that making the claim is itself sufficient to assume the identity — and, importantly, that no challenge to the legitimacy of the claim is possible. In that sense, such claims are metaphysical, untestable, divorced from biological reality, divorced from qualities of masculinity and femininity.

It is important for these movements that they make claims of identity, and not of qualities. Claims of masculine and feminine qualities can be evaluated objectively. Claims of identity are essentially legal or political claims which, if left unchallenged, grant individuals status which their inherent qualities might preclude.

To pick a topical example: a man who declares himself to be a woman, and who is then given the same status as a woman and so allowed to compete against women in athletic events, will have an enormous advantage, because he possesses essential masculine qualities of bone size and density, connective tissue, muscular development, etc.

False claims of sexual identity — men claiming to be women, women claiming to be men, anyone claiming to be neither man nor woman — should be rejected. If we wish to accommodate claims of special status based on measurable physical traits, on objective qualities of masculinity and femininity, that is a different issue. But false claims of sexual identity are a way of assuming a status predicated on sexual qualities while precluding any evaluation of those qualities. This will inevitably lead to problems, including the kind of athletic cheating currently in the news, and to needless confusion and ambiguity.

Waiting for Mueller

At the beginning of this long investigation I wrote that if convincing evidence is presented that candidate Trump colluded with Russians — that is, that he knowingly participated in or otherwise facilitated illegal Russian interference in the 2016 election — then I would call for his impeachment.

I also wrote that I think the entire charge is a fabrication of the embarrassed and almost pathologically mendacious candidate Clinton, and that in fact it’s largely a projection of her campaign’s own shady dealings with Russia via the Steele dossier and related nonsense. That is still my belief.

However, if Mueller provides that convincing evidence, I will admit my mistake and call for the President’s resignation or removal.

But if he does not, then I will call for the resignation of most of the nation’s press, as these clowns will have, in typical print-first-ask-questions-never fashion, poisoned the national discourse for years with their relentless and baseless claims, and given comfort to the posse of corrupt and scheming apparatchiks who, until recently, ran much of our federal law enforcement.

So let’s wait and see.

PS No, I don’t expect the press to accept its responsibility. I don’t even expect them to significantly change their message, when and if Mueller’s report exonerates the President. Most of the press supports Democrats, the more left-leaning the better, and that isn’t about to change.