William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Page 148 of 427

A Priest And A Reporter Walk Into A Bar — A Mini Play In One Act

PLAYERS: Father Quinn, in uniform. A Bartender, Murphy, in uniform. A reporter, Bradford, looking hip. Other patrons may be added as set dressing, but who are not necessary.

SCENE: A bar in midtown Gotham. A bartender hovers while a priest sits sipping the water of life. A reporter from the newspaper of eminence walks in. The reporter recognizes the priest.

Bartender Murphy Runnin’ low there, Father? Let’s top ‘er off.

Father Quinn I think, no, Mr Murphy, sir, no. I’ve overstayed my welcome I believe.

Murphy continues to pour.

Quinn Perhaps just a small one. Evening mass is still many minutes distant.

Murphy On the house.

Quinn God bless you. I—

Bradford (sidling up; talking over Quinn) It’s Father Quinn, isn’t it? I’m sure it is. Jim Bradford. Reporter from the paper? We met when I covered that, uh, unfortunate…business.

Quinn (shaking hands) Ah, Mr Bradform, yes. Of course I remember.

Bradford I thought I’d recognized you. And it’s Bradford, sir.

Quinn So you recognized me. My mother always did say I had the face of angel. Bradford, did you say? Yes, I remember you well. What was that you wrote? “This scandal surely spells the doom of the Catholic church”?

Bradford Well, uh, yes. Something like that.

Quinn In a hurry, are you? Sit down, Mr Bradford. Have a stool.

Bradford (sitting, glancing at his watch) I was to meet someone here for an interview. But he didn’t show.

Quinn Mr Murphy, sir. Three swallows for the gentleman.

Murphy splashes out a generous measure.

Bradford And what brings you here, Father?

Quinn I was commiserating with a brother brother, in a manner of speaking. The minister of St. Mundus’s Episcopal church, may she rest is pieces.

Bradford St. Mundus? Over on 44th? Didn’t I read that they’d turned it into a suite of apartments?

Quinn And so they will. With no possibility of a reprieve. No. This was their last week. After this, they are no more.

Bradford Well—no surprise. No, uh, disrespect, father. You know what I mean.

Quinn As to the fact of the matter, Mr Bradford, I do not know what you mean.

Bradford Hadn’t they lost all their parishioners? It’s not exactly a rare complaint these days, is it? Not cheap to keep a building like that going when no one’s putting envelopes in the Sunday baskets.

Quinn Ah, but it’s why the seats go empty. They needn’t have done.

Bradford Well, Father, no disrespect. But it’s happening all over. I mean, this is just one more example of many. If this trend continues every church will be turned into a boutique or apartment. I’ll tell you, though: I agree that it doesn’t have to be this way.

Quinn Is that so? And what suggestions have you for us?

Bradford It’s not my place, really.

Quinn Your shyness does not become you, sir. Come, we are all men here—are we not Mr Murphy?

Murphy I wouldn’t know, Father. My wife doesn’t let me talk about those things in public.

Murphy tips out more for Bradford; Quinn blocks his glass with his hand.

Bradford If you wouldn’t be so resistant to change. Take women priests.

Quinn Don’t tempt me with obvious retorts, sir. They aren’t becoming in a man of the cloth.

Bradford And it isn’t just your stance toward choice, which I grant you is a difficult position to overcome. But you don’t have to change it, you see. It’s more a matter of understanding that your own members don’t—and won’t; that’s the key—share the views of hierarchy. You can’t turn back the clock by holding onto the past. Not only choice, but even something as basic as contraception. Everybody uses it, yet you try to ban it.

Quinn Now we are getting somewhere. Let’s don’t stop here; let’s have it all.

Bradford No disrespect, of course.

Quinn Heaven forfend!

Bradford Well, I don’t think you see the contradiction in your stance toward marriage rights. You can’t be for social justice and against equality. People have the right to marry whomever they wish. It’s the same thing with openly gay and lesbian priests. If only you’d—

Quinn —And isn’t that how we first met?

Bradford What’s that?

Quinn Never you mind. Mr Murphy!

Murphy does his deed.

Bradford Sexuality in general is problematic. We have learned so much these last fifty years. We can’t go back to the way it was. I mean we, the public. But not the Church. They speak of sexual matters like ill-informed school boys. That’s what comes of a celibate priesthood! Um…no disrespect intended.

Quinn Of course not.

Bradford And this is all on top of your official stance towards science. Anti-science. It just isn’t on, you see. Science already answers the big questions. Dogmatism is of no use in explaining the big band. Big bag, I mean. Bang! Evolution describes the human condition. People won’t tolerate talk of miracles in the Twenty-First Century. Loaves and fishing, indeed.

Murphy eyes Bradford suspiciously, considers, then pours again, but only a half measure.

Quinn The count is up to twenty-one, is it?

Bradford What’s that?

Quinn Skip it. Time for a recapitulation. You think that if the Church were to ordain women priests, allow male priests to marry, embrace homosexuality and bless anybody who wants to marry, that we’d be more attractive?

Bradford Well, yes.

Quinn That if we’d loosen up and cease lecturing people about sleeping with whomever they would, give the nod to contraception since we can’t stop them anyway, and admit that abortion is sometimes superior to the burden of having a child, then people would look upon us with a kinder eye?

Bradford Something like that, yes.

Quinn And if we’d concentrate on social justice—see to it that everybody had a free cellphone and the like—instead of harping on miracles, sin, and eternity, that we might even see a glowing article on How The Church Has Grown appear in your paper?

Bradford Father, this is it. You would appeal to a much broader audience, one who would find your message acceptable.

Quinn Then what would be left of the Church? Except for the candles, how could anybody tell us apart from, to pick an example, your favorite political party?

Bradford Well, some people still find ritual—

Quinn —But we don’t have to guess, do we? No, sir. For all these changes you advocate, and more; all have been tried, each has been embraced, and warmly. The experiment has already been run.

Bradford And where’s that, Father?

Quinn Why, at St. Mundus’s, of course.

Bradford (rising) I need to find the men’s room.

Murphy (stepping over, invoking the cliché of polishing a glass) Who is that guy, Father?

Quinn I fear, Mr Murphy, that he is our future. If we aren’t careful.


Debate Thread: “Where Was This Romney Before?” Always There

Al Sharpton reacts to last night’s debate

Chris Matthews looked as though he saw the men with the nets coming for him, the tingles evidently having traveled from his leg and lodging in his frontal cortex. An astonished Bill Maher tweeted that, gee, this Obama fellow appears to need a teleprompter to speak coherently.

On MSNBC, Al Sharpton’s noggin resembled Thunder, the third Fury, who at the end of Big Trouble in Little China just realized his master Lo Pan lay dead. Rachel Maddow could do no better than echo the fans of the team that just lost the World Series, when she said Mr Obama should have won because he is the better man.

Mr Obama himself was reduced to pulling out a preprepared joke on Donald Trump—-Donald Trump!, for all love—a quip so bad that it landed with a squish and which everybody immediately pretended never happened.

Yes, overall it went well for the forces of Good.

But here’s the curious thing. This morning we hear voices aplenty saying, “Where was this Romney hiding?”, “Who is this guy?”, “Why hasn’t he acted like this before?” and the like.

My dears, the Romney of last night was the Romney of last week, and of last week, and the Romney we will have next debate. So why the widespread misperception? The only change was last night we saw him without his ever-present media filter.

Strike that: no. Without most of his media filter.

Did you, like everybody else, feel that Romney ran away with the microphone and dominated the airtime? That he went way over his alloted time? Not so. In fact, Mr Obama held the floor four to six more minutes than Romney, a substantial margin. How could this be?

Jim Lehrer did his best to interrupt Romney several times, pestering him with small questions, an act he tried only once with Obama.

In this debate, the mainstream media was forced to watch from the sidelines, and silently, too—although from watching Twitter you formed the idea that one of them was going to be like that guy in the crowd who saw an opposing player running unimpeded for a touchdown and who burst forth onto the field to tackle the ball carrier.

We weren’t bothered by Lehrer’s standard technique because he was one lone man, and a feeble one, too. If this debate would have been structured so that a panel of media sat in magisterial judgment (their usual pose), they would have peppered Romney with questions like, “Why is Mr Obama the best president we’ve ever had?” and then cut him off before he could finish a sentence.

This was the real Romney. This is the man the public were finally allowed to see. What will be the effect?

Update More proof of the conjecture: journalists of the left are pummeling Lehrer for not “controlling” the debate better, i.e. shutting Romney down and bolstering Obama.

Update Corrected time spent by Obama talking; there are various estimates. All say Obama had more minutes.


Also see this.

Scientists: GOP Women More Feminine Than Dems

Science! Unadulterated, peer-reviewed, glorious science! What else but science could have provided this picture, which was taken whole from the University of California press release on the shocking new scientific, peer-reviewed, wee-p-valued paper The GOP has a feminine face? I’ll tell you: nothing.

Here are the main “findings”, which “are forthcoming online in the peer-reviewed Journal of Experimental Social Psychology”:

“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.

What’s worse—it makes you weep, but this is science—is this:

Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms [emphasis mine].

The study worked like this: participants rated pictures of both Right women and those women Not Right from the House of Representatives, and found that Right women matched “stereotypical gender norms” while Not Right women appeared to take their makeup cues from Rosie O’Donnell. Indeed, “the relationship is so strong that politically uninformed undergraduates were able to determine the political affiliation of the representatives with an overall accuracy rate that exceeded chance, and the accuracy of those predications increased in direct relation to the lawmaker’s proximity to feminine norms.”

Wait. Politically uninformed undergraduates? Never mind.

Since this is science, peer-reviewed science, published in a leading journal, and evincing small p-values, the findings are indisputable. They are true. They cannot be questioned. There must be a consensus. Nevertheless, I, being by nature untrusting and rebellious, decided to test the theory on new data.

A Republican Rosa DeLauro?

Using a sophisticated computer algorithm1, I therefore reconstructed Ms Rosa DeLauro’s image, assuming she first registered as a Republican and not a Democrat. Although the sample size is small, those polled rated this simulation as more “stereotypically feminine” than Ms DeLauro’s original image.

With this independent experiment providing the verification, I am therefore convinced the original findings are true.

Said study co-author Kerri Johnson, “[A]ssessing how much a face reflects gender norms may be one way of guessing political affiliations.” But just what are the keys to gender norms? Such things as “the shape of the jaw, the location of eyebrows, the placement of cheek bones, the shape of eyes, the contour of the forehead, the fullness of the lips.” Compare for example each of these dimensions between the original and the converted Rosa DeLauro.

The big question is of course why Not Right women are so radically distant from feminine norms.

“The Democratic Party is associated with social liberal policies that aim to diminish gender disparities, whereas the Republican Party is associated with socially conservative policy issues that tend to bolster traditional sex roles,” Johnson said. “These policy platforms are manifest in each party’s image — apparently also in the physical characteristics exhibited by politicians.”

I think we can agree that the woman in the image presented by the scientists as their exemplar for a Democrat has indeed diminished gender disparity to the fullest extent possible. Further evidence is easy to have. Simply compare, for example, females in sympathy with pro-abortion causes versus pro-life women (examples here and here). Or women who are for Mr Obama versus those for Mr Romney (here and here).

Now, as is somewhat well known, most men, crude creatures that they are, prefer to mate with females with stereotypically feminine features. Whether our universities can correct this obvious bias is a separate question. For now we are left with its consequences, which are that Republican women, because they possess what men want in greater proportion than Democrat women, have an easier time marrying and reproducing.

Therefore, if there is anything to this genetics business, we should in time see many more Republicans than Democrats. It’s science!


1Modified from a coupled GCM kindly supplied by my pal Gav Schmidt.

Thanks to Juan Ramirez who alerted me to this most important topic.

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We’ll Never Solve—Update: Solved!

Surfing the internet is the wrong metaphor. Surfing is to skillfully ride a wave for thrills towards a destination. Aimlessly clicking enticing headlines in an effort to avoid responsibility and delay labor is better called drifting, to keep the watery theme.

Anyway, drifting the ‘net as I was, I came across i09 and their piece 8 Great Philosophical Questions That We’ll Never Solve. It is important to note that this article was written on 24 September of this year.

I can report to you that in the week since its publication, the questions have been solved. Here are the questions, i09’s head-scratchings, and the correct answers.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there all this stuff in the universe, and why is it governed by such exquisitely precise laws? And why should anything exist at all…as Sean Carroll notes, “Nothing about modern physics explains why we have these laws rather than some totally different laws, although physicists sometimes talk that way — a mistake they might be able to avoid if they took philosophers more seriously.” And as for the philosophers, the best that they can come up with is the anthropic principle — the notion that our particular universe appears the way it does by virtue of our presence as observers within it — a suggestion that has an uncomfortably tautological ring to it.?

Funnily enough, i09 had the answer embedded right in their question. It’s obvious why the missed it, too. The answer is uncomfortable for us Enlighteneds.

Now we can say that God created everything, which is true and which answers the question, but we cannot saw why He did so. To suggests God loves us, while correct, is not to answer the question, but to push it back one level further, for why would God love creatures who drift the ‘net in search of argument? I don’t know and neither do you.

2. Is our universe real?

More recently, the question has been reframed as the “brain in a vat” problem, or the Simulation Argument. And it could very well be that we’re the products of an elaborate simulation. A deeper question to ask, therefore, is whether the civilization running the simulation is also in a simulation — a kind of supercomputer regression (or simulationception).

The “simulation argument”, and its many Matrixy variants, is solipsism removed to a computer. Nothing exists except for me; the entire universe is simulated just for my benefit. I am that special. The comments you’re leaving in the box below to dispute this conclusion? Clever simulacra to keep me from awakening and realizing how very important I am.

And then there’s idealism, which David Stove called a Victorian horror story. Time to let these go.

3. Do we have free will?

Also called the dilemma of determinism, we do not know if our actions are controlled by a causal chain of preceding events (or by some other external influence), or if we’re truly free agents making decisions of our own volition.

Dilemma forsooth! Man must have his theories. If any observation violates the theory, well, so much the worse for the observation, for theories are beautiful, compact, sensible, and most of all understandable. Observations are free, while theories come at a dear cost and must therefore be protected.

Take a random NPR listener and fly her from point A to point B in an aeroplane. Ask her at A, “Are you at A?” and she will say, “Yes.” And when she is at B, ask her, “Are we at B, which is separate from A?” and she will say, “Yes.”

Then ask her how aeroplanes work. She will say something like, “The government provides taxes for their operation.” She will not understand how the aeroplane worked, but the evidence that it flew her from A to B will not be denied. But because she does not know how does not mean she did not travel. What could be more obvious than that?

It’s the same with arguments over free will. Everybody knows we have free will because of observation. However, certain theories are incompatible with these observations. Result? Toss out the observations. And then award tenure to the garbageman.

4. Does God exist?

Simply put, we cannot know if God exists or not. Both the atheists and believers are wrong in their proclamations, and the agnostics are right.

To make that claim implies a proof exists which shows knowledge of God’s existence is always indefinite. No such proof exists. The claim is pure bluster. Question 4 can be, and has been, answered affirmatively many times. Sure, people dispute the paths to Yes, but they never try to offer a path to No. Are you an atheist feeling your oats? Then do the yeoman’s of proving God does not exist.

5. Is there life after death?

Materialists assume that there’s no life after death, but it’s just that — an assumption that cannot necessarily be proven…This is highly speculative stuff, but like the God problem, is one that science cannot yet tackle, leaving it to the philosophers.

This is true: materialism implies real death, which is why, as the gentleman who wrote this article suggests, you should not turn to scientists for philosophy.

Quite simple proofs for the non-materialism of our intellects abound (here is one). Thus the question is answered easily: yes. So get ready for it.

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

There’s a difference between understanding the world objectively…and experiencing it through an exclusively objective framework. This is essentially the problem of qualia — the notion that our surroundings can only be observed through the filter of our senses and the cogitations of our minds. Everything you know, everything you’ve touched, seen, and smelled, has been filtered through any number of physiological and cognitive processes. Subsequently, your subjective experience of the world is unique.

If the question means do we need our physical senses, which can only be our own, to sense the world, then nothing is “objective”. But if it means “Can we know things as they are in themselves?” then we have come to the winner of the Worst Argument in the World contest.

Worst, because it hasn’t an intelligible answer. But it is also the Best, because it gives employment to more academic philosophers than to any other argument.

7. What is the best moral system?

Essentially, we’ll never truly be able to distinguish between “right” and “wrong” actions…Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing…

To answer authoritatively and finally the question in the quotation: the human baby. There: we have our first of many universals, a moral fact true for everybody.

It is true that action X may be right at one time and wrong another, but that is because the facts that condition the action change between these two times. It may even be that we cannot delineate all the conditions which make X right and those that make it wrong. But we can sometimes.

8. What are numbers?

…are they real objects, or do they simply describe relationships that necessarily exist in all structures? Plato argued that numbers were real…but formalists insisted that they were merely formal systems (well-defined constructions of abstract thought based on math). This is essentially an ontological problem, where we’re left baffled about the true nature of the universe and which aspects of it are human constructs and which are truly tangible.

This question smells like an editor said, “Nobody wants to read an article about ‘7 Great Philosophical Questions That We’ll Never Solve’. Make it 8. That number always works for Cracked.”

Numbers are real, but are not physical. Physical objects can be counted using numbers. Ta da.

Update For non-regular readers: there are of course many truths which cannot be proved, but which we know innately are true. E.g. the axioms of mathematics—and morals!

Why I Am Becoming A Democrat

The One

This will come as a severe shock to long-time readers, but I am changing my political affiliation. Perhaps some of you saw it coming. I did not. To me, the shift arose with frightening rapidity. I awoke yesterday startled, shocked to the realization that I am, and perhaps always was, a Democrat.

Let me explain.

A short while back I was reading in the Wall Street Journal a review of Alexander Pantsov (must he have been beat up a lot as a kid) and Steven Levine’s Mao: The Real Story, in which the reviewer Andrew Roberts, quoting the authors, said:

“Our task as historians was neither to praise nor to blame Mao.” [The authors] state categorically that Mao’s policies “cost the lives of tens of millions of Chinese,” yet they also boast: “We show that Mao was neither a saint nor a demon, but rather a complicated figure who indeed tried his best to bring about prosperity and gain international respect for his country.”

It is true that despite his noble intentions, Mao instead created privation and misery and that he mercilessly—some even say gleefully—slaughtered tens of millions, but these innuendos ignore the most cogent datum. Mao acted for the public good. Mao cared. I figure the old syphilitic satyr deserved the rotating harem of underage girls he lovingly taught the facts of life.

Now don’t jump to any conclusions. I do not say Democrats are like Mao. Though Mao is, by her own admission, Anita Dunn’s, once the White House Communications Director, and now MSNBC contributer and advisor to Mr Obama, “favorite philosopher.” And what did Mr Obama’s Czar Van Jones say about Stalin’s brand of communism? Never mind. What I admire about men like Mao and Stalin is that even after compiling a body count so large that if they were stacked from end to end would have reached the moon and back (I’m guessing), these statesmen are still not condemned, can still be mentioned in polite company, can still be admired.

Because why? Because they cared about the little guy.

I care, too. That’s point one.

Point two. Besides the academicians and intellectuals who openly admire Mao and Stalin and their modern-day wannabes, there are three other kinds of Democrat voters. A, those who believe Democrats are the party of the poor and downtrodden; B, those who enjoy telling people what to do; and C, those who want “free” stuff.

About A-people I have nothing to say, because they are honest, sincere people. But I do sometimes wonder if they know that Democrat politicians are, just as much as Republican politicians, “members of the 1%”? Haven’t they heard of crony capitalism, and don’t they gape in wonder at how Harry Reid and others routinely write legislation and craft regulation to support hand chosen-rich corporate industries and penalize others? Solyndra anyone? The EPA if you please? Are we talking Nelsonian blind eyes among some A-people, or are their hearts so big that any promise that what politicians are doing is best for them is enough? Only history will say.

Here is why I changed. I, like academicians Pantsov and Levine, am a B-person. I have a PhD. From Cornell. An institution in the Ivy League. Harvard’s League.

That should be all that need be said about that, but since some of you reading this won’t be of my orientation, I’d best elucidate. I have worked out, to the tiniest detail, what an Ideal Society would look like, how it would function and how beautiful it would be, and since I am so astonishingly intelligent that one can resist this solution only if one is immoral, or is evil.

Some examples. I know how to make people into the body shape I find most pleasing, and I’ll get them there by denying them certain foodstuffs and requiring ingestion of certain others. I know that people can’t take care of their personal safety, so I’ll tell them, for their own good, where they can go and how they’ll get there.

There is plenty more, but since I am among the elite of the elite, I doubt you’d understand if I told you. So I’ll keep quiet, bide my time, and wait for a government office to be bestowed upon me so that I can start making change.

Finally, there a C-people, the Sandra Flukes of the world, folks who really have everything, but want more and don’t want to pay or work for it. Fluke went after the Catholic Church, for example, for not providing her “free” birth prevention drugs. Mr Obama then mandated that the Church pay up, and be damned to their religious convictions. That’s the kind of rule making I’m talking about!

Remember all this Tuesday.

A vote for Obama is a vote to increase the rate of government control. A vote for Romney is a vote to decrease that rate, though it will still remain solidly positive.

Update I forgot to mention how I like a riotous good time.

Update I just did the calculation. If we assume that those sacrificed in the name of progress were on average 5 feet tall (there were kids and emaciated adults in the mix), then using a conservative body count of 100 million, we have 500 million feet of flesh to stretch. That translates to just under 100,000 miles. The moon is on average about 240,000 miles away. So we’re left dangling in space. But have no fear. There is still time to make up the rest.

Update Rank Sophist suggests that National Socialism’s Hitler was of the right. According to Golderg’s Liberal Fascists this is a debatable point, but it is as least widely believed. And therein lies the difference.

No politician or intellectual on the right can invoke National Socialism’s ideas or policies and remain an employed politician or intellectual. And rightly so. But politicians and intellectuals on the left can and do invoke Mao’s or Stalin’s International Socialism’s ideas and policies—members of Mr Obama’s inner circle did so—and not only do they remain employed (though not always in the White House) but they even see themselves promoted and feted.

Now since the body count of International Socialism is much higher—an order of magnitude?—than the body count of National Socialism, why is this? My only theory is that most of the victims of National Socialism were actively exterminated, while most (not all) of the victims of International Socialism were purposely, willfully, heartlessly left to starve.

Is this a distinction without a difference? I have the idea that intellectuals—the main target of sarcasm in this post—are rightly sickened about the first method of producing corpses, but their massive brains allow them to rationalize the second. Sure people starved, they probably reason, but if only they were a little smarter, they needn’t have. I don’t know.

The real enemy of the people, I tried to imply, but failed, is that those, of the right or left, who favor government control. Now since “government” is just people—government is not a thing—this is people who want to be in charge because they believe that since they are so smart they have everything figured out.

Nothing is more complicated that human behavior, so the absence of humility in a person’s theory of government is always telling. And if any intellectual can praise people like Mao or the CCCP, they can’t be that smart after all.

Incidentally, because of the discontent in China, there is a growing movement to resurrect Mao, both his reputation and policies. “Mao,” these modern-day Chinese intellectuals says, “Is a man who got things done.” He sure did.

Anyway, next time a return to better jokes.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2014 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑