Skip to content
August 17, 2018 | 43 Comments

On Israel’s Jewish New ‘Nation State’ Law

I am probably the wrong man to ask about Israel being named as an official Jewish state. My idea is that at least Jerusalem should be Christian. After all, Our Lord sacrificed himself there for all mankind. Christianity began there by men who saw the light, men who realized the Old Covenant(s) found its fulfillment in the New, an act made painfully clear even to unbelievers in the razing of the Temple in 70 anno Domini.

Interregnum Pope Benedict has recently published a paper on this general subject; it being written about in many places. But not many have or can read the paper, since it is in German. If anybody can translate or knows of a translation, please tell us. In this paper it is reported Benedict acknowledges that the re-founding of Israel was a political and not theological act. On that, see also this on Hal Lindsey.

Jews, of course, do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, and all that follows from that ultimate truth (though some Jews, calling themselves a race, call themselves Christian). They are thus in error on these fundamental points. They are not, again of course, alone in these errors. These errors are shared by people the world over, even by those who were once not in error. But there is practically speaking—and here is our third “of course”—a world of difference between ex-Christians and never-were-Christians.

Never mind all that. Israel has as little chance of turning Christian as do hot dogs with ketchup tasting good. Let’s deal therefore with things as they are, not how they should be.

Israel passed a law they’re calling the “nation state” law, which says “that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and that ‘the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.’ It establishes Hebrew as the official language of Israel and downgrades Arabic to a language with ‘special status.'” This “special status”, we gather, will be the same as that accorded traditionalists on American college campuses.

Well, Israel is its own country and can decide things however it wants. If they want to say Israel is the historic homeland of the “Jewish people”, that’s their business, as things stand. Of course (another one!), to do that they’ll have to decide who gets to be Jewish and who doesn’t. And Jews seem confused about that.

At times the term appears to mean a Jew is a person who adopts one of the several branches of Judaism, and that’s fair enough. Be born or convert, as the apostate daughter of our president did, and you’re a Jew. Whatever rules govern such conversions can decide.

But Jews also say they are a race, to which even those who reject Judaism can belong. The linked article above mentions a “Jewish diaspora”, for instance. That means the black lady rabbi I saw a reformed temple boasting about in print is of the same race as, for instance, Bill Kristol or Harrison Ford. And so, then, is Trump’s daughter of the same race (as long as she met the criteria for membership in the religion). And so are the many Ethiopian Jewish converts from times past of the same race. And so are the Arabs who converted, and so on and so forth. The Jews after all did pretty good at proselytizing after the Temple’s destruction.

But if that’s the demarcation of race, it means folks who have lived long enough with calling themselves a race are that race. Well, self-identification is the norm now. And Jews seems to recognize each other just as Christians do.

If all that is true, then are European and American Christians a race? If so, it means the Israeli government, and the Israeli-American dual-passport holders who are in our government’s and the media’s employ, ought to support with vigor a law here which states that the United States of America is unique to Christians (if Jews are a religion) or, say, blacks (if Jews are a race) in the same way Israel is a Jewish State.

We don’t need to stop at the USA. Austria can get in on this, too. And Poland. And a few other obvious candidates. English for the USA, naturally, German for Austria, and Polish for Poland, all other languages being designated as special status.

What do we make of this idea? At the best, (if Jews are a religion) it would acknowledge that when a designated official Christian country deals with Israel, she does so knowing that Israel denies the divinity of Christ, and is therefore in error on that and many associated points, points which would be by definition of prime importance to the official Christian country.

Israel (yet another of course!) would think the opposite. That is, they would think the official Christian country is wrong about the divinity of Christ, and Israel would deal with that country with that understanding. It’s an all-cards-on-the-table approach that is bound to pay off diplomatically.

If Jews are a race regardless of religion, and Israel is their home that all must recognize, then that country would and should support other countries that want to designate themselves official homes for various races. Right? It can’t be that Jews are the only race that get to call themselves a race that gets to make rules for itself and keep outsiders out. Can it? Israel is alt-right (I’m supposing the media’s definition of that term) and Jewish supremacist, and would seem to be obliged to support alt-right status for other nations.

There are difficulties of declaring Jews a singular race, though. There will be some race (if we use the older, commonsense definition of the word) among Jews which is at least a plurality, some race who has the highest count. I haven’t done this counting, but it looks like those of East European descent, perhaps Russian. Or maybe Kahazar/Turkish? Or even white. Whatever it is, it is something. It would not be a mistake to say that this numerical winner is “the” Jewish race; that would be up to Israel to decide. But it would follow that those of other races who consider themselves Jews are in official error, or are of secondary status.

Same goes for the Christian race. Some race is number one—maybe it’s Nigerians or Brazilians. It could even be Chinese (67 million Christians in China). I don’t know. Whoever is tops would then be “the” Christian race.

Rules for commenting: Let’s agree with the Encyclopedia Britannica that the first one to use the misnomer “anti-Semitism” loses, because not all Jews are Semitic, and not all Semites are Jews. If you mean “anti-Jew” say “anti-Jew.” Unless, of course, all non-Semites are declared by law non-Jews, and all Semites are thus declared Jews, regardless of their religion. Or maybe, if we accept self-identification, anybody who declares themselves a Jew becomes a Semite.

And then if Jews are an official race, by whatever rules Israel decides, and Israel must be seen as the official Jewish homeland, then to criticize Israel would by definition be criticizing Jews. That’s a win-win for them.

It’s all very confusing.

August 16, 2018 | 3 Comments

How To Do Predictive Statistics: Part VI New (Free) Software Poisson Regression

Previous post in the series (or click above on Class). REVIEW!

Download the code: mcmc.pred.R, mcmc.pred.examples.R. If you downloaded before, download again. This is version 0.22! Only the example code changed since last time.

For an explanation of the theory behind all this, which is markedly different than classical views, get this book: Uncertainty.

We’re downloading data from another gent’s site, so you have to be on-line for today’s lesson.


# https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/r/dae/poisson-regression/
x <- read.csv("https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stat/data/poisson_sim.csv")
x <- within(x, {
  prog <- factor(prog, levels=1:3, labels=c("General", "Academic", 
                                                     "Vocational"))
  id <- factor(id)
})
summary(x)

It's fictional data: "the outcome variable [num_awards] and indicates the number of awards earned by students at a high school in a year, math is a continuous predictor variable and represents students' scores on their math final exam, and prog is a categorical predictor variable with three levels indicating the type of program in which the students were enrolled."

Number of awards can be 0, 1, 2, ..., where that "ellipsis" means awards can go up to infinity, which is exactly the hope of Millennials. In reality, of course, awards cap out. How many are possible depends on the situation. About which here we now knowing, since it's all made up anyway.

Poisson distributions allow infinity. Thus they will always be approximations to reality, which does not have infinities. How much an approximation this is in any case, and how loose the approximation, again depends on the situation. Really, an ordered multinomial-type situation is what always pertains. Number of anything falls into progressive buckets from zero to some fixed number.

But here we shall pretend, as everybody does, that the approximation is better than reality. What's the Deadly Sin of Reification among friends?

We already know how to do this. Lucky for us, MCMCpack creators did the work for us as they did with ordinary regression, but not for multinomial regression.

fit = MCMCpoisson(num_awards ~ prog*math,data=x)

We now (and you reviewed so you already know this) move to finding probabilities of scenarios; i.e. of finding

     Pr (Y | new X, old X&Y, Model & Assumptions)

where here Y = "0 awards" or "1 award", etc., X is the program and math score, and the model, including its assumptions about priors and so forth, we already discussed.

As ever, we have built-in scenarios in the old data. Hence

# single new data
p = MCMCpoisson.pred(fit,x[1,])
plot(p,xlab='num_awards', ylab='Pr(num_awards|D,M)')

I won't here show the plot, but it gives a spike at 0, with estimated probability of about 0.87 , a probability of 0.12 for 1 award, about 0.01 for 2 awards, and close-enough-for-most-folks 0 for 3 and 4 awards. This is for an (as typing x[1,] in R shows) a person in a NEW person in a Vocational program and math score of 41.

It is for a NEW person because, as you remember from your reviewing, we do not need probability models to tell us what happened. We just look!

What if we wanted to compare the probability for a person with the same math score but in an Academic vocation? Like this, which is a real pain in the keister:

w = x[12,] # where I hunted for an x that had Academic
w$math = 41
p = MCMCpoisson.pred(fit,w)
plot(p,xlab='num_awards', ylab='Pr(num_awards|D,M)')

I get probability of 0.77 for 0 awards, 0.20 for 1, 0.03 for 2, and near-enough-0 for the rest.

But why can't we do this?

w = x[1,]
w$prog = 'Academic'
p = MCMCpoisson.pred(fit,w)

Because R strips the class of factor from w$prog and turns it into a character. Recall whatever we pass into the prediction functions has to be the same kind of data.frame that went in. The variable prog went in as a factor with 3 levels, and not a character. You might try this:

w = x[1,]
w$prog = 'Academic'
levels(w$prog) = levels(x$prog)

But that turns w$prog to General! I do not know why R strips the class from a factor variable when there is only one row upon substitutions, but it does. For instance, we can do this:

w = x[1:2,]
w$prog[1] = 'Academic'
w = w[-2,]

That works fine: summary(w) shows w$prog is still a three level factor.

So here is the solution:

w = x[1,]
w$prog[1] = 'Academic'
p = MCMCpoisson.pred(fit,w)

That [1] on the second line does the trick! Like I said, pain in the keister.

Okay, let's do our old trick of using all the old data as scenarios. First let's get the probabilities.


# more complicated, because y is open ended; a guess has to be made in 
# number of cols of q; if subscript out of bounds, increase size
q = matrix(0,nrow(x),16)
for(i in 1:nrow(x)){
  a = MCMCpoisson.pred(fit,x[i,])
  q[i,1:length(a)]=a
}

We do not know the limit of the number of awards, but we have to store them. See that "16"? Try putting 8. It will break because some scenarios generate positive (defined as above machine limit) probability for number of awards larger than 7 (recall 0 awards takes a column in q). Of course, you could always put some huge number in place of 16 and never have a problem. Until you want to make pretty plots. As you see next.


par(mfrow=c(2,2))
for (i in levels(x$prog)){
  j = which(x$prog == i)
  plot(0:(dim(q)[2]-1),q[1,],xlab='num_awards', ylab='Pr(num_awards|D,M)', main=i,ylim=c(min(q),max(q)), xlim=c(0,8), type='l')
  for(k in 2:nrow(x)){
    lines(0:(dim(q)[2]-1),q[j[k],])
  }  
}

You can see we limit here the number of awards probabilities to stop at 8 (in the xlim). That obviously has to be changed depending on the application.

Every scenario results in a distribution, probabilities for number of awards from 0 to 8 (max shown). In the scenarios everybody has a program, which are only three, hence three plots. But everybody also has a math score, which obviously varies. That variability does not do too much to change the probability of awards for General or Vocational programs NEW people. But it must for Academic.

The next trick would be to make a plot of only Academic NEW people, where perhaps you color the distributions so that higher math scores are a brighter and brighter red (or whatever color scheme you like).

Math scores goes from 33 to 75. Another fun thing would be to put these scores into discrete decision buckets (which you recall from your review we must always do), and then make the same plots for each of these decision buckets. How? Use the cut function. Do maybe


x$math.cut = cut(x$math, breaks = c(0,45, 52, 59, 80))

which chunks it into the observed quartiles, Do this only if these make sensible decision points. Then you need only change the code above to reflect the new plot, e.g.

...
for (i in levels(x$math.cut)){
j = which(x$math.cut == i)
...

I did it and it worked fine, and showed something interesting. That's your homework!

Next time tobit regression.

August 15, 2018 | 83 Comments

Priests Oriented Toward Males & The New Crisis — Updates

There are no such things as “gays”. There are no such as “heterosexuals”, either1. There are men who have properly ordered sexual desires or, at times or for long periods, have intrinsically disordered sexual desires—of every kind, not just toward other males.

There does exist in our culture a subculture of “gays”, with its own tropes, customs, and habits, including the use of preposterous accents when the occasion suits, but the existence of this subculture is not to say there are “gays” in the same sense there are (procreative) males and females. And it is not to say that the people who enter into this subculture remain rigorously within its bounds at all times. They can and do stray.

Even scientists, poorly trained as they are in philosophy and metaphysics, though you would have thought they would have grasped the fundamentals of reproductive biology by now, are finally coming around to this view. (This is only one reference of many: see footnote.)

Allowing the use of the terms gay, lesbian, or any of the other dozens upon growing dozens of terms that describe non-procreative sexual desire as if these terms describe in an essential sense a category of people like male and female leads, has led, and will continue to lead to a certain painful and false judgment.

That judgement is the on-going abuse crisis in the Church is due to a misuse of “power”.

That is false at its core, though power is misused by bishops covering up crimes and by priests and bishops in choosing their victims. Power would not have been abused, and the crisis would not be with us, if it were acknowledged there are no such thing as “gays”. Recognizing men who self-identify as having intrinsically disordered sexual desires as being “gay”, having men who are told to identify as having these desires, can only encourage them to act on these desires.

And they have acted upon them. Repeatedly, often, and in every place these misconceptions are promoted.

Would you trust your teenage son to be alone with a priest who self-acknowledges the desire to have sex with your teenage son? Even if the priest says he will not act on these desires?

The answer, given by common sense and by all human experience, is obvious.

You’d give the same answer were you to substitute your wife or daughter into the question. But you never hear of priests asked to self-identify as men who desire sex with parishioner’s wives and daughters. Yet, as for the latter, even now there is a clamor for recognizing pedophilia as an “orientation” (in the same sense as “gay”). If the priest stood up and said “I am gay”, he is almost congratulated, if not actually celebrated, and nothing untoward is thought of it. But if a priest said, “I find the women (or girls) of this parish sexual desirable”, he’d be ousted.

Virtue is tough, and men slip. Perfection is impossible and cannot be expected. But it must always be aimed for. Allowing those with self-identified intrinsically disordered sexual desires to be priests tosses perfection out the window, not as something unattainable, which is admitted, but as undesirable, which is insane.

(The latest hip “orientation” is asexual, which is no sexual attraction at all. Which proves even the non-religious understand that this is possible.)

Allowing priests to call themselves “gay” says, implicitly at least but sometimes also explicitly, there is “nothing wrong” with the priest. Which is false. What is wrong with him is his intrinsically disordered sexual desire. Bolstering his self-identification as “gay” can only lead to the false and heretical belief that God created gays, that gays have certain gifts and qualities the rest of us don’t. That when gay desires are acted upon, which they will be for some, that they is not that bad, and certainly not a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. All of which, as readers know, was exactly what happened.

So now we have the latest revelations, which fit into the same pattern as earlier revelations. Victims were mostly male, mostly teens (“One priest was willing to admit to molesting boys, but denied reports from two girls who had been abused; ‘they don’t have a penis’ he explained.”) As was also found in the John Jay report. The details are so sickening that the least punishment is booting all malefactors from the priesthood and the cashiering of all involved bishops. Though stringing up the worst is preferred.

I’ve seen estimates of anywhere from 20-50% of the priesthood self-identifies as having intrinsically disordered sexual desires. The population numbers are around 1-3%, growing higher in millennials (maybe up to 15%). Allowing self-identification as sexual desire causes subcultures to thrive. The subcultures cause the abuse. The abuse causes the cover-ups.

Pope Benedict recognized this and, believe it or not, so does Pope Francis, or so reports say.

According to various Italian news reports following a closed-door session with Italian bishops, Pope Francis on Monday [in late May 2018] said that men with “deeply rooted” homosexual tendencies, or who “practice homosexual acts,” shouldn’t be allowed into the seminary.

A report by Vatican Insider says Francis told the Italian prelates: “These tendencies, when they are ‘deeply rooted,’ and the practice of homosexual acts, can compromise the life of the seminary beyond that of the young man himself and his eventual future priesthood.”

Pope Francis’s judgement is correct. And borne out by events. The priesthood has been compromised grotesquely (in the West, and most especially the USA). It must be uncompromised. It must be purged.

If it isn’t, then what came out of Pittsburgh will continue to come out.

Addendum I do not agree with the grand jury that the statute of limitations be eliminated for criminal sexual abuse. This would effectively remove having to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. And false accusations do occur, especially when money is involved.

Update All parishioners in New York this early evening received an email from Cardinal Dolan (which is why I thought it important to respond to Kent below) in which Dolan says, Boy, isn’t the Church doing a great job with abuse now?

I believe that the recent case involving Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, as gut-wrenching as it was, exemplifies the progress that has been made in dealing with such cases. When the Archdiocese of New York received the complaint, we followed our normal protocol as we would for any priest, and everyone involved — from the Vatican on down — agreed that we must deal with the case openly and honestly. It is hard to imagine that such would have been the case 30 years ago.

Bullshit. The Church was dragged screaming and scheming to acknowledge McCarrick, where it was revealed “everybody knew”. And that everybody probably included Dolan. “And while the Church in the past may have been an example of what not to do, today I believe it is a model of what to do to prevent sexual abuse, and how to respond when an accusation comes to light.”

Yes, just look at the list of complicit bishops who have resigned since McCarrick and Pittsburgh came to light. Where there’s, um, and there’s, ahh, and, well, yeah, the Church is doing a great job accepting responsibility.

Update Look at this nonsense from Cardinal O’Malley. He actually wrote he has to spend more time with his family.

UpdateWe are deeply saddened“. But not so sad that we’ll resign or do anything more than issue yet another strongly worded press release.

————————————————————–

1I have a much longer essay on this subject in my new forthcoming book (which is almost done! and still in need of a publisher). The terms homosexual and heterosexual are recent additions to English, added about a century ago originally to classify those with excessive and aberrational sexual behavior and the objects of those behaviors.

August 14, 2018 | 16 Comments

Regulate Information-Monopoly Tech Companies Before It’s Too Late

Hey. Did you know that people are putting chemicals in the water that turn the frickin’ frogs gay? he was booted by Apple, Facebook, Google’s YouTube and other platforms. For “hate speech.”

What’s “hate speech”? Speech not liked by progressives.

I Hate That

So Jones was booted for not being liked by progressives. Which is no difficult feat. Being unliked by progressives, that is. Joy, bonhomie, frank calm collegial openness to debate and charitable tolerance are not well known progressive traits. They’re woke, baby, and they’re going to make darn sure you know it.

According to offshore-bank-loving SPLC, it is called collusion. Why, that’s impeachable! I mean indictable. Where’s Robert Mueller when you need him?

Everybody knows Twitter bans and shadow bans non-progressive voices, including candidates for political office. Search for any non-progressive subject on Google, and then try it again on, say, Duck Duck Go. The differences show Google’s version of shadow bans.

YouTube squelches non-progressives videos, or demonitizes them. YouTube is also adding progressive propaganda to videos it considers insufficiently progressive.

Basta!

Enough! It’s time for it to end. We can no longer let these realityphobes, bigots, and general all-around humorless sourpusses say what we can see and what we can’t.

We must declare all major information-sharing companies public utilities and regulate them accordingly.

You wouldn’t stand for the electric company shutting off electricity to homes which voted for Trump, would you? Would you sit by idly while the phone company banned discussions—using the latest in “artificial intelligence” to filter live conversations—that they consider hurtful to progressive causes? Would you take lying down the water shutting off the taps in NRA offices?

Then why let Google, Apple, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter get away with it?

Answer: they shouldn’t. Let’s go after them.

Who runs your phone? I mean your cell phone. Almost certainly it’s Apple or Google. Who can deal without phones these days? Only a few; probably the same number that can live “off the grid”. Google search is used by the government itself, in many places. The news media would have to sit around and spin on their—notepads? “sources”?—if President “Thank God It’s” Trump didn’t use Twitter and provide them with fodder for their daily pretended “outrage”.

Incidentally, we ought to require licenses to practice journalism. We make doctors get them. And journalists constantly tell us they are at least as important to the health of the nation. If even barbers have to have licenses to trim sideburns, why do we let an army of lying, scheming, manipulative, agenda-driven, one-sided so-and-sos besmirch, belittle, and bedevil whomever they want with complete freedom?

They’re Everywhere

Never mind that. Look how deep the tendrils of Big Tech go. As one example out of thousands, the Food and Drug Administration, a branch of the Federal government, uses Twitter, Pinterest, and YouTube to disseminate official information. All of government relies on Google to catalog their webpages. Many agencies have Facebook pages.

These services have therefore become necessary to the fluid functioning of government and society. To the great self-satisfaction of the owners of these services at that.

The tech companies got what they wanted: monopoly control over on-line information delivery. They are now powerful public utilities. With that great power comes great responsibility, to coin a phrase. They need to be taught to use it wisely.

Now I am a great sinner with many terrible faults, but one of them is not being a lawyer. So I do not know how the law applies to this situation. I do know that the second-to-the-last thing we want is another government bureaucracy dedicated to the policing of internet traffic. Though these kinds of interventions do not appear to have hurt electricity and water delivery too badly.

I also know the last thing we want is to give control of information to forces hostile to reality, tradition and orthodox religion.