Rescuing a kidnapped girl from her predator captors

 

The BBC has the fascinating story of how a girl who'd been missing for six years was finally traced and rescued.  It's too long to cite everything here, but this excerpt gives you some idea of the care and attention to detail involved.

Squire and his team could see, from the type of light sockets and electrical outlets visible in the images, that Lucy was in North America. But that was about it.

They contacted Facebook, which at the time dominated the social media landscape, asking for help scouring uploaded family photos - to see if Lucy was in any of them. But Facebook, despite having facial recognition technology, said it "did not have the tools" to help.

So Squire and his colleagues analysed everything they could see in Lucy's room: the bedspread, her outfits, her stuffed toys. Looking for any element which might help.

And then they had a minor breakthrough. The team discovered that a sofa seen in some of the images was only sold regionally, not nationally, and therefore had a more limited customer base.

But that still amounted to about 40,000 people.

"At that point in the investigation, we're [still] looking at 29 states here in the US. I mean, you're talking about tens of thousands of addresses, and that's a very, very daunting task," says Squire.

The team looked for more clues. And that is when they realised something as mundane as the exposed brick wall in Lucy's bedroom could give them a lead.

"So, I started just Googling bricks and it wasn't too many searches [before] I found the Brick Industry Association," says Squire.

"And the woman on the phone was awesome. She was like, 'how can the brick industry help?'"

She offered to share the photo with brick experts all over the country. The response was almost immediate, he says.

One of the people who got in touch was John Harp, who had been working in brick sales since 1981.

"I noticed that the brick was a very pink-cast brick, and it had a little bit of a charcoal overlay on it. It was a modular eight-inch brick and it was square-edged," he says. "When I saw that, I knew exactly what the brick was," he adds.

It was, he told Squire, a "Flaming Alamo".

"[Our company] made that brick from the late 60s through about the middle part of the 80s, and I had sold millions of bricks from that plant."

Initially Squire was ecstatic, expecting they could access a digitised customer list. But Harp broke the news that the sales records were just a "pile of notes" that went back decades.

He did however reveal a key detail about bricks, Squire says.

"He goes: 'Bricks are heavy.' And he said: 'So heavy bricks don't go very far.'"

This changed everything. The team returned to the sofa customer list and narrowed that down to just those clients who lived within a 100-mile radius of Harp's brick factory in the US south-west.

There's much more at the link.  It's well worth reading in full, to give you some idea of the difficulties involved in tracing missing children.

The horrifying part of the story, to me at any rate, is that when police finally raided the house and rescued the girl, they learned she'd been raped by a sexual predator for six years.  Six years - and she was 12 years old when rescued.  That means she'd been missing and abused for half her life.  She was a child, with no resources to call on, no parent to lean on, nobody to help at all.  How she survived such abuse is something I can't comprehend.  Now in her 20's, she has a few things to say in the article about her experiences.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of missing children in our country.  Many of them were sent here by human traffickers, sold on to predators and abusers across the country.  It's heartbreaking to think that Lucy is only one such person.  If only we were all more alert to the warning signs, we might be able to help so many more . . .

Peter

The lighter side of relationships

 

This cartoon is a fun reminder of the early stages of relationships, when one is still finding out about the other's haps and mishaps, mistakes and corrections.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view on the "Foxes In Love" Web page.

Ah, memories . . . !

Peter

Cognitive dissonance - ammunition edition?

 

Fellow blogger Eaton Rapids Joe mentioned Republic Ammunition in a recent post, particularly their low-cost primers.  I took a look at their product line, and was intrigued to find this.

Er... um...

I can understand wanting to give your better half (?) a Valentine's Day gift that expresses your love.

However...

Is it wise to give your (current) better half a Valentine's Day gift that he/she can use against you if they (or you) decide that he/she/you is no longer their/your better half?

Not the sort of "target market" in which I'd like to participate!

Peter

That's mind-boggling...

 

Courtesy of a link provided by DiveMedic, we learn that human breast milk is one of the most complex systems nature has ever devised.

Milk is not just nutrition.
It is information.

. . .

When a baby nurses, microscopic amounts of saliva flow back into the breast. That saliva carries biological signals about the infant’s immune system. If the baby is getting sick, the mother’s body detects it.

Within hours, the milk changes.

White blood cells surge.
Macrophages multiply.
Targeted antibodies appear.

When the baby recovers, the milk returns to baseline.

This was not coincidence.
It was call and response.

A biological dialogue refined over millions of years. Invisible—until someone thought to listen.

. . .

Milk changes by time of day.
Foremilk differs from hindmilk.
Human milk contains over 200 oligosaccharides babies can’t digest—because they exist to feed beneficial gut bacteria.
Every mother’s milk is biologically unique.

. . .

Milk has been evolving for more than 200 million years—longer than dinosaurs walked the Earth. What we once dismissed as simple nourishment is one of the most sophisticated communication systems biology has ever produced.

Katie Hinde didn’t just study milk.
She revealed that nourishment is intelligence.
A living, responsive system shaping who we become before we ever speak.

There's more at the link.

That may be one of the most mind-blowing scientific analyses I've ever read.  I had no idea . . . and I guess most of the scientific and health community didn't, either.  It took one researcher who caught a glimpse of something tantalizing, enough to make her look further and go deeper - and she revealed a whole new wonder of nature.  Here's a TED talk she gave in 2018, before much of the most recent research was revealed.

The more I learn of this sort of complexity in nature, the more I shake my head at those who claim that evolution is responsible for everything, that we're merely cosmic "accidents", that there's no such thing as "intelligent design".  If there isn't, how does one account for the immense intelligence revealed just in the biological system of human milk - never mind everything else about us, and about life?

I know we'll never agree on that, but that's OK.  I'm just going to say, "Thank you, Lord", and leave it at that.

Peter

Boxing Day

 

The day after Christmas is known as Boxing Day in Britain and most Commonwealth nations.  I've had a few questions from American friends about why it's named that.  Wikipedia supplies a simple answer:

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the earliest attestation from Britain in 1743, defining it as "the day after Christmas day", and saying "traditionally on this day tradespeople, employees, etc., would receive presents or gratuities (a 'Christmas box') from their customers or employers."

The term "Christmas box" dates back to the 17th century, and among other things meant:

A present or gratuity given at Christmas: In Great Britain, usually confined to gratuities given to those who are supposed to have a vague claim upon the donor for services rendered to him as one of the general public by whom they are employed and paid, or as a customer of their legal employer; the undefined theory being that as they have done offices for this person, for which he has not directly paid them, some direct acknowledgement is becoming at Christmas.

In Britain, it was a custom for tradesmen to collect "Christmas boxes" of money or presents on the first weekday after Christmas as thanks for good service throughout the year. This is mentioned in Samuel Pepys' diary entry for 19 December 1663. This custom is linked to an older British tradition in which the servants of the wealthy were allowed the next day to visit their families since they would have had to serve their masters on Christmas Day. The employers would give each servant a box to take home containing gifts, bonuses, and sometimes leftover food. Until the late 20th century, there continued to be a tradition among many in the UK to give a Christmas gift, usually cash, to vendors, although not on Boxing Day, as many would not work on that day.

There's more at the link.

As a child in South Africa, I remember my parents putting together "Christmas boxes" (usually envelopes) for the workers who delivered mail, bottles of milk, and other services to our home.  They'd give them to the workers a couple of days before Christmas, rather than the day after, because so many of them would be hung over after Christmas and might not make it to work that day!

With the passing of the "servant era" in Western society, the concept of Boxing Day has died away, too.  I think that's a pity.  It's worth remembering those on whose service we rely every day of the year, and acknowledging that in some practical way.

Peter

An interesting conundrum

 

From Eaton Rapids Joe:

Are more people carrying "crazy-genes" then they did in the past?

The short answer is "yes".

As recently as 1900 in developed countries like Ireland, England and Germany, if your mother was crazy you were probably not going to live to see your first birthday ... In total, crazy-genes had a high probability of "dead-ending". In those days the pool of crazy people resulted from random meetings of recessive genes or in new mutations.

Flash-forward to the permissive, Welfare-State.

... back when "crazy-genes" self-extinguished we experienced a rate of approximately 5% seriously crazy people. Now the crazy-people genes are subsidized rather than exposed to Darwinian selection and the numbers are growing much faster (due to high risk behaviors) than the numbers of not-crazy people.

There's more at the link, including examples.  Recommended reading.

I hadn't made the connection in genetic terms.  Like almost everybody, I've noted the increase in the number of crazy-behaving "street people":  talking to themselves, gesticulating wildly even though they're not talking to anybody, behaving very oddly and sometimes self-destructively, and so on.  However, without thinking about it much, I'd assumed that much of this was due to the lack of mental health care (after the closure of most sanatoriums and institutional mental health care facilities).  I hadn't thought about the fact that the sheer survival rate of everyone, on average, also meant that more "crazy-genes" were also surviving, and therefore slowly increasing in proportion to the rest of the population.

So . . . if that's the case, how are we going to deal with the problem?  We can't very well simply execute those with "crazy-genes" - not and still regard ourselves as human beings.  On the other hand, we do them (and ourselves, and our society) no favors by allowing them to increasingly take over our streets.  What next?

Peter

Heh - seasonal edition

 

I do enjoy the "Foxes In Love" comic strip.  The author/artist gets so much right about human relationships.  Here's his entry for December 17th:  click the image to be taken to a larger view at the comic's Web page.

I would say "heartwarming", but I think "footwarming" is more the pursuer's intention!

Peter

Spicing up your (Regency) love life

 

I had to laugh at a review of a new book, "The Regency Guide to Seduction: Love Advice for Modern Heroines", by Lady Bennet-Down (an obvious nom de plume, but also witty).

The review says that the book "reveals how to introduce a soupçon of Regency romance into your search for a happily ever after".  Some highlights:

Here, in extracts from the book, the fictional author Lady Bennet-Down gives her tips on how to tackle the most modern of problems with all the grace of Austen heroines Emma Woodhouse, Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood.

First impressions

We’ve been chatting on the apps, and things were going well, but they’ve just sent me a d--k pic. What’s my next move?

The proper response depends on your sensibilities. Has this impromptu artwork left you thoroughly appalled? Perhaps a light quip or a sharp rebuke is in order. For example, “Thank you for that kind reminder to pick up some baby carrots.” Or how about a tactful silence?

Don’t be drawn into judgement too quickly

The time it takes to sip one sherry is not nearly enough to fully know a person or their suitability as a partner.

Dance like no one’s watching

If dancing isn’t your strength, remember: enthusiasm (and a shot of tequila) goes a long way.

There's much more at the link.  Entertaining stuff, particularly if you know your Regency period.

Peter

A good letter

 

Kudos to CDR Salamander for sharing a letter from Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll in preparation for the holiday season.  Mr. Driscoll addresses a long-standing problem, and offers hope.  Click the image below for a larger, more readable view.

I had some experience of that sort of stress during my own military service, decades ago.  Back in 2011, I wrote in these pages about a friend.

I remember Gavin, who was a member of a patrol that found a baby, too young to walk, sitting in the middle of a dirt road in a township, crying. As the point man and a couple of others walked up to see why the baby was just sitting there, the terrorists waiting in ambush blew up the landmine they'd buried beneath her, killing the point man and savagely mutilating the other two soldiers. Bits of flesh and blood from the soldiers, and the baby, splattered all over Gavin . . . across his face . . . in his eyes, nose and mouth.

For years, Gavin would start awake in the small hours at night, a scream of horror on his lips. "They blew up a baby! A baby!" Gavin's wife eventually left him, because she couldn't handle the strain of living with his nightmares. Psychiatric treatment couldn't break the cycle; nor could alcohol, or drugs (legal and illegal). Gavin took his own life at last, too tormented by what he'd seen to endure any longer, in the small hours every night, the parade of images across his closed eyelids. He was a hero in my book . . . and I'll always remember him as such.

There's more at the link.

There are too many like Gavin who never receive the help they need - not just combat stress and trauma, but the quiet accumulation of too many incidents, too much angst, too few friends.  I hope Secretary Driscoll's letter will help to reach them before it's too late.

Peter

Faith (sort of) and life

Stephan Pastis does it again.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

Any experienced pastor will tell you never to ask questions like that.  The answers might surprise you - particularly from children!

Peter

An alternative point of view concerning extremism

 

Yesterday I cited Rod Dreher at some length concerning right-wing extremism.  As usual, the responses were mixed:  some for his views, some against.  I find it concerning that some were absolutely dogmatic in their views - it was their way, or the highway, and their agreement or disagreement was absolute.  That's very dangerous.  You'll recall Oliver Cromwell's words to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Too many of us (including me, sadly) can assume that we are not mistaken, whereas our opponents are.  In many (but by no means all) cases, it would be a lot better for us to listen to the other side and see whether there's any common ground to be found, or a better approach to achieving something of importance to the society in which both of us live.

An anonymous reader, commenting on yesterday's article, provided a link to this post on X.com by a user calling himself "Wokal Distance".  I thought it made sense.  The reader who posted the link thought it rebutted Rod Dreher's perspective, but I think it does more to sustain it overall.  I decided to re-post the whole thing here, so you could compare and contrast them for yourselves.

I despise the Groyper movement, but if you want to understand where Fuentes gets purchase with young men I will tell you how it happened by telling you about my experience at the orientation night when my son joined elementary school band:

My 11 year old son son joined the elementary school band, and so I went to the parents orientation night which was held at a local high-school. As the night went on it became obvious to me why young men rage against the larger social system.

The classrooms were inundated with DEI messages and trans pride flags. On the walls there were posters, stickers and various decorations that all invoked the various totems if diversity. Black lives matter messaging, decolonization messaging, LGBTQ+ messaging, and basically ever sort of race and gender social justice messaging you can imagine was present. The advertisements for post secondary opportunities featured social justice education prominently, including advertising a course on indigenous ways of knowing" as something grade 12 students should pursue upon graduation.  Many of the teachers has "this is a safe space" sticker son their doors, and others had variations of "in this house" messaging on their doors or on the walls of the classroom.

The entire aesthetic which dominated the decoration of classrooms was the progressive leftist coded "in this house" and "be kind" aesthetic. As soon as you walked into a classroom there was no doubt as the the political leanings of whichever teacher occupied that classroom. The only way I can describe it is to say that progressive social justice activists have colonized the school and marked their territory. 

A woman in a mask (who was in charge) got up and read a number of land acknowledgements before acknowledging the contribution of indigenous people to ways of knowing. Standard leftist land acknowledgement boilerplate. Additionally, every interaction was done in the style of HR style professionalism mixed with progressive leftist coded gentle parenting.

When it comes to how the teachers behaved I am going to draw on both that night and the other times I have been at my sons school in order to explain it. To begin, the boys are treated almost as though they are defective girls. The feminine modes of interaction and socialization are treated as though they are the only legitimate modes of interaction and serve as the taken for granted way to properly interact and navigate the world. Almost all the authority figures at my sons school are women with almost no exceptions. One day my son found out that the school had hired a single male education Assistant, and my son came home and told me, in wondrous amazement, that he saw a "boy teacher" at school. The level of wonderment and surprise he expressed was on par with what I would expect if he had walked into school and seen a triceratops walking the hallways. 

My son often comes home from school and expresses utter frustration at the fact that his preferred way of communicating, as well as the things that are aligned with his temperament are treated as though they were somehow inferior. As he is 11 (and being assessed for autism) he lacks the correct technical language to describe this, so it generally shows up as him getting in trouble for being insufficiently "gentle" and "kind" in response to various passive aggressive power plays and instances of bullying carries out by his more socially developed (often) female peers. 

To say that band night was feminine coded would be an understatement. It would be more accurate to say that feminized modes of behavior and communication were embedded in every single interaction. It was a totally alien environment for anyone who isn't well versed in navigating the social codes of progressive leftist institutional spaces. It was like the slogan "the future is female" was taken to be a command delivered from God Himself turned into an education program.

Now, I want you to imagine what it is like for an 11 year old boy to be saturated in that environment day after day. he is an alien in his own school who is treated essentially like a ticking time bomb who needs to be effectively managed rather than engaged with an taught, and he knows this is happening. It is hard to overstate the level of hostility towards boys that is  floating around in the ambient culture of the school system. It isn’t so much that there is an explicit form of anti-male bigotry (although examples of that exist) it is more that there is an overall attitude of distaste for anything masculine and an utter indifference towards the interests, fortunes, and inner lives of young boys. The expectations, norms, rules, and standards of behavior cater to the sensibilities of girls and women.

This is the entire social system that a young boy goes through from when he is 6 years old all the way until he is graduated from university.

It’s an old trope on the right to say “imagine if the roles were  reversed,” but that would be to miss the point. I know that many on the left will say that all of this is perfectly acceptable because of historical injustices and the pursuit of Social Justice. What I want to  point out to you is how absurd the world must appear through the eyes of  the average 11 year-old boy. He is basically told he has a host of social advantages (white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege, etc) that he has never experienced and will never benefit from, and this justifies the system which he is immersed in. And the worst part is, if young men point any of this out, the very people who are doing it will look them in the eye with a straight face and deny that any of this ever happened. Making matters worse these men begin to figure out that the institutions have been used to advance a leftist political agenda that scapegoated their group (young white men), and when they point this out everyone in authority calls them evil bigots.

And all this happens during their formative years.

Now, Imagine you are a young white male.

You graduate from the school system and are released into the world only to find that the feminine modes of socialization pushed on you are entirely unfit for purpose. That the social skills you were taught fail utterly in both the job markets young men tend towards (construction, engineering, building, landscaping, etc) and have no purchase in the dating market where highly agentic, masculine, wealthy men have a huge advantage over the passive, docile "nice boy." On top of that, imagine that a great deal of the job listings that you peruse make it clear that preference will be given to women and "diverse" candidates, and that the job interview itself is full of shibboleths, coded statements, and trap questions meant to elicit responses that allow the hiring party to exclude anyone who isn't sufficiently versed in and aligned with the priorities of the DEI/Woke/Social Justice paradigm.

On top of that, that if a you do get a job you will exposed to various sensitivity trainings, DEI trainings, and intersectionality workshops in which your group (straight white men) are repeatedly scapegoated as the source of all the worlds pathologies. Laid at your feet are patriarchy, colonialism, racism, sexism and a great number of other social evils for which you are taken to be complicit in and have a responsibility for fixing in virtue of being a white male.

While all this is going on a series of scandals (COVID, Men in womens' sports, trans kids, etc) reveal to you the degree to which the institutions that make up the society you live in have adopted an ideology that is actively hostile to you because you are a straight white male, and have been denying you opportunity while scapegoating you for all societies problems and treating you like you are a defective girl.

Once you understand this, the real question is not "why are some young men radicalizing?" the real question is "why are there any young men at all who have not been radicalized?"

None of this is to excuse any of the extremist radicals who are attempting to harness the resentment and anger of young men for their evil purposes. The point is to get you to understand why young men will attach themselves to any voice who is willing to stridently call for the obliteration of the social system and ideology which lied to them during their formative years and is currently doing things which rob them of opportunities for advancement and success.

The institutions have totally blown their credibility with young men, and have completely destroyed young men's trust in institutions. Young men view the current set of social institutions as ideologically corrupt and totally illegitimate, and they view the narratives that emerge from those institutions as being expressions of as nothing more then a story told to legitimize an ideology which seeks to hold them back. As such, the institutions and their narratives have absolutely no normative pull on young Gen Z men. 

I am not saying the situation is hopeless, but unless you acknowledge what I have laid out here, and engage in a good faith attempt to understand what the school system, Universities, non-profits, HR departments, and other civic institutions have done to young men, you will never be able to gain their trust enough to lead them away from guys like Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, Andrew Torba, and other pathological influences.

That certainly highlights why so many of our young men are attracted to extremism in one form or another.  It's a chilling condemnation of what we've allowed our schools to become:  institutions where our children are brainwashed and propagandized, rather than educated.  I can't think of a better argument for home schooling than the description above.

Compare and contrast that to Rod Dreher's perspective, as covered in these pages yesterday and ten days ago.  What do you think, readers?

I've come out of a background where differences of opinion led - literally - to civil war, mass murder, and the utter destruction of the fabric of a nation.  I've seen it at first hand in the Third World far too often to be under any illusions about how bad it can get.  I would far rather talk than start shooting, unless and until the latter option becomes the only way to defend what one believes in - and yes, I've done that, too.

Only those who've seen and experienced how bad it can get have any real idea of the ultimate development of the mess we're in.  Ask those who served in Mogadishu, or "hot spots in Afghanistan or Iraq.  They know . . . and they don't want that to come here . . . but if we don't get a handle on extremism on both the left and the right wings of our body politic, it's going to come here.

Peter

Extremism redux: what's happening in Washington D.C.

 

About ten days ago I published an article titled "The tragic poison of extremism".  I quoted Rod Dreher at length, and his warnings about how anti-semitic and far-right-wing thinking were becoming real dangers on the right wing of American politics.  A lively discussion ensued in Comments, with some for and some against those views.

Yesterday Mr. Dreher published a follow-up article titled "What I Saw And Heard In Washington".  Here are a few excerpts.

It was an intense and busy long weekend for me in the capital city. I learned a hell of a lot about the new radicalism racing through the young Right there. What I’m going to say about it is to inform you. Nobody talked to me on the record. What I say is my impression of a number of conversations I had with people (conservatives) who are directly involved in this world. Every one of them is appalled by what’s happening (well, maybe not one of the guys, but he always plays his cards close to his vest), and all have serious doubts about the ability of the institutional Right to deal with it. It’s easier for me simply to do a mash-up of all the things I heard, rather than try to attribute them to people I can’t quote by name anyway. Remember, this is a diary, not a newspaper.

. . .

I asked one astute Zoomer what the Groypers actually wanted (meaning, what were their demands). He said, “They don’t have any. They just want to tear everything down.”

Then he went on to explain in calm, rational detail why his generation is so utterly screwed. The problems are mostly economic and material, in his view (and this is something echoed by other conversations). They don’t have good career prospects, they’ll probably never be able to buy a home, many are heavily indebted with student loans that they were advised by authorities to take out, and the idea that they are likely to marry and start families seems increasingly remote.

Moreover, they grew up in a country that had lost its common culture. Many of these young men are fatherless. Most of them spent their youths being told that as whites, and especially as white males, they are what’s wrong with the world. Their own speech was policed with Stasi-like ruthlessness for racism and bigotry, while people on the Left routinely slandered whites, males, Christians, and heterosexuals — and were even rewarded for it.

F—k that, seems to be the reaction now.

. . .

The inability of us older people — Boomers, Xers, and older Millennials — to comprehend the world through the eyes of Zoomers is a big, big problem. Another strong theme: while it’s important to take a clear stand against anti-Semitism in the ranks, there is no way to gatekeep our way out of this. You cannot simply point at the Zoomers and say, “Thou shalt not,” and expect it to work. The problems are too deep and complex, and anyway, they have learned to have no respect for authority.

Why should they? The institutions of our society, as they see it, have lied and lied and lied, and still lie. They still lie in many ways about race (e.g., refusing to be honest about black crime), they lied about Covid, they lied about males and females, and they forced the insanity of gender ideology on us all. The military lied about Iraq. The universities embraced and enforced ideologies of lies. The Catholic Church lied about sexual abuse, and the connection to the prevalence of sexually active gay priests honeycombing the institution. They lied about the benefits of mass migration and diversity. They lied about Trump and Russia. The political parties and their corporate allies lied about what globalism would mean for ordinary people. The media have lied and do lie about most things.

. . .

I could go on — boy, could I — but you get the idea. Trust in the system is gone. Hell, I share most of these conclusions myself! The difference is that I am not a nihilist; I don’t want to tear it all down, but rather reform it. There are no historical examples in which “tearing it all down” produced a better, more just, more functional order. The Zoomers don’t seem to have any knowledge of history, nor do they care about it.

They don’t even take Trump all that seriously, it appears. They see him as an out-of-touch Boomer whose value lies in how he can be used to achieve the system’s destruction. It has not escaped their notice that the ten months into Trump’s second term, the economy is still crap. As an American living abroad in a more affordable country, going to coffee shops, bars and restaurants, I was stunned by how expensive everyday life is in the US. The recent opinion polls showing that by a large margin, most Americans (not only Zoomers) are down on the Trump administration’s handling of the economy — that reflects the good judgment of the American people, I’m sorry to say. If the Republicans don’t get their act together, and fast, they’re going to be shellacked in the 2026 midterms.

There's more at the link.

As I said in my earlier article, I highly recommend that you click over to Mr. Dreher's latest essay and read it in full for yourself.  You may not agree with all that he says, but he'll certainly give you plentiful food for thought.

Peter

Talk about entitlement!

 

Courtesy of Midwest Chick, here's a social media post highlighting just how entitled to free handouts many people think they are in this benighted country.

There's a brief video clip at the link, showing his feelings - no, his absolute conviction - of entitlement.  I urge you to click over there and watch it for yourself.

EBT funds - i.e. the so-called "food stamp" program - are due to run out in November, thanks to the current government shutdown preventing Congress from reauthorizing that expenditure.  There are millions of Americans who are angry, upset, even panic-stricken at the thought of losing them.

My first reaction is that the bloated mess that such food assistance has become is long overdue to be cut back to essentials only - no sodas, no pizza, no lobster tails, no chips-and-dip, just basic supplies of regular, nutritious food that will provide an adequate daily diet for a typical family.  If that gores the ox of the suppliers of soda and sweets, so be it.  Why should my taxpayer dollars support such waste?

My second reaction is that food stamps were intended (back when they were first thought of) to be a temporary means of assistance to families who found themselves suddenly without sufficient income to make it on their own.  They were never intended to become a multi-year freebie handout to people who would never work hard enough to restore their family finances sufficiently to get off food stamps!  Sadly, that's what they've become in all too many cases.  I called an acquaintance yesterday who works in the social services department of a major municipality, and asked her what proportion of EBT recipients there had been getting those benefits for longer than a year.  She reckoned that more than half of the cases in her city had been getting those benefits for longer than five years.  So much for temporary assistance!

I'm not heartless or uncharitable, but it seems to me that requiring 20-odd hours of work per week to qualify for EBT/food stamps is hardly unreasonable.  Any reasonably able-bodied adult should be able to contribute that to his/her support.  To the man refusing to do so - sucks to be your kids, I guess, because they're going to go hungry thanks to your fecklessness and laziness (not to mention your amazing sense of entitlement and superiority).  Buddy, this taxpayer does not work for you, and isn't willing to tolerate your attitude any longer.

I'm sure my readers can cite examples of their own where they've seen this sort of entitled attitude in action.  Let us know about them in Comments.

Peter

The fascinating history of string and rope

 

A very interesting article in Hakai magazine tells the story.

In his 1956 book The Marlinspike Sailor, marine illustrator Hervey Garrett Smith wrote that rope is “probably the most remarkable product known to mankind.” On its own, a stray thread cannot accomplish much. But when several fibers are twisted into yarn, and yarn into strands, and strands into string or rope, a once feeble thing becomes both strong and flexible—a hybrid material of limitless possibility. A string can cut, choke, and trip; it can also link, bandage, and reel. String makes it possible to sew, to shoot an arrow, to strum a chord. It’s difficult to think of an aspect of human culture that is not laced through with some form of string or rope; it has helped us develop shelter, clothing, agriculture, weaponry, art, mathematics, and oral hygiene. Without string, our ancestors could not have domesticated horses and cattle or efficiently plowed the earth to grow crops. If not for rope, the great stone monuments of the world—Stonehenge, the Pyramids at Giza, the moai of Easter Island—would still be recumbent. In a fiberless world, the age of naval exploration would never have happened; early light bulbs would have lacked suitable filaments; the pendulum would never have inspired advances in physics and timekeeping; and there would be no Golden Gate Bridge, no tennis shoes, no Beethoven’s fifth symphony.

“Everybody knows about fire and the wheel, but string is one of the most powerful tools and really the most overlooked,” says Saskia Wolsak, an ethnobotanist at the University of British Columbia who recently began a PhD on the cultural history of string. “It’s relatively invisible until you start looking for it. Then you see it everywhere.”

Precisely when people began to twine, loop, and knot is unknowable, but we can say with reasonable confidence that string and rope are some of the most ancient materials used by humankind. At first, our ancestors likely harvested nature’s ready-made threads and cordage, such as vines, reeds, grass, and roots. If traditional medicine and existing Indigenous cultures are any clue, early humans may have even used spider silk to catch fish and bandage wounds. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years ago, people realized they could extract fibers from the hair and tissues of animals, as well as from the husks, leaves, and innards of certain sinewy, pulpy, or pliant plants, such as agave, cannabis, coconut, cotton, and jute. By twisting these natural fibers around one another again and again, they formed a material of superb resilience and versatility.

. . .

Although string and rope began to take shape on land, it was the ocean that unleashed the full potential of cordage. The earliest watercraft were probably rafts lashed together from branches or bamboo, and dugout canoes carved from logs, such as the 10,000-year-old Pesse canoe discovered in 1955 during motorway construction in the Netherlands. At first, the only means of propulsion were oars, poles, and the whim of the currents. Sailing required a critical insight: that the wind, like a wild animal, could be caught, tamed, and harnessed. A mast and sail, which is really just a tightly knit sheet of string, could trap the wind; long coils of sturdy rope could hoist and pivot the sail. String transformed seagoing vessels from floating lumber to elegant marionettes, animated by the wind and maneuvered by human will.

There's much more at the link.

Most of us are never exposed to the intricacies of complex string and rope work, but sailors - particularly those on ships still powered by sail, rather than engines - deal with it every day.  I recall when I first went aboard a racing yacht in South Africa, and saw the skipper - a salty seaman indeed, the living definition of the term - splicing two lines together, not just as a simple joint, but one so carefully crafted that it could fit through a block without jamming it.  I didn't even know that was possible.

I've also read many books about how string and rope were vital in historic vessels.  Tim Severin's voyages of exploration, Thor Heyerdahl's adventures with Kon-Tiki and the Ra expeditions, and many others caught and have kept my imagination for decades.  After reading this article, they'll be even more interesting to me.

Peter

From the cities to the heartland: a new American exodus?

 

Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox have published a two-part investigation into internal migration patterns in the USA.  They demonstrate that more and more people are choosing to move out of or away from big cities, and move to smaller towns and rural areas, largely due to quality-of-life considerations.

The first article is "Exodus: Affordability Crisis Sends Americans Packing From Big Cities".

Urban cores have started to shrink, losing first to the suburbs, then to ever further exurbs, and now to small towns and even rural areas. For the first time since the 19th century, America’s growth pattern favors smaller metros – Fargo, North Dakota, as opposed to Portland, Oregon – many of which once seemed out of favor.

This transformation can be hard to detect because demographers often discuss metropolitan regions, which put city centers at their cores. But this method of classification masks the trend that much of the growth is at the edges of these areas. In virtually all the fastest-growing metros, it has been the further-out exurbs, themselves until recently rural areas, that have experienced most of the expansion.

. . .

Between 2010 and 2020, the suburbs and exurbs of the major metropolitan areas gained 2 million net domestic migrants, while the urban core counties lost 2.7 million. The pandemic, which normalized remote work and encouraged people to keep their distance, turbocharged this movement to smaller, less crowded, less expensive housing markets.

The second article is "Revival: Americans Heading Back to the Hinterlands".

More than faux urbanism is driving this shift. For many, there’s a “back to roots” movement to return home or to someplace that seems less anonymous. Millennials, one commentator suggests, may be more “socially conscious,” but they do not necessarily favor the ideal top-down structure embraced by earlier generations; they prefer smaller units of governance to larger ones. A recent National Journal poll found that less than one-third of millennials favor federal solutions over local ones. They are far less trusting of major institutions than their Gen X predecessors.

Like millennials, immigrants are also moving to smaller cities and towns for affordable opportunities. Their attraction to areas – like the movement of African Americans to the South – belies common media and academic narratives that these areas are rife with intolerance, “dying from whiteness.” 

Wandering around a park in downtown Omaha on a Sunday, you can find diversity no less present than in Los Angeles or New York.

. . .

These smaller communities throughout the country are poised to play an outsize role in forging our future. They are shedding their reputations as closed and intolerant enclaves while attracting a stream of investment from both domestic and foreign sources. The middle of the country now accounts for the states rated by Site Selection Magazine as the best for manufacturing investments.

Both articles are worth reading, and provide a perspective on America today that one doesn't often see in the mainstream media.  Recommended reading, particularly if you're wanting to move away from big cities with their toxic stew of political, social and cultural extremism and to a more family-friendly community.

Peter

So much for customer service

 

Quoth The Raven laments its death, and sees an opportunity.

Everywhere you go, everything you do, every service you pay for—it feels like customer service simply no longer exists. And even worse, most places you go actually make you feel like an asshole for daring to be a customer in the first place. I catch myself constantly asking, “Why am I putting up with this shit?” right before looking down at the Cheez-Doodles or baseball cap I’ve somehow convinced myself I can’t live without.

Because here’s the ugly truth: service is dead. The only thing still alive is the endless, humiliating upsell and self-service. The drugstore, the bank, the dentist—it doesn’t matter. On a given day I interact with supposedly “best-in-class” businesses, and nearly every time I walk away feeling bent over a barrel. And this is when I’m choosing the premium option. The premium experience is still garbage.

Which is why, when I think about the future, I don’t see the next big opportunity as another buzzy app or sleek new product. It’s customer service. Full stop. Any company, in any industry, that actually treats its customers like human beings will have me throwing money at their doorstep.

. . .

God forbid I need to call anyone about anything. Changing an airline ticket? Calling my credit card company? Forget it. Every road leads to an automated voice system with the warmth of a Soviet switchboard. Look, I get it. It’s 2025. Most stuff can be handled online, and that’s great—I don’t want to talk to anyone if I don’t have to. But when I do need a human being—because no, chatbot Karen, you cannot solve this problem with a “help article”—there should be a way to reach one without descending into phone tree purgatory.

Then there’s the pièce de résistance: self-checkout. Bill Burr has a bit about stealing from self-checkout as payback for being conscripted into a job you never applied for. And honestly, he’s right. You’re not a customer anymore—you’re an unpaid employee scanning your own groceries while the one overworked human employee hovers like a prison guard, ready to pounce if you don’t place the cantaloupe in the “bagging area” fast enough. You’re damn right I’m stealing a bag. And I dare your lazy ass to chase me down Market Street to stop me.

So yes, customer service isn’t dying—it’s dead. Buried. Cremated. Scattered to the wind. What’s left is a charade where companies pretend to offer “premium experiences” while nickel-and-diming you, automating you into oblivion, and treating your desire for basic service like an outrageous demand.

The opportunity is there for any business bold enough to zig while everyone else zags. Charge me more, fine. But make me feel like a customer, not a nuisance. Make me feel like I’m buying something, not auditioning for an FBI background check. Because until that happens? We’re all just paying top dollar to be reminded—daily—of how little most corporations actually think of their customers.

There's more at the link.

The corollary, of course, is that companies and businesses that emphasize customer service tend to do well at the best of times, and in more difficult economic conditions (like right now) still have enough customers to keep their heads above water.  A good example is the butchery my wife and I use.  The owner is friendly to everyone, goes out of his way to make sure we get the cuts and quality of meat we want, and will take time and trouble for special orders if we're willing to pay for them.  I just ordered about thirty pounds of assorted meats from him, in one-pound packages, including some that's not often ordered by his typical clientele and cut in a specific way.  He quoted me a price about a dollar or two per pound over supermarket prices, but the quality of his meat and the extra care he puts into satisfying our needs make that a bargain, as far as we're concerned.  Because he's willing to go the extra mile for us, we're willing to pay the extra dollar or two.  Everyone's happy.

The same applies to many of the businesses we patronize as a family.  We actively look for vendors who will listen to us and provide what we want.  If they do that, we give them our money and recommend them to our friends.  If they don't - if we're just another body or two off the street to them - then we have no reason in particular to shop there, and no reason in particular to go back.  I've taken to writing to businesses such as medical offices, etc. where I find myself treated like just another digit in the system.  I complain about it, give examples of how they treated me, and inform them that I'll be looking for more professional care somewhere else.  A few care enough to respond.  Most don't seem to care at all.  They're too busy being good little bureaucrats in the health care machine.

We surely can't be the only people operating that way.  How about you, readers?  Do you actively look for good customer service, let them know you appreciate it, and recommend them to others?  Or doesn't it matter that much any more?  I'd like to hear your perspective.

Peter

Let's give Cracker Barrel some food for thought...

 

... courtesy of Stephan Pastis.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

Think that's toxically masculine enough for their new "woke" approach to reject?

Peter

Allergies, and what works for you

 

This summer has been a bad one for those suffering from allergies in northern Texas.  We've had much more rain and humidity than normal, so the plants have flourished and given off pollen, seeds and what have you much more prolifically than usual.  My wife's "normal" allergy to some grasses got so bad she couldn't even cut the yard, or be out there while someone else did it.  I've had a really nasty post-nasal drip that got bad enough to affect my lungs, coughing up chunks.  It hasn't been fun.

We've tried almost everything.  My wife gets a weekly anti-allergy shot, and uses Allegra-D and other medications to try to keep things under control.  I've tried almost everything, from Allegra-D and Claritin-D through the gamut of lesser antihistamines.  I've finally settled on Fluticasone nasal spray as the most effective solution I can find to cut down my post-nasal drip;  it's not a complete answer, but it makes it controllable.

The interesting thing is that almost everyone seems to have their own favorite anti-allergy medication, but few agree on the same one.  Among our friends, there are almost as many preferences as there are brands on the supermarket shelf.  That being the case, I thought I'd ask you, dear readers, for your favorite anti-allergy medication.  What works for you?  What doesn't work, in your experience?  Perhaps, if enough of us comment, we can figure out whether there's something that works for most people, or whether it's still going to be a guessing game for each individual to work out for themselves.

Over to you!

Peter

An interesting intersection of culture and war

 

One of Japan's grand masters of the tea ceremony died recently.  His obituary contained an interesting anecdote from his service in World War II.

Sen Soshitsu XV, who has died aged 102, was known in Japan as the 15th Urasenke Grand Tea Master and descendant of Sen Rikyu, the Japanese sage who perfected chado – “the way of tea”, commonly known as the Japanese tea ceremony – and raised it to the level of art.

Though tea-drinking was taken to Japan from China in the 9th century, it was Rikyu in the 16th century who laid down the rules of chado, incorporating elements of Zen Buddhism, Shinto and even, it is said, elements of the Catholic Mass, creating a ceremony which, though elaborate in its combination of ritual, meditation and aesthetics, celebrates the beauty of simplicity.

Rikyu’s legacy has been preserved by the members of the San-Senke, or “three tea ceremony” schools of the Sen family – of which the Urasenke is the most famous. Sen Soshitsu assumed the position of Grand Master of the school from his father in 1964.

. . .

He was born Sen Masaoki (he would inherit the name Soshitsu on succeeding his father as Grand Tea Master) in Kyoto on April 19 1923, the year of the Great Kanto Earthquake which devastated Tokyo and Yokohama; he was the eldest son of Sen Soshitsu XIV, the 14th head of the Urasenke tea school, and his wife Kayoko.

While reading economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto during the Second World War, he was called up for service in the Imperial Japanese navy. He volunteered as a kamikaze pilot but was turned down because the imperial authorities did not want to jeopardise the future of a revered hereditary tea dynasty.

There's more at the link.

Considering the disregard for human life - their own and the enemy's - shown by Japanese military leaders before and during the Second World War, it's incongruous to think that they would rate their traditional tea ceremony and its practitioners as more important than killing the enemy by committing suicide in a last-ditch defense of their homeland.  The Western mind doesn't work that way.  That's probably an indictment of our own "if you kill enough of them, they stop fighting" approach, which would seem to rule out any and every consideration of culture and tradition on both sides.

Peter

What happens to trust when anything can be faked?

 

Ted Gioia asks the question.

It is now possible to alter reality and every kind of historical record—and perhaps irrevocably. The technology for creating fake audio, video, and text has improved enormously in just the last few months. We will soon reach—or may have already reached—a tipping point where it’s impossible to tell the difference between truth and deception.

• Can I tell the difference between a fake AI video and a real video? A few months ago, I would have said yes. But now I’m not so sure.
• Can I tell the difference between fake AI music and human music? I still think I can discern a difference in complex genres, but this is a lot harder than it was just a few months ago.
• Can I tell the difference between a fake AI book and a real book by a human author? I’m fairly confident I can do this for a book on a subject I know well, but if I’m operating outside my core expertise, I might fail.

At the current rate of technological advance, all reliable ways of validating truth will soon be gone. My best guess is that we have another 12 months to enjoy some degree of confidence in our shared sense of reality.

But what happens when it’s gone?

. . .

Consider those loonies who believe that the Apollo moon landing never happened. Now imagine a world in which everybody is like that about everything—because nothing can be proven.

We have always lived in a world of disputes, but never on this new level of total skepticism. Consider a football game: I think the ref made a bad call, and you disagree—but at least we both believe that a game is actually happening.

Not anymore.

We once disagreed on how we interpreted events. Now we can’t even agree on the existence of events.

There's more at the link.  Go read the whole thing.  It's worth it.

That's a very good question.  It has very serious implications for every aspect of our lives, from the micro to the macro.  Consider:

• If a government announces the existence of a new and purportedly dangerous virus, and orders everyone to be vaccinated against it, how many of us will believe them?  After COVID-19, you can bet your bottom dollar I won't, even if they broadcast video of sufferers from the disease collapsing and dying on camera - because my immediate suspicion will be that they've faked the video.
• If two nation-states at war (think Russia and Ukraine) make claims about battlefield successes, or trumpet the success of an air strike, whom do we believe?  We aren't there to see for ourselves.  The only evidence we have will be video clips on Twitter or Tiktok.  How do we know they're genuine?  How do we know whether an atrocity, or an incident described as a casus belli, actually took place at all?
• If convictions in court rely on technological tools such as security camera footage, what will the jury do if the defendant's lawyers claim that the cops faked the footage?  The odds of that happening get better and better as the criminal justice system is challenged to take offenders off the streets.  We already know of cases where a criminal might not have committed a particular crime, but is railroaded by the "system" anyway, because the prosecutors and the cops "know" that he's committed many other crimes for which they can't obtain evidence to convict him.  Their answer - put him in jail for something, rather than let him off.  That may be karma catching up with him, but it's not justice.
• What about civil claims - say, a divorce case relying on video of a spouse committing adultery?  How many porn videos are already out there, purporting to show famous actresses having sex with someone, only for it to emerge that it's a "deep-fake", artificially contrived video showing the actress' head superimposed on someone else's body?

This is going to become worse by the day.  I don't know the answer, but Mr. Gioia is very right to ask the question.  What are we going to do about it?

Peter