I'm taking a 24 hour break from our series on digital art to observe election day in the United States.
Here are a few panels from a classic Al Williamson story for EC, written by the prophet Ray Bradbury.
For any youngsters out there who may need a little more of the background:
All right, who stepped off the path?
The 'butterfly effect' is a reductionist belief. The world does not work like this.
ReplyDeleteLyman did win yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIf this theory were true, every single breath we take would fundamentally change the world.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the art, it too is like a sci-fi counterfactual. It asks "What if Al Williamson had never studied with John Prentice." Oh how the world would have been different!
Anonymous-- you'll have to do better than "the world does not work like this" if you expect me to give up my best possible explanation for how a free and democratic people could elect a grotesque caricature of a human being. The alternative explanations are far too dark.
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head, "Trans kids", and parents losing custody of theirs for not going along with something so utterly abusive ?
DeleteBad man, or utter lunatics, and no option 3....
Exhibit A:
Deletehttps://queerdoc.com/nullectomy-nullification/
Kev Ferrara-- No, Bradbury only says that a breath COULD change the world, not that it would. Plenty of influential people-- from Sophocles to Jimi Hendrix-- are alleged to have suffocated for want of a breath, but there have also been trillions of breaths that have made no difference at all. We just got unlucky with this butterfly.
ReplyDeleteDavid, "The 'butterfly effect' is a reductionist belief. The world does not work like this." was me - for some reason I have to re-sign in every time I switch on my laptop, and I keep forgetting to do that!
ReplyDeleteyou'll have to do better than "the world does not work like this" if you expect me to give up my best possible explanation for how a free and democratic people could elect a grotesque caricature of a human being. The alternative explanations are far too dark.
Maybe they were voting for things other than the personality of the incumbent.
This Brit jus' sayin'.
"If this theory were true, every single breath we take would fundamentally change the world."
ReplyDeleteAnd it does, through all those tiny factors that we call chance — which can, for example, nudge the throw of a die, thereby winning or losing a fortune and changing the course of a life, and in turn the lives of others and yet others in a cascading effect. (Or take those microscopic conditions that determine which sperm cell out of many millions penetrates the ovum, and therefore which genes a child will have.)
Mathematical analysis shows that many systems, including the weather, are unstable: a minuscule change will propagate and grow bigger and bigger. So yes, the beat of a butterfly's wing, and every breath you take today, will significantly change the path of a hurricane next month, and so history from that point. That IS how the world works.
The "mistake" in Bradbury's story is not the notion that stepping on a butterfly in the past would change the course of history, but the suggestion that in visiting the past they could possibly AVOID changing history, whatever they did.
But of course, we cannot see the future and have no other timeline we can compare ours to, so we have no way to perceive the infinitely complex connections that bind every tiny event in the present to every consequential event in the future. And that's probably for the best.
"And it does."
ReplyDeleteDon't be absurd. There obviously is such a thing as an insignificant event. Most events are insignificant. Throw a kleenex in the toilet or the trash; it's a wash in terms of differential consequence.
And who in heck would trust the "mathematical analyses" that you refer to? Mathematical analyses of vastly complex systems are massively lossy things anyway; game-like and hermetic. Most models are dumb, and in ways the model makers generally haven't yet fathomed. The only accurate model of reality is reality itself. (Reliance on game-like models causes a lot of mischief in the world, especially as they allow headstrong "intellectuals" to believe they have all the answers, thus they should be given all the power.)
ReplyDeleteTrump knows exactly which lies will frighten ignorant people the most.
As has been stated many times elsewhere, this was a very basic election. Real inflation, real fentanyl problem, real wars, fake jobs numbers, fake politicians, fake media. Plus mental illness through the roof, gender goblins suddenly everywhere and a man in a dress running Health.
DeleteAh yes , the "for the want of nail" phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteChaotic systems are interesting. On one hand, small variations lead to very different outcomes. On the other hand, when seen from outside, all (most of) the possible outcome states look the same. It makes a huge difference if there's a tornado where you are or not, but at the same time there's always a tornado somewhere.
Also sometimes what you see as chaotic in one model or dimension is pretty deterministic in another. Like random processes vs. the law of large numbers, or the result of elections vs. the evolution of class relations.
On another note, I absolutely lost the ability to read that style of comics. I don't know why, but my mind starts to wander. Perhaps it's the wall of text, perhaps it's the fact that from a glance at the drawings, there's nothing happening.
"There obviously is such a thing as an insignificant event."
ReplyDeleteNo, there is not – not in the sense you propose – and the fact that there is not becomes obvious upon even very slight consideration, even discounting the theory. If you throw a tissue in the trash or in the toilet, that choice will forever change the distribution of stuff in the world in a small but definite way. At some point, that difference will inevitably have some minor consequence: an ant takes a detour around the tissue and is caught by a spider, say. So now bugs move around differently in the two scenarios, they're in other places at other times, which means birds and small rodents soon do as well. At some point, a cat is hit by a car in one of the cases but not the other, and some people's day changes. Traffic patterns become slightly different, which means that different accidents occur. The lives of some people become completely different, which in turn changes the lives of those around them. Soon, there are massive differences in the details between the two alternative worlds.
As for the mathematical models, they have in many cases been proven both mathematically and empirically. You don't need a particularly complex system to encounter chaotic behavior, either.
Ha, love the dumb smart guy chiming in anonymously. You spin a highly improbably yarn - where an insignificant event miraculously causes some significant consequence - as proof of your contention that "every single breath we take fundamentally changes the world." Do you even pay attention to what argument you're supposed to be making?
ReplyDeleteI for one would like one example of a "mathematical proof" that a butterfly flapping its wings can play any significant part in causing a tornado. Probably another miracle scenario.
~ FV
It's not an "improbable yarn" or "miraculous," it's an illustrative example of how minute changes in initial conditions will inevitably propagate and grow in a complex system such as our world. If you deny it it simply means you don't comprehend it.
DeleteImagine a ball falling down an infinite pachinko machine, bouncing off pins along the way. If you nudge the ball ever so slightly as it falls, it will hit the next pin slightly differently, and bounce off in a different direction. In a short while, its path will be completely different from what it would have been had you not nudged it. The world is full of systems that behave in this way.
As for the butterfly, it's the same thing: It's not that it "causes" a tornado, but that all such tiny fluctuations cause the weather to take a slightly different path than it otherwise would, and that these differences grow until the conditions for a tornado arise at some different time and place than they otherwise would.
Chaotic behavior has been proven mathematically for the partial differential equations of fluid dynamic models of the atmosphere, and can be observed empirically for example by repeatedly blowing smoke into a sealed chamber in a highly controlled manner: the plume of smoke will initially look the same, but very rapidly, tiny differences appear, with slight differences in the turbulence, which grow until the swirls of smoke make completely different patterns.
This is nerd sophistry. The "Ackchyually" meme come to life.
DeleteSay your name once into a tight wooden box lined with rubber.
Not all actions reverberate. Many dissipate. If any dissipate then your whole tack is wrong. Which it is. Entropy exists.
Not all actions are sufficient to perturb a chaotic system. Not all actions contribute to some larger cascading event that perturbs a chaotic system in any significant way. If any don't do either then your whole tack is wrong. Which it is.
A straw only breaks a camel's back when the camel's back is one straw's weight away from breaking. This is utterly obvious. And to think the straw's impact on the break is significant compared to, say, the 2,000 pound rhino that's also on his back shows a complete lack of perspective that there is a massive difference in contribution between the rhino and the piece of straw. It's like saying that the Holocaust was caused by a somewhat miscalibrated toaster that over-browned, in 1909, a piece of Hitler's lunch bread. Anything can break the camel's back once the rhino's there. You don't attribute credit for a soccer victory to the seamstress who fixed a rip in the goalie's shorts.
The concepts of significance and insignificance - akin to relative contribution - akin to inconsequential versus consequential - seem so basic to sanity that only someone with their ego attached to thinking in exceptions would require it explained. If you want to go through life believing that everything is consequential, you'll spend your day fairly well reeling and useless. Just know that when they studied how chess grandmasters thought about the game compared to weaker players, they found they considered far fewer lines, not far more, than the duffers.
Boffins verify hypothesis as fact
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNejyV46kBw&pp=ygUNQnVja2Fyb28gZ2FtZQ%3D%3D
"Not all actions reverberate. Many dissipate. If any dissipate then your whole tack is wrong. Which it is. Entropy exists.
DeleteNot all actions are sufficient to perturb a chaotic system. Not all actions contribute to some larger cascading event that perturbs a chaotic system in any significant way. If any don't do either then your whole tack is wrong. Which it is."
No, this is not correct. Once you have two different states of a system, they can, in practice, never again converge to the same state. (You are apparently aware of entropy.) So even if the differences don't immediately escalate, it's just a matter of time before a situation arises that *is* highly sensitive to initial conditions, and the scenarios begin to rapidly diverge. For weather (and fluid dynamics in general), crossing this threshold is called "turbulence," and as we know from experience, it is very common. It has been estimated (though not proven) that the theoretical threshold for weather prediction on Earth, with perfect models and near-perfect observations, is about 14 days: above that, even initially microscopic differences grow exponentially to the point where you have no idea what particular weather events will happen where.
To deny that tiny, imperceptible differences will cause major, unpredictable changes over time (i.e. the butterfly effect) is contrary to all common sense. Fill a box with Scrabble or Mahjong tiles, and tip them out so they scatter across the floor. Pick them up and put them back in the box as they were, and do it again. Do you think they will end up in the same arrangement as the first time, no matter how carefully you reproduce the action? Of course not, because the falling, collisions, bounces and sliding of the tiles are affected by minute, microscopic factors that you can never get exactly the same twice.
To think you could go back in time, simply take a breath, and the course of history would not be affected is like expecting the tiles to miraculously fall the same way twice. To get the same outcome, no single tiny factor can change. History might have roughly the same shape, but all the details would be different. (Make any change whatsoever a hundred years ago, and the candidates in this election would not be Trump and Harris, because they would never have been born.)
The difference between what you call "significant" and "insignificant" is that in one case the effect is predictable, while in the other it is chaotic and impossible to track or act upon. So in practice we treat it as "random" noise – chance (or Providence, if you're so inclined). That does not mean it isn't real and has consequences.
The tiles in both cases form gobbledigook that is of no relevance.
DeleteThe interpolated breath from the time traveller reconfigures changes similarly of no relevance (anything readable to a later civilisation comparing the two outcomes side by side). You're arguing against an inevitably inchoate result in both cases, when both have the same functional irrelevance at the macro or intelligable level.
"So even if the differences don't immediately escalate, [....] it's just a matter of time before a situation arises that *is* highly sensitive to initial conditions, and the scenarios begin to rapidly diverge"
- can you quantify that "matter of time" that creates this difference ? It's using infinitely more balls than any lottery, and alleging that the results will be somehow meaningful.
Maybe I'm wrong, though, and those two spilled boxes of paperclips do look excruciatingly dissimilar to Rainman....
Bill
"The tiles in both cases form gobbledigook that is of no relevance."
DeleteAre the details of which precise hairless apes happen to get into car accidents, and which ones meet and procreate, any more meaningful to an alien civilization or from a cosmic perspective? Yet to us, it kinda matters. Especially if you're arguing what-ifs around specific politicians.
"can you quantify that "matter of time" that creates this difference?"
Well, the comment you're responded to mentioned 14 days as the estimate for when even microscopic changes escalate to large-scale differences in weather patterns. Weather clearly affects human lives in all sorts of minor and major ways – from choice of what to wear to what day to invade Normandy – so from that point things are diverging in consequential ways. That's not to say that many lives won't continue along pretty much the same path, but in its particulars it won't be the same as it would otherwise have been. And given just slight changes in the conditions, it becomes an infinitesimal chance that the same sperm cell will impregnate the egg during sex (cf. the scattering tiles analogy), so anyone born – at least from natural conception – more than nine months later will be a genetically different individual.
The extent to which the larger sweep of history will change is more of an open question. What does WW2 look like if Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and FDR are never born? Does it happen at all? Even if we choose to believe that it and the outcome were both inevitable due to larger historical forces, it cannot be the WW2 we know, as all the details will necessarily be different.
You're making massive imaginary bridges, there, anonymous/e.
DeleteOnly an enormous number of 'microscopic changes' - let's call it figure X - , combining with other factors, will create any meaningful weather-event. Farting in the general direction of a butterfly won't.
When that's done, how's about meaningful change to human history ?
Fill the sahara with paperclips instead of sand. When you're done counting them, multiply figure X by your total.
Voila, you've stopped Hitler's birth.
Nah, not even then.
Try going back in time and marry his mother before her uncle does, should work. Or lead to Raymond Babbitt running Germany.
Bill.
(Trains will run-to-a-T, either way.)
DeleteBill
Can I just say that, while I'm glad to learn about the math behind the "butterfly effect," the real charm and artistry in the Ray Bradbury story is that the time travelers step out of their time machine and are relieved to see that everything looks physically unchanged. Then they notice that the sign on the company's wall contains the same message, but is written in a brutish, ugly phonetic spelling, rather than the English language the time travelers left behind. A nice artistic device for a writer. Only then do they begin to understand they've returned to a more squat, harsh world, so they ask about the outcome of the election.
ReplyDeleteI thought there might be a similar explain for the vulgar new world we are entering with yesterday's election. It's the only explanation I can think of. But I didn't mean to raise the mathematical odds of the descendant of the dead butterfly inspiring one particular Cro Magnon man to introduce beauty into the world.
"David, I get it—I understand and accept your reason for the Bradbury story as a search on why our 'Lie-Man' won. Forget the reasons political pundits keep throwing around; Trump won because Americans just weren't ready for a woman as President. Think about it: he won twice against highly qualified women, but lost when he went up against a man."
DeleteMovieac, that facile rationale is coping propaganda currently being distributed through Democratic corporate media. That you repeat it verbatim - already indoctrinated into it two days after the election - shows that you don't think for yourself. You just repeat what you are told, like a good corporate Democrat ward. The underlying argument is that everybody but you is dumb, everybody but you is racist and sexist. Flattering isn't it? Scary isn't it? These kinds of divisive demonizing arguments (that come out of the hard left activist college programs) are far more the reason Democrats are losing adherents than than anything else. People are sick of the manipulators and the easily-manipulated alike.
DeleteNo one smart enough to read this blog could be stupid enough to vote for that lying motherfucker Trump.
ReplyDeleteOr Kamala
DeleteIf extinguishing a butterfly was all it took to end the 'progressive' cultural madness that has been burning through the west over the last decade then I'd do it without hesitation. But unfortunately, as I said, that's not how the world works.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAnon: "So yes, the beat of a butterfly's wing, and every breath you take today, will significantly change the path of a hurricane next month…”
Consider the amount and force of air displacement caused by fast moving road traffic, trains and planes around the world every day, compared to a butterfly’s wing or a human breath. Why aren’t we living in a world of constant 100 mile an hour hurricanes ?
People have trouble thinking at multiple levels of granularity at the same time. A single ball on a peak is in unstable equilibrium, the simplest of chaotic systems; a thousand balls in a pachinko or Galton board will draw a Normal Gaussian shape every time. A butterfly might or might not cause a hurricane somewhere, but another might or might not destroy it; We have billions of butterflies, and tracking cause-effect relations is pointless. After all, there's a relation between the intensity and amount of hurricanes and average temperatures, and that's it.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world, chaos brings about randomness, and randomness brings about uniformity. Uniformity is a very strong law we can rely on, and we do. It's just that looking at the uniformity and the underlying chaos simultaneously gives us headaches.
"If this theory were true, every single breath we take would fundamentally change the world."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know it isn't doing so?
Tell us about all your world-shaking exhales, Robert.
DeleteWe are waiting with bated breath.
~ FV
The butterfly effect is a fun idea mulled over and argued among 23 year old philosophy students, but doesn't have much else in terms of legs. Still, it was a good post for yesterday's inexplicable result that is mysterious to pundits. Someone stepped in something and it's stuck to our shoes. I was hoping we had scraped it off. Still stinks in this time and place. I have no confidence that the smart ones will figure out how to disinfect the stench.
ReplyDeleteWes, the "baffled" “pundits” you speak of work for the corporate Democrat machine. They lie, manipulate, misinform, sow fear, and slander their opposition on behalf of that machine every second of the day. They lied about the polls and their opposition - and anybody honest connected to politics knew this - because if they told the truth, that would demoralize the “smart ones” like you who vote for their paymasters (who own the news stations, the politicians, and them) into not going out to the polls and maybe keeping them in power.
DeleteSince you consider yourself one of the “smart ones”, I’m glad to have this opportunity to help you understand the political media world we’re living in.
This is the "Queremos flan" situation that argentinian comedian Alfredo Casero coined in 2018.
ReplyDeleteA note (in spanish): https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/-queremos-flan-la-ironia-de-casero-contra-los-k-en-el-programa-de-fantino-y-la-reaccion-de-macri-201882017270
". . . I’m glad to have this opportunity to help you understand the political media world we’re living in."
ReplyDeleteOh thank God you're here! I was just beside myself.
Exhibit B
Deletehttps://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/3aeb27a24b457570ef79af3241c7100a
https://nypost.com/2022/11/29/biden-official-sam-brinton-used-allegedly-stolen-suitcase-for-a-month/
I've been reading your blog for a short time now and I have been enjoying it greatly. I missed the art discussions that I used to have on this forum called concept art.org which a few of your posters were members, it's omenspirits , and I want to share this YouTube site that I found that you may be interested in: https://youtu.be/gR04Nr4278E?si=9K1eRPdSqEDTb3EG
ReplyDeleteI don't too much about this Lyman guy, but if let me know if he opposes...
ReplyDelete-- Chemically castrating children due to the attention-seeking munchausen behavior of their mothers
-- Crushing the heads of ~10,000 viable babies a year with forceps for the crime of still being inside their mommies instead of outside of them
-- Continuing to rot out the core of our manufacturing system with cheaply made foreign goods, leaving us totally incapable of mobilizing in wartime
-- Letting violent criminals continue to terrorize our most vulnerable citizens in the inner cities, ensuring that they forever live in fear, that their property values remain low, their schools dysfunctional, and that no industry will ever build up around them
-- Eroding our two most basic human rights, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, at every turn
-- Turning the federal government into a $7 trillion make-work program, that wastes every dime we could otherwise spend on fundamentally improving human life
-- Orchestrating violent color revolutions to replace secular authoritarians with democratically-elected extremists in distant backwaters, leading to millions of innocent deaths a year
-- Ignoring our border laws, so that the labor market is flooded with cheap labor, destroying the ability of our poorest citizens to ever command a living wage
-- Turning the schools into propaganda outlets designed to cause our children to hate themselves and their country
-- Forcing the levers of supranational bodies to replicate these same politics in every other country on Earth
-- Creating networks of media outlets, "experts", and influencers to manufacture consent and consensus around these and many more equally despicable objectives
We're looking for someone to run in 2028.
Didn't mean to post the above anonymously. I'm not scared to admit I voted Trump.
ReplyDeleteYou crazy motherfucker you vote for Trump based on fake statistics from his bullshit tweets. You're pathetic.
ReplyDeleteLike every other country, I suppose, you pick the side that appear will do less harm, usually based on issues of importance to you.
ReplyDeleteThe hardcore Trump supporter look - to an outsider - a lttle, ehm, colourful. But the hardcore anti-Trumpers look radically unhinged.
Bill
"Make any change whatsoever a hundred years ago, and the candidates in this election would not be Trump and Harris, because they would never have been born."
ReplyDeleteWow! 100% total confidence is so impressive. I guess you can't be wrong then. I'm blown away with your ability to determine the future! You're a sorceror-soothsayer just like Nostradamus! Even without any proof whatsoever, just like him!
I kid, I kid! Just saying; radical counterfactuals are just fantasy toys of the mind, and time travel theory is hardly any better. And there's no way to test any of the theories you cling to at scale anyway, so they're unfalsifiable. Thus not really even a theory. e.g. You can't twice create the same initial conditions to test if a butterfly flapping its wings one additional time in a single particular flight has any differential effect on even a local real environment, let alone the future of the world. Small perturbations causing effects in a smoke chamber, say, is an absurdly reductive game-like model which is obviously not a reasonable analogy to any real-world system.
All to say, I don't think I can bear to answer, let alone read any additional of your intuhllectual arguments for why every exhale radically changes the world. I've said my bit; regarding significance, dissipation, entropy, etc. I can say more about the relationship between spectrum-disorders, myopia, scientism, game-like modeling, left-brain dominance, arrogance, and ego, but I won't. (Well, I guess I just did.) Anyway, best wishes you sadly unacknowledged genius.
"I've said my bit"
DeleteYou haven't said anything, other than "nuh-uh" and insisting you understand entropy better than all the scientists who developed the notion. Oh, and insults, so many insults.
"insisting you understand entropy better than all the scientists who developed the notion."
DeleteLove how you imply that you stand shoulder to shoulder with "all the scientists who developed the notion" of entropy. As well as all the theorists who developed the idea of the Butterfly Effect, no doubt. Guess with that kind of appeal to authority - and self-regard - you can't lose.
Find me one quote - forget even some gold standard demonstration - just one quote from a reputable scientist that guarantees that every event, no matter how miniscule, necessarily significantly changes the real world - or even the real local environment - in some significant way.
Please make sure - in searching for this quote - that you exclude those that include words such as "can", "could", "might", "may", "chance", "probability", or any other modal weasel word. And please bear in mind the sense I am using of terms such as "significant" as used earlier. (After all, you wouldn't want your argument to turn out to depend entirely on your own errors of reading comprehension.)
Eric Weinstein from Twitter: @EricRWeinstein
ReplyDeleteAre you also watching the brain trust of the Democratic Party who lost this election, now trying to figure out HOW they could possibly have lost this election?
As a highly visible Democrat who never thought this was going to be close or a “nail biter”, and who said publicly that the the polls were off and that there was reason to think that preference falsification could result in a *landslide*, do you think anyone would pick up the phone and call? There is zero interest. Not one intern. Not one consultant.
This is exactly like String Theory. For 40 years string theorists have hermetically sealed themselves in an imaginary universe where they are succeeding because they became the arbiters in a system called Peer Review. The Lords/Peers of String Theory do not talk with, and do not listen to commoners. As a result they enter into a curricular conversation.
Listening to what @maddow has to say about @KamalaHarris’ part in @SpeakerPelosi’s brilliant strategy with @PeteButtigieg to help @SenSchumer after @donlemon’s insightful analysis mirroring Joy @thereidout brutal truths following the @NPR @cnn exposés of Trump's devious plans is exactly the String theory vibe.
What does Cumrun say about Andy’s latest idea to build on Lenny’s insight to get around Eva’s paper showing that Ashok’s plan to use Juan’s discovery that Brian and Michio discussed recently on the 13th anniversary of Shamit’s paper tweaking David’s original epiphany, can only work if some speculations of Cumrun are true to begin with in Euclidean signature?
Oh and by the way, there are no other approaches beyond String Theory, because anyone not part of this circle is a self promoter saying “only words”. We will only need another 100 years before it gives fruit…
Well, this is what a cult sounds like. Communists build such elaborate circular worlds of internal references. As do members of spiritual, academic and religious orders.
My claim is that the Democratic leadership is a lucrative cult. It’s not a party. It’s not trying to win. It’s trying to serve its members and work towards winning as little as possible, consistent with first serving the personal needs of its senior leadership. It’s trying to pay its leadership in riches, prestige and control. It’s a payout system. What are all these people making financially? I don’t know. Nancy does alright. So does Rachel. But not all payment is monetary.
That is why their conversation is so bizarre. They need to fire each other. But the entire point of our party as they see it is to serve as a trough.
Take it from a pre-Dick Morris Democrat also focused on physics: the 1992 election 32 years ago brought us this madness in just the way that Ed Witten, Michael Green and John Schwarz brought us The Holy Revelation of String Theory 40 years ago in 1984.
The most important part of these cults is sealing out the critics as “interloping self promoting grifting charlatans.”
I wound love to come on MSNBC and discuss my pre-election claims that this was unlikely to be close and quite possibly a landslide. I would love to help the party fire its senior leadership. It is well past time to overthrow the party’s brain trust that leads us away from focusing on the welfare of working families, free speech, individualistic greatness, common sense, consumer protection, fair play, and into the arms of evil and madness.
The Clinton-Morris era needs to end. We need a revolt to overthrow our Lords and Masters. There is now no reason these people should be at the helm.
None.
Why do you let people like Richard repeat Trump's bullshit about abortion here. Fewer than 1% of abortions take place after viability, and most of those are performed because the fetus has a fatal condition or the pregnant woman’s life or health is at risk. That asshole Trump plays on fools by saying doctors are executing babies. Haven't we had enough lies?
ReplyDeleteViable as in elective abortion of healthy babies, rather than viable = developed sufficiently to survive outside the womb, I presume.
DeleteWhy was he allowed say it ? Apart from its being a factual description of one of the typical processes (remains the case regardless of one's stance on the overlapping venn diagram of mother's and child's respective rights), because free speech is a fundamental right. Which Richard, it seems, was prescient about.
Bill
Bill, I think Richard's stat comes from 1 million abortions/per year x 1% done after 25 weeks or so. That equals 10,000 so-called "viable" abortions. Most of which, after their hearts are stopped chemically and in order to be taken out of an undilated baby chute needs to have the skull crushed with a sopher clamp. Some large percentage of those, as anonymous says, are due to severe health issues. But we don't know the actual number that are aborted when viable and with no imminent health crisis.
DeleteNot sure why Richard's 10,000 number is being assigned to Trump. Most of the hardcore pro-lifers are women. Although Trump always starts discussions on every issue with a radical claim that gets everybody's attention. Then more nuanced discussions happen afterward. My understanding is that he doesn't believe in a national abortion ban and he believes, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did, that it's a state's rights issue.
~ FV
Thanks. I'd heard the termination rate was about a fifth (which is about the same as the UK and several european countries), so had vastly undestimated the US birth rate to say the least.
DeleteWas it Florida that had a ballot on the issue in tandem with the election ? Seems the sensible way to go for most contentious issues.
Bill
FV: Some large percentage of those, as anonymous says, are due to severe health issues. But we don't know the actual number that are aborted when viable and with no imminent health crisis.
DeleteThere is unfortunately little data on the matter. However, what little there is is instructive. When the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (an abortionist) did a small survey of their post-20 week abortions, they found that about a third were for health reasons. They went on to profile some of the other 2/3rds of women who sought to abort post-20 week babies—
"Catriona (20) only found out she was pregnant on Friday and was scanned at over 22 weeks gestation. She has had no pregnancy symptoms and has had the implant in since December. Catriona cannot continue with this pregnancy as she has so much she wants to do with her life before having a child.”
"Ella (25) has been using oral contraception but is now considering using a long-acting-reversible method as her contraceptive choice. She has two children, aged 6 years and under 1 year. Ella says she does not feel that she would be able to cope with having another child at this time in her life.”
"India (25) has PCOS and has not had a period since having her child in 2013 [2 years previously]. She had no idea she was pregnant until she started vomiting. Her boyfriend split up with her and is now in another relationship. India feels she cannot cope with another child on her own and is very clear she wants to end the pregnancy."
"Poppy (21) is hoping to gain a qualification to work with special needs children. She is currently working part- time and studying - it is not the right time to have a baby. Her boyfriend is aware and supportive. Poppy was unaware of her pregnancy – she quite often misses periods and thinks nothing of it."
"Lucy (27) is single and has three young children. Her previous relationship was abusive and she is just getting back on her feet. She feels she could not cope with another child at this time. As her periods were erratic and she was breastfeeding she did not realise she was pregnant"
"Chloe’s (25) partner kept changing his mind about continuing the pregnancy. He was violent and the relationship has ended. She decided she really wouldn’t cope with being a single parent."
"Niamh (32) has children and her relationship isn’t stable. On top of this both her parents have recently been diagnosed with serious illnesses. She couldn’t cope with another child now."
"Jessica (27) has got 4 children in care already and that one would be taken away from her too. She thought she got her life back on track and was ready to have another child but she decided it is not the right time. She wouldn’t be able to support the baby financially or emotionally."
Another study, this one from the University of California (“Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?“), seem to suggest that rather —
"Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
And:
"The most salient findings are that women seeking second-trimester abortions did not realize they were pregnant until much later than women seeking first-trimester abortions […] Certain physical health conditions, such as obesity and a lack of pregnancy symptoms, increase the risk of late discovery."
And:
"data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."
It's my goal here to focus on the poetry of life rather than the politics (although I admit to having cut it a little close with the Al Williamson EC story).
ReplyDeleteAs a result, don't expect to hear from me about the viability of a fetus or the ethics of trans surgery or the tax rate. Anyone else can of course write whatever they wish.
However, this blog does frequently deal with the nature of empiricism, one of the crown jewels of western civilization since the time of the ancient Greeks. Empiricism remains an essential tool for our community's brand of tough minded art criticism. So I don't mind weighing in to help protect the values of empiricism. My view is that Trump is an enemy of empiricism; I don't mean his lies about petty things such as crowd size. I mean his shameless, persistent provable lies such as winning the 2020 election. The lies responsible for attacks on humble, honest civil servants who are merely trying to do their job counting ballots at the state level. The lies that cause the credulous and the witless to attack the U.S. capitol.
In my view, we never get to the type of policy disputes mentioned here about abortion or immigration laws or gun rights. Those issues can always get hammered out the way they have for nearly 250 years. Furthermore, the excuses offered above that Trump's supporters are just "colorful" or that Trump merely has "personality" issues are irrelevant to me. The renunciation of empiricism by Trump and the people who voted for him-- that's a deal killer.
Speaking of empiricism, albeit of a more trivial matter, you altered what I wrote, which was neither an 'excuse', nor used the word 'just'. Nor does it fit the context you've re-placed it in.
DeleteBut hey-ho, that's just for the record, and meant amiably.
Bill
(But 'trans' is about as big an enemy of empiricism as y' can get ;) /Bill)
DeleteI think after 4 years of hearing that Trump is 'basically Hitler' and 'has to be stopped', his supporters could be forgiven for wanting an (empirical) audit of the election before it was certified. If I thought someone was 'basically Hitler', harvesting a few thousand ballots in some swing states is about the least I would do.
DeleteThe Democrats spent hundreds of millions of dollars to pass laws to allow ballot harvesting, which broke the sacrosanct chain-of-custody standard for voting for the first time in the history of the country.
DeleteThen, lo and behold, somehow Joe Biden, a senile old plagiarizing influence-peddling car salesman with hair implants and fake teeth who couldn't get 20 people to one of his rallies during the pandemic got 15 MILLION MORE votes than Barack Obama, the most charismatic politician of his generation.
You were also told that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian Disinformation. And if anything was real on it, it wasn't anything. A big nothing burger. 3 years later, January of this year, the same people who told you it was fake introduced it as evidence in trial. It would have crushed Biden's chances, knowing what we now know about it. And the Biden crime family. And all his fellow crooks who use the government for their own corrupt ends. The government was clearly weaponized by the Democrats to keep themselves in power and raking in the dough.
You don't believe in empiricism or facts. You're a Democrat. You believe in whatever you're told to believe. And nothing else.
Anonymous/Bill-- My apologies, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your use of the word "colorful" when I described it as a way of excusing Trump. When Trump supporters want to rationalize his bizarre behavior, they seem to have no shortage of euphemisms: He's "uncouth" or he's "rough" or he''s "salty." They are quick to forgive behavior they would insist was grounds for impeachment if it came from any Democrat. So when you say that "Trump's supporters look - to an outsider - a little, ehm, colourful. But the hardcore anti-Trumpers look radically unhinged," that seems to me to be a way of excusing Trump supporters with a folksy adjective while comparing them favorably to hard core anti-Trumpers. If that's not what you intended, again, my apologies.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, it was more a response to the comment that preceded it.
DeleteBill
(and many of the media commentators on this side of the Atlantic, who are bonafide nuts / Bill)
DeleteRichard-- I disagree. Hearing a candidate called "Hitler who has to be stopped" is no empirical evidence to conduct a recount. Insults fly back and forth in any election these days. Trump's own running mate was, I believe, the first to criticize Trump as Hitler.
ReplyDeleteDozens of courts all around the United States presided over by Republican judges, some even appointed by Trump, heard arguments alleging election fraud. They properly asked the Trump campaign for prima facie evidence to commence an empirical investigation. The response from leading Trump advocates such as Alex Jones, Rudi Giuliani and Mike Lindell, was the equivalent of "giant talking broccoli stalks came down from Mars with suitcases full of counterfeit ballots, and all the portions of those ballots which elected Republicans were legitimate but all the remainders which went against Trump were not." No wonder they were laughed out of court. You could not, in my opinion, find better evidence for my point that Trump and his followers are enemies of empiricism. You don't want to go there.
They properly asked the Trump campaign for prima facie evidence to commence an empirical investigation. [...] they were laughed out of court. You could not, in my opinion, find better evidence for my point that Trump and his followers are enemies of empiricism.
DeleteSo, Trump is anti-science... because he didn't ask for science good enough.
Richard-- Trump is not anti-science because "he didn't ask for science good enough." He asked repeatedly, and as well as anyone possibly could when they had no facts or evidence on their side.
ReplyDeleteBut surely you know that Trump is, of course, comically anti-science. My favorite example: Obama appointed a Nobel award winning physicist to oversee the US nuclear program at the Department of Energy. When Trump took over, he appointed Rick Perry, who had no technical background, but had been a "yell leader" at college athletic events. Perry impressed Trump because Perry had thumped his chest and declared that the Department of Energy should be abolished. After he took office, Perry discovered for the first time that the Department of Energy was responsible for nuclear programs and changed his mind. Is that anti-science enough for you?
Being a good empiricist, one wonders how you missed that the quoted former transition official, Michael McKenna, said that the Times utterly misinterpreted him. And that Perry “of course” understood that a key role of the Department of Energy is caring for the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
DeleteAnother Democrat hoax that you believed while stuck in your DNC bubble? (You probably still believe that Trump is some kind of "agent of Putin." The hoax of all hoaxes, the slander of all slanders.)
Fyi, Trump raised government spending on science across the board.
~ FV
Okay, so he did ask for science, and he asked repeatedly. He just didn’t deserve that science because things didn’t appear to support his claims "at first impression."
ReplyDeleteSo, step one, make a hypothesis. Step two, ask interested parties if it seems true to them. Step three, decide whether or not to test it based on the answer to step two. Step four, write a series of news articles explaining why you didn’t need to test it… because it didn’t already seem true. Not quite the scientific method I remember.
When a considerable portion of the electorate, a presidential candidate who received 74 million votes, and a significant share of our elected officials - in an election decided by only 43,000 votes - feel that there was sufficient anecdotal evidence about ballot harvesting and other irregularities to warrant an audit, are you comfortable with judges ruling a blanket “no”, usually along party lines?
That is an... interesting standard to set, and one I suspect Democrats may live to regret.
Regarding the bit of misdirection about Perry—
Trump also appointed a man with a career studying infectious diseases and biological weapons response, with a decade in vaccine R&D, and who was previously a director of DARPA’s Defense Science Office, as Assistant Secretary of Health. This was prior to Covid, mind you. When Biden took office, he evidently did not think that was a strong enough resume, so he replaced Trump’s pick with a physician whose primary credentials were that he thought he was a woman. Neither of these cases prove or disprove either party’s relationship with science, it only tells us about politics.
The biggest insult to science in the last few years - and it was across the world, but particularly concentrated in the US which had even the most hardcore vaccine/lockdown elsewhere dumbfounded by the untruths, such as the child-deaths (who all had life-limiting conditions, which Fauci's gimps denied. The UK, who were harsh in the measures, accepted and categorically stated that the chance of a healthy child dying from covid were about one-in-two-million).
Delete'Science' is utterly abandoned in the political-corporate arena. Even if it means running a test-model of totalitarian governance.
And - as anyone with a shred of decency and honesty knows - 'Trans' is built on a categorical lie. It proceeded by projecting an adult fetish on to children via this lie - by telling them that their non-conformity with gender-stereotypes was evidence of something that does not exist and has no reality, 'gender identity'.
To enable the lie, medical horrors which in their scale and scope exceed the totality of sexual abuses across the churches are carried out. They try to embed the lie in language - the vehicle above all others which demands truth of us - it our organ of communion with reality, abusing it works a poison in both directions, dissociating the person from truth and the world and abusing and warping the mirror of the mind.
Politicians and media who are weighted in similar ends of the political spectrum across the various nations of the west bow to this evil (although, over here, it is an exception among the liberal end, such as Helen Joyce, who broke ranks with their craven peers and became the most eloquent and vociferous against it.)
These things aren't some 'mere detail' to be hammered out in legislative debates. They are lithmus tests that utterly eclipse outrage at tweets preceeding the Capital Hill stuff (which fell far short of a 'coup', I've seen far larger and far more violent protests close-up that came far closer in intent to one, and restrained by police forces with a fraction of the resources availiable in the US. Relatedly, I haven't taken an interest in all the accusations and denials about Trump's role, but the preceeding period of violence that gripped the US - which also caused deaths at one of the dump 'autonomous zones' and took over local government buildings was, was it not, fully endorsed across the board by the Democratic party and media, even when it came closest to anything I've seen in my lifetime to the methods of the 1960s China Maoist psychopaths - just a couple from dozens of such scenes : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSnTTND0UcM , https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UxjJPZF4P_s )
I can't say I trust or believe Trump, and 'colourful' was an understatement about the flag-suited adherents who seem to. But his last tenure fell far short of the armageddon we were promised, so like everyone else I laughed heartily at the Guardian offering counselling to their staff on the results.
He is no savious, Jesus isn't at his shoulder, I don't know if he's the right man to save the kittens and puppies (or whether or not they need saving). His presence in politics given his proclivities is an indictment of the times we live in, but not more so than the sub-surface shit and poison of the polished turds everywhere else. And less so than the Left's - here referring to the 'west' as a whole - endorsement of the poison, which is a lithmus test to determine n he essential humanity, above all else that can be said, of a government.
That others deliberately fail to see that similar thoughts and motivations may have determined the decision for those who voted for Trump - not even recognising this while disagreeing, but instead castigating them as inept, or the victims of a broken cog in the causal operations of the universe - is, well, dishonest to say the least.
Bill
[To 'hardcore vaccine/lockdown' add '-cheerleaders'. Spelling mistakes can stand. Bill]
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if we could get back to illustrations and illustrators and leave politics to news sites.
ReplyDeleteYep.
DeleteBill
Oof, sorry to see this subject and this exchange. I love this blog; it's a favorite respite from the political/cultural/spiritual pie fight that has such a wearisome grip on the internet and comment sections everywhere. Wearisome and futile: I've never seen a mind changed in these never-ending "conversations."
ReplyDeleteI come to Illustration Art in the spirit nicely described by critic Micah Mattix a couple years ago: "Fill your mind with things worth loving rather than things you love to hate."
I'm thankful for David's dedication to this art blog; long may it continue.
Yes, but we shouldn't dose ourselves in soporifics, either, and the premise of the post - an old story brought up again as a political cartoon pertaining to current happenings - justified responses, in agreement or otherwise.
DeleteBill
Movieac-- Thank you, you're absolutely right. No one here is going to persuade anyone else, and as long as I've made my position clear enough to satisfy the 2028 Nuremberg trials, there's nothing more to be gained.
ReplyDeleteActually, I had planned two more posts dealing with cutting edge digital painting but (purely coincidentally) they had political subjects and I didn't want to stray any further down that path, so I junked both of them. For those of you who are curious, I'd especially recommend Justin Metz's cover to the October 2024 issue of The Atlantic Magazine. I went so far as to interview Metz about his digital painting process and artistic values. Perhaps in a future, less incendiary era we'll be able to talk about the aesthetics without the politics.
This one wasn't about aesthetics though (it's a journeyman piece with period charm), and hoping for a "less incendiary era" while refering to the Nuremberg trials - to establish the degree of guilt in the process of the de-nazification of Germany - analogously to 'the other side' in your country, in the same paragraph ??
DeleteBill
I presumed that cover was photo-bashed. Or mostly photo-bashed. (The coach looks digitally generated.)
DeleteThough it successfully captured a scary victorian horror vibe, and so it gets its political message across, I am very surprised at the suggestion that you liked it as art.
You should unjunk your post about it. This is your world. Say your piece about the piece even if it disturbs the peace.
I wouldn't worry about us getting upset with the Metz piece because of its political messaging. Its aesthetic failings are sufficiently strong to capture all of our displeasure.
DeleteKev Ferrara-- Don't tempt me. The subject matter of the cover is something I resolved to put aside, at least for a while.
ReplyDeleteBut looking at it from the perspective of digital painting, the key point for me was the way digital tools enable the creative and intelligent curation of themes. The coach was a morphed traditional circus caravan and a victorian horse-drawn hearse, to maximize a sinister circus effect. The ringmaster image was influenced by the darker elements of early Disney-- those scenes that traumatized us from Pinocchio and Dumbo. Metz selected elements from a stew of ideas, associations, foreboding swamp references, etc. etc. that could be plucked, chosen, re-prioritized. Combining photography and CG, they were melded with lighting, tone and brushing to come up with what I think is a highly potent image.
Anticipating complaints about the collapsed perspective, I picked out a couple of Maxfield Parrish classics with the same approach, pasting a figure in the foreground against (virtually identical) mountains in the background. One question for the group was going to be: if they look the same, is it a superior way of picture making for Maxfield Parrish to spend a week painting crevasses in a distant, misty mountain, or for Metz to adapt a stock photograph? Is it a superior way of picture making for Steven Dohanos to spend a month painting a complex cover like this? But the bigger question was going to be: if an artist can put together a dramatic, powerful image with a potent psychological impact using Photoshop and 3D modeling, why isn't that the art of the future? And if you think such art is unworthy, how much of your objection is to the aesthetics of the picture, and how much is just your moral objection to how credit might be allocated between man and machine?
If Metz's image had only been about something apolitical, it might've made for a dandy discussion.
We'll pretend it's the late great Brian Dennehy and stick to the form and not the function.
DeleteBill
These are key questions. Post it up David. Have no fear.
ReplyDeleteRe: Metz illustration. It seems Bradbury strikes again.
ReplyDeleteLate to the party. We in NYC know Trump all his life as a crook and liar. He cheated all his business partners and got sued all the time and refused to pay the workers on his buildings. He had to pay $25 million for his fraud at Trump University. The only suckers dumb enough to be conned by this asshole are the farmers who come to the big city to get robbed.
ReplyDeletePerfect! Farmers are so stupid.
DeleteHur hur. Yeah, stupid like pigeons. Dumb birds, can't do shit.
DeleteTrump Inc. employs 23,000+ people with families, mortgages, and kids. It builds, manufactures, and does business in 26 countries with tens of thousands of vendors and lending instutitions, who would not be continually involved with Trump inc. unless they got paid. During bankruptcy proceedings, various settlements are made where vendors lose money. A few didn't get paid. Who knows the details? You?
DeleteYes Trump U was a bullcrap scheme, and Trump himself should have been more hands-on in paying attention to the course materials and promises made.
The Harris campaigned burned through a billion dollars in a month. A whole bunch of people got paid big bucks. A whole bunch of million dollar donors were told it was all in the bag. And they are pissed.
FTX was a giant scam. And SBF was the second biggest donor to the Democrat party. You think that ill-begotten money will be returned? Nope. The Democrats are more than willing to take scammed money, make no mistake. And if you didn't know that you're dumber than a farmer.
Movieac-- Very good! Metz told me that he and the client specifically referenced Bradbury's carnival story when fleshing out the theme for that cover. It never occurred to me that the Al Williamson story about time travel was also by Bradbury. Congratulations on drawing the connection.
ReplyDeleteFarmer boy want to buy a rolex before you go back to Kansas? Trump's accountant went to prison twice for fraud. Trump's charitable foundation was a scam shut down by the courts for years of legal violations. It lied about donations to veterans and 911 groups and paid off Trump's personal fines and debts. Foreign governments paid him bribes by renting blocks of rooms at Trump hotels at increased prices. Trump forced taxpayers to pay for government events at his resorts. If you can tear yourself away from watching reruns of The Apprentice, look into the fake company he invented in the 1990s after real banks refused to deal with him. There is lots of proof for anyone with eyes.
ReplyDeleteStalemate ? Moral of the story, don't take sides in a d*ckhead contest.
Delete'☆ Fin ☆'
Delete"Farmer boy want to buy a rolex before you go back to Kansas?"
DeleteFarmers make your miserable life possible, asshole.
~ FV
To the dumbass who said Trump is in favor of science, he just picked that freaking witch doctor RFK jr to head up health care. I hope he takes care of your children. I'm getting out of this pathetic country.
ReplyDeleteI don't think most americans are aware of how bad the pharma-political complex you have over there looks to the rest of the world outside it.
DeleteRemains to be seen if RFK is an overcorrection, but he's right about a few things at least.
We'll add you to the long list of fleeing celebrities, anyway.
Bill
Nobody cares. You're a bitchy loudmouthed dummy who works in a bodega. gtfo asap.
DeleteCareful, sonny. I'm the immigration Czar for the EU and all it's historic colonies, Canada and Mexico don't want you, and you've just insulted your other neighbours.
DeleteBill
Twelve ?
ReplyDeleteThe EU and all its historic colonies would've been crushed by the Russian bear years ago if it weren't for NATO. That disgusting pig Trump has encouraged Putin “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies. Chew on that.
ReplyDeleteWe love Russia here. NATO is your project.
DeleteI found you an opening in Lagos, btw - floating Gong Farmer. Can you row and net simultaneously, though ?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/65/38/2c/65382cd582b84e89eb8332595083b38a.jpg
"Kalinka, kalinka, kalinka moya!
V sadu yagoda malinka, malinka..."
Bill
It's addictive, ain't it, fellas?
ReplyDeletehttps://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Take a deep breath, close the laptop, and go do something nice for your families.
-M
I was gonna scream 'pick a side or stfu', but you're right. Have a lovely day.
DeleteBill
My wife and kids ?? Those losers ?!?! 🤬
DeleteToo bad the citizens in Weimar Germany stfu.
ReplyDeleteDon't blame it all on the farmers. It's the uneducated cowboys and the racists too. America got a lot dumber in the last 50 years and now we have a scumbag to wreck the country.
ReplyDeleteSomebody hates their daddy. Somebody is living a crappy life with no friends and no love to speak of. Somebody's a jealous loser dumb enough to believe everything he hears on the propaganda channels.
DeleteFarmers, cowboys, europe, latin america and the US, by my count. Where's he going to live ? Who'll feed him ?
Delete