Red sun

The New Neo Posted on by

I happened to go outside yesterday a little while before the sun was due to set, and I saw a most extraordinary thing: the sun, very low in the sky, looked exactly like a bright red ball. Not orange, as it sometimes does at sunset time. Not pinkish. Blood-red, and very large because it was near the horizon.

It was one of the most extraordinary things I’ve ever seen in my life. It was also rather frightening, although I realized it must be connected to some unusual atmospheric conditions. And so it was, as this article from a Chicago newspaper explains:

The sun has appeared with a red hue across much of the northern United States this week due to smoke from wildfires on the West Coast and in Canada.

The smoke has blown all the way across the continent due to air currents in the upper atmosphere and has even caused an air quality advisory for some areas.

The smoke essentially acts like an Instagram filter for the sky – sunlight naturally interacts with very small particles in the atmosphere and scatters colors in the visible spectrum. With more scattering taking place than usual, red (the color with the longest wavelength) appears more prominently.

It wasn’t just the red color that was odd, although that was the strangest thing. The sun also had a more circular appearance with sharper borders than usual, because there were no rays emanating from it.

It’s an extremely strange feeling to see a phenomenon so unusual affecting something you see nearly every day. It’s not hard to understand how humans of long ago felt that such things were omens of great import.

Unfortunately, by the time I stopped gaping and thought to try to take a photo, the sun had pretty much disappeared behind the trees near the horizon. But the article at the link above has an older photo that captures exactly what the sun looked like here yesterday, and this Toronto video captures it as well (except a smaller sun, higher in the sky):

FBI informants and the entrapment defense

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a piece in the NY Post about FBI informers entitled, “The FBI is made of snitches, often trapping Americans into committing crimes.” Very timely, for obvious reasons. An excerpt:

[The FBI has] become an organization of snitches and spies, borderline entrapping the angry and the weak-minded into committing crimes. Nearly a decade ago, New York Times’ David K. Shipler listed a series of would-be terrorist plots thwarted by the FBI — only to find that the vast majority of them were facilitated by agents and informers posing as terrorists themselves. They even chauffeured some of the suspects to the would-be crime scenes themselves, only to foil the “plot” at the last minute.

Note, by the way, that back then it was a liberal outfit like the NY Times that seemed aware of the strong possibility that the plot would not have been fleshed out but for the FBI, even though at this point the Times seems to be ignoring the issue. The reason for the switch is obvious. Back then the victims were Muslim terrorist wannabees, and now they are Trump supporters.

I recall that back then, sometimes it seemed to me that the accused might have been led in their plots by the FBI. That was disturbing, but at the time I assumed – wrongly, I now believe – that the FBI was only doing this to people who were determined to commit such crimes on their own and that the agency was probably not overstepping for the most part.

The legal defense of entrapment for defendants is skewed towards empowering the authorities and making it very very hard for the accused to use it as a defense. See this:

A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government’s use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort “that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties,” United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government’s behavior was such that “a law-abiding citizen’s will to obey the law could have been overborne”); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created “a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it”).

Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant “was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime.” Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: “the ready commission of the criminal act,” such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent’s offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.

My interpretation of this – and granted, I’m not an expert – would be that “predisposition” would be deemed to have been present even if that predisposition was only a bunch of bragging hot air blather that would never have turned into an act but for the organizing help and motivation provided by FBI agents. Yes, undercover agents need to be able to infiltrate terrorist groups, but they shouldn’t be the movers and shakers therein, egging the other participants on.

And yet I believe that happens all too often. And now that the left is in the driver’s seat in the FBI and the DOJ, it’s being used to silence and intimidate and punish their political enemies on the right.

I’ll give the last word to the Babylon Bee, which has an article with this title: “FBI Discovers Building Full Of Dangerous Extremists Organizing Acts Of Terror Across Country”:

In a shocking twist, the organization is headquartered right in Washington, D.C., at the J. Edgar Hoover FBI building.

The group was uncovered after FBI agents began tracing most of the terror plots in this country back to one giant organization. “This is bigger than any of us realize,” said the founder of the FBI, Bob FBI. “It’s all connected. Pretty much every terror plot of the last few decades was being encouraged in secret by this one giant, shadowy organization. But rest assured, we’re going to make sure these guys pay for what they’ve done to our country. No one hatches terror plots under our watch.”

Funny, but sad.

Why has Australia gone stark raving mad?

The New Neo Posted on by

Actually, it sometimes feels as though the entire world has gone stark raving mad lately. But some places have gone more mad than others:

Case in point, Australia:

It’s hard to know exactly when Australia’s pandemic response crossed the line from tragedy into farce. But future historians could do worse than pinpoint the moment when Sydney’s chief health supremo told the city’s residents to stop being friendly to one another when they ventured out to buy essentials, lest they get themselves and others killed.

“Whilst it is in human nature to engage in conversation with others, to be friendly, unfortunately this is not the time to do that . . . don’t start up a conversation,” scolded Kerry Chant, the endlessly tut-tutting chief health officer of New South Wales, at a news conference last week. “We want to make sure as we go about our daily lives that we do not come into contact with anyone who could pose a risk.”

Never mind that you can’t even go near a shop without a mask, she said. Masks aren’t foolproof and this is, in her words, “no time for complacency.” A simple g’day, in other words, could be deadly.

Happily, most of us who live in Sydney ignored the warning.

So maybe it’s not Australia as a whole that’s gone mad, but Australia’s health officials and the politicians who support them:

Australians need permission from the federal government to leave the country—applications succeed about half the time—and Australia’s states throw up their borders against one another at the slightest hint of trouble. Residents of Sydney may leave their homes only if it is “essential,” and not stray more than six miles when they do.

This is before discussing the economic fallout from the latest lockdowns. Billions will be spent by government or lost by businesses as a result.

It’s especially ironic considering that Australia’s case and death numbers are low – but, as the article goes on to explain, that may be part of the reason the government keeps the Draconian rules in place:

So how did Australia become a hermit kingdom? Geography plays a large part. By mistaking their good luck for brilliance in being able to pull up the drawbridge to the world at the start of the pandemic, Australians quickly became trapped in an “elimination” mindset that is now officially referred to as Covid Zero…

Elected officials have allowed their judgment to be replaced by that of the new priestly class of health mandarins like Dr. Chant, on whose edicts the country hangs. Hiding behind the “health advice” of such officials has become the national sport of Australia’s politicians.

I would say “read the whole thing,” but it’s behind the Wall Street Journal paywall. That’s why the initial link in this post is to the Instapundit piece about it, which liberally quotes the article.

I agree that Australia fell into the trap of thinking it could keep COVID at bay almost entirely and almost forever, if it just did the right thing. It was easier for Australia, compared to nations with land borders, to limit the goings and comings of both foreigners and of its citizens. It committed to that, and now it doesn’t seem to be able or willing to turn back.

I’ve never been to Australia, but I heard as a child and young adult that it was a land of bold, independent people. I’m sure some Australians still fit that description; YouTuber “Ozzy Man” certainly comes to mind (an irreverant sense of humor is often part of it). But I’ve heard that in recent years – even prior to COVID – leftism, sheepish obedience, and wokism have taken over to a large extent, particularly in the big cities where the vast bulk of Australia’s population lies. When did it happen?

[ADDENDUM: Australia and the 1918-1919 flu pandemic.]

Idealized photos, idealized paintings

The New Neo Posted on by

Do photographs tell the truth? Not really, and even old photographs were often touched up. Here’s a description, with illustrations. I have cued it up to show what I consider the most interesting part:

Speaking of which, I have a treasured photo of my grandmother, circa around 1902, taken at her graduation from Normal School (teacher training school). When she first showed me the photo I was a little girl, and it utterly fascinated me. For one thing, she had on such a gorgeous dress. For another, she looked very little like the beloved but elderly person I know. And for another, I could see that she looked like me (or I suppose you might say that I looked like her), especially the expression in the eyes.

My grandmother also explained to me that the photo was touched up to make her waist smaller. She showed me a series of little marks, almost imperceptible but still visible, where the original waist had been scratched out (on a negative? I’m not sure how it worked). Her waist hadn’t been large to begin with (she was about eighteen years old in the photo). But the aesthetic of the time dictated that a bit smaller would be even better, and the photographer obliged.

Here’s the photo and a close-up, neither of which show the faint scratch marks but both of which show the slightly imperfect rendering of the curve of the new waist:

The video at the beginning of this post mentions that even before photos, paintings often rendered their subjects in a more flattering light. That reminds me of what happened between Henry VIII and his fourth wife Anne of Cleves:

The artist Hans Holbein the Younger was dispatched to Düren to paint portraits of Anne [of Cleves] and her younger sister, Amalia, each of whom Henry was considering as his fourth wife. Henry required the artist to be as accurate as possible, not to flatter the sisters…

Negotiations to arrange the marriage were in full swing by March 1539. Thomas Cromwell oversaw the talks and a marriage treaty was signed on 4 October of that year…

Anne was described by French ambassador Charles de Marillac as tall and slim, “of middling beauty and of very assured and resolute countenance.” She was fair-haired and was said to have had a lovely face. In the words of the chronicler Edward Hall, “Her hair hanging down, which was fair, yellow and long … she was apparelled after the English fashion, with a French hood, which so set forth her beauty and good visage, that every creature rejoiced to behold her.” She appeared rather solemn by English standards, and looked old for her age. Holbein painted her with a high forehead, heavy-lidded eyes and a pointed chin.

Henry met her privately on New Year’s Day 1540 at Rochester Abbey in Rochester on her journey from Dover. Henry and some of his courtiers, following a courtly-love tradition, went disguised into the room where Anne was staying…

According to the testimony of Henry’s companions, he was disappointed with Anne, feeling that she was not as described…

Most historians believe that Henry’s misgivings about the marriage were blamed on Anne’s alleged unsatisfactory appearance and her failure to inspire him to consummate the marriage. He felt that he had been misled after his advisors had praised Anne’s beauty: “She is nothing so fair as she hath been reported”, he complained. Cromwell received some blame for the Holbein portrait, which Henry believed had not been an accurate representation of Anne, and for some of the exaggerated reports of her beauty. When the king finally met Anne, he was reportedly shocked by her plain appearance, and the marriage was never consummated.

Cromwell paid dearly, but Anne consented to an annulment and lived out her life in England.

What is the risk to children from COVID?

The New Neo Posted on by

We know that the risk to children from COVID is very low, even if they get it. But we love our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren so very much that any threat to them feels terrible. I want to protect every single child from any harm that could ever come to that child, but of course that’s impossible. It would certainly help to know the real risks of COVID to children, and to know the relative risks the vaccine poses to them.

I had heard that a healthy five-year-old died from COVID. His tragic story is somewhat more complex than that, it turns out. It can be summarized by saying that a previously healthy 5-year-old boy contracted a number of infections seemingly simultaneously, and one of them was COVID. He died, and it’s not certain why he succumbed to so many infections or which was the one that killed him, if indeed there was one.

Here’s an overview of some research on children and COVID:

Dr. Marty Makary is a medical expert and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Carey Business School. His research team “worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020.”

After studying comprehensive data on thousands of children, the team “found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean that no child on earth has ever died from COVID itself. But it’s also been clear from the start that the number of such children must be extremely low – which is no comfort to a family which has lost a child.

The left and January 6th

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Ray Van Dune” writes:

Biden is being told that the way to win the next election is to force the Republicans to own the January 6th “insurrection”, by maximizing the disgusting conditions of imprisonments and penalties and publicly shaming the defendants, or even better to goad the conservative patriots into another more violent incident that could be laid at Trump’s doorstep. Thus, creating national division is the Democrats’ path to victory.

I would have thought they’ve already created national division enough. But yes, the heightening of the divisions and tensions is indeed a goal of this administration. And I also agree that the government would dearly love to provoke another easily controllable incident such as January 6th to be used for maximum propaganda advantage to label the right (and Republicans) as violent terrorists who need to be suppressed in the strongest ways.

What’s more, I have come to believe that even now there probably are several groups around the country that could be described this way: anywhere between two and seven disaffected and frustrated young men sitting around talking with at least that many FBI undercover agents about some sort of violent demonstration which the agents have spearheaded, planned, and organized for them.

The resulting demonstration/riot/attack will be allowed to proceed, with the FBI providing not just the leadership but also the training, most likely only to the point where the others can either be arrested and charged (as in the Michigan Whitmer kidnapping situation) but before any destructive action has occurred or even been attempted. Alternatively, the action will be allowed to go forward to the point where something more overt will happen, as on January 6th. But even then, there will never really be much danger to anyone except the group doing the protesting, because if things get out of hand violence will be used on them.

That I have gotten to the point of believing that sort of thing is highly possible is a sad commentary on the events of the last few years. I’m not fond of far-fetched paranoid conspiracy theories, but sometimes the evidence points too strongly in a certain direction. There is little question in my mind that the groups that participated in January 6th were heavily monitored by government agencies prior to the incident, and it is clear that the Capitol police and other protective forces were not allowed to be there in the proper numbers to thwart what was about to happen. It’s also clear that the Democrats and the MSM were poised to take full propagandist advantage of January 6th from the start, and that they did. We know the results so far.

Censorship as a tool of media competition

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s come to this:

In the title of this post, I said this was done by the media as a tool of competition. That’s the case, but of course it’s not solely that, and not even primarily that. The MSM is not in the business of giving us news, except about the most simple and non-political things (although come to think of it, what’s allowed to be non-political these days?).

The “journalists” of today are in the business of propaganda in service of a cause. That cause is leftism. Those remaining journalists or pundits who are not in service of that cause, and especially ones who actively oppose it, are not considered part of the team and are fair game for any attack. Most members of the MSM don’t see Tucker Carlson or any other media figure on the right as colleagues. They see them as enemies to be smeared and silenced.

Cannabis and schizophrenia

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that cannabis is on the way to becoming legal in more and more states, let’s take a look at this:

A new study out of Denmark has found that, in the past 25 years, the number of schizophrenia cases correlated with cannabis use has increased: While only 2 percent of schizophrenia diagnoses in 1995 were associated with marijuana use, by 2010, that figure had risen to approximately 8 percent.

With the caveat that correlation is not causation, I still have no trouble believing that the potency of modern cannabis, and its widespread use, would be associated with a greater risk of schizophrenia.

“There is, unfortunately, evidence to suggest that cannabis is increasingly seen as a somewhat harmless substance. This is unfortunate, since we see links with schizophrenia, poorer cognitive function, substance use disorders,” study author and associate professor at the Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health Carsten Hjorthøj told CNN in an email. “I think it is highly important to use both our study and other studies to highlight and emphasize that cannabis use is not harmless.”…

That cannabis users have an increased likelihood of becoming schizophrenic is well established, but researchers believe their findings show that the issue is worsening and becoming more widespread.

“Of course, our findings will have to be replicated elsewhere before firm conclusions can be drawn,” Hjorthøj said. “But I do feel fairly confident that we will see similar patterns in places where problematic use of cannabis has increased, or where the potency of cannabis has increased, since many studies suggest that high-potency cannabis is probably the driver of the association with schizophrenia.”

I don’t see that these findings will matter to cannabis users and potential cannabis users or to those spearheading the drive for decriminalization and/or legalization, though. I think that horse has left the barn.

But perhaps the term “Reefer Madness” – considered a joke because of this heavy-handed anti-marijuana propaganda film – isn’t quite so ridiculous after all?