Anesthesia and consciousness

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a fascinating article on the mysterious working of anesthesia, which is as yet a poorly understood although highly effective and useful tool:

Anesthesiologists speak of patients descending through “the planes of anesthesia”””from the “plane of disorientation” through the “plane of delirium” toward the “surgical plane.” While we go under, they monitor our brain waves, titrating their “anesthetic cocktails” to make sure that we receive neither too little sedation nor too much. (A typical cocktail contains a painkiller, a paralytic, which prevents muscles from flinching at the knife””the early paralytics were based on curare, the drug South American warriors put on the poison-tipped arrows with which they shot Europeans””and a “hypnotic,” which brings unconsciousness.) But even as they operate the machinery of anesthesia with great skill, anesthesiologists remain uncertain about the drugs’ underlying mechanisms. “Obviously we give anesthetics and we’ve got very good control over it,” one doctor tells Cole-Adams, “but in real philosophical and physiological terms we don’t know how anesthesia works.” The root of the problem is that no one understands why we are conscious. If you don’t know why the sun comes up, it’s hard to say why it goes down.

The article contains a detailed description of the harrowing and yet transcendent experience of an Australian woman in 1993 who somehow became conscious during an operation and could feel all the pain involved, and yet was completely paralyzed and could not alert the doctors as to what was happening. That struck a nerve (to coin a phrase) with me because, when I had surgery in 1999, I had already read about that sort of phenomenon and the prospect had terrified me.

Its rarity at the time (it’s even rarer now, but it was very rare then, too) had failed to reassure me, and the day before surgery, when I had my little pre-surgery conference with the anesthesiologist, I mentioned my anxiety to him. Instead of pooh-poohing me, he was surprisingly kind. “Don’t worry,” he said. “I promise to keep you safe.” He explained that anesthesiologists had ways to monitor patients so they could tell, by changes in heart rate and blood pressure and other signs, if the patient was in distress. He swore that he’d make sure I was not aware of what was happening and that I wasn’t suffering.

Right before the surgery, when they wheeled me in under the bright lights and I saw the anesthesiologist again, I mentioned it again. He put his hand on my shoulder reassuringly and told me “I will not let that happen to you. I promise; trust me.”

And I did. After all, I really felt I had no choice. But I really did trust him; he seemed so certain and so kind.

That was almost twenty years ago, and I remain grateful to him, whoever he was.

American teens are delaying sex more

The New Neo Posted on by

This seems like good news:

Fewer U.S. teens are sexually active these days, as many wait until later in high school to try sex for the first time, a new report reveals.

But the numbers are still shocking, at least to me:

The proportion of high school students who’ve ever had sex decreased to 41 percent in 2015, continuing a downward trend from 47 percent in 2005 and 53 percent in 1995, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…

Sexually active 9th graders decreased from 34 percent to 24 percent between 2005 and 2015, while 10th graders having sex declined from 43 percent to 36 percent during the same time period.

By comparison, significant declines in sexual activity were not found among 11th and 12th graders, the researchers added.

So it’s just the younger high school kids who are having less sex, not the older ones. And it turns out that significant decline was only seen black and Hispanic teens (who had higher rates to begin with, anyway), not white teens:

About 48 percent of black teens and 42 percent of Hispanic teens said they were sexually active in 2015, down from nearly 68 percent and 51 percent, respectively, in 2005.

On the other hand, sexual activity among white teens did not change significantly, the investigators found.

The article also quotes experts as saying they think the reason for the decline is sex education, but I’m not at all sure. No evidence is presented for that conclusion—although it may exist—and of course these experts have an agenda that favors promoting sex education. In reality they haven’t a clue why, as you can discover if you go to the research itself (as I did):

Although these findings cannot be connected directly to any specific intervention, the results indicate that decreases in prevalence of sexual intercourse occurred among the nation’s high school students. During 2005”“2015, the United States experienced significant shifts in various influences that might have affected these findings, including changes in technology and the use of social media by youth, requirements and funding for education, and innovations in and federal resources for human immunodeficiency virus infection, STI, and teen pregnancy prevention.

It would be instructive to learn what the decrease was about.

Have Trump’s critics lost their sense of humor?

The New Neo Posted on by

David Frum certainly has:

This morning’s presidential Twitter outburst recalls those words of Fredo Corleone’s in one of the most famous scenes from The Godfather series. Trump tweeted that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” and in a subsequent tweet called himself a “very stable genius.”

Trump may imagine that he’s Michael Corleone, the tough and canny rightful heir””or even Sonny Corleone, the terrifyingly violent but at least powerful heir apparent””but after today he is Fredo forever.

There’s a key difference between film and reality, though: The Corleone family had the awareness and vigilance to exclude Fredo from power. The American political system did not do so well.

Michael Wolff’s scathing new book about the Trump White House has sent President Trump spiraling into the most publicly visible meltdown of his presidency. Until now, Trump’s worst moments have occurred behind closed doors, and have become known to the public only second-hand, leaked by worried officials, aides, and advisers. Yesterday and today, we have seen a Trump temper-tantrum in real time on Twitter, extended over hours, punctuated only by stretch of fitful presidential sleep.

To see an alternate point of view (and one I happen to share), read this from Althouse:

3 tweets. Read them in this order:

1. “Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence…..”

2. “….Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star…..”

3. “….to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

Well played, those cards.

I like the mix of joviality and lightweight cruelty.

But all Frum and so many others see in Trump is a serious, deluded, angry, dangerous, dunce—and not an amiable one, at that.

To treat every tweet of Trump’s (nice alliteration, eh?) as though it’s uttered in solemn seriousness is to miss the point entirely. Does Frum not understand the joke inherent in the Valley Girl construction of “being, like, really smart”?

Actually, to take the whole thing seriously for a moment, Trump is in fact a smart man—as was Reagan, as was Bush, as was Obama (all of whom were called dumb, although by different crowds). I can’t think of a dumb president in my lifetime—one thing about the interminable campaign season is that it tends to weed out stupidheads. Not all presidents are intellectuals, however, (probably a good thing) and Trump is the antithesis of an intellectual. I may be an intellectual of sorts, but I certainly am not so dumb that I think Trump is a dumb man.

As far as “stable” goes—Trump’s main instability seems to be in his past divorces, if you consider that a sign of instability (otherwise known as restlessness and lack of fidelity). To weather the campaign he weathered is to be very stable, like him or not. As for his insulting/funny/nasty tweets, that’s been going on for just about as long as Twitter has been in existence. Very very stable in the sense of “steady,” although not to Frum’s liking.

I am puzzled as to why anyone would see these tweets as a temper tantrum from an unstable guy. Can’t they see the sarcasm? Can’t they understand the deftness of the historical reference to Reagan? These tweets are crafted, and if Trump doesn’t exactly wield a stiletto, it’s still a pretty effective knife that usually finds its mark.

[NOTE: More from Scott Adams.]

[ADDENDUM: By the way, when I first read Trump’s statement about Steve Bannon, I originally failed to take much notice of what Trump wrote at the very end [emphasis mine]:

We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down.

That little poison pen letter about Bannon is very well written (did Trump write it himself? I don’t know). It’s jam-packed with incredibly apt put-downs that contain more sophistication than Trump’s usual—not that it’s Churchillian, but it’s certainly clever and it hits Bannon where it hurts.

I see its last sentence as an alliance with the more mainstream wing of the GOP, as long as they work with him, and a rejection of the more extreme views of the so-called alt-right represented by Bannon and in particular of what I call the “burn it down” crowd. I believe some of this reflects Trump’s anger at what happened in Alabama, which he blames at least partly on Bannon. Recall that Trump originally backed the establishment candidate and was not a Roy Moore fan. Trump’s life will be made much easier if the GOP keeps control of the Senate in 2018, and much more difficult if they lose it, and he’s not eager to encourage those he thinks are likely to engineer the latter rather than the former.]

Have Wolff’s minutes of fame already started to wind down?

The New Neo Posted on by

Maybe, at least among anyone paying attention to this sort of thing:

Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing’s workings, in a process Wolff describes as “allowing the reader to judge” whether the sources’ claims are true.

That’s quite a process. I think it used to be called throwing enough mud against the wall and seeing what sticks.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes “a version of events I believe to be true.”…

The book itself, reviewed by Business Insider from a copy acquired prior to its Friday publication, is not always clear about what level of confidence the author has in any particular assertion.

Lengthy, private conversations are reported verbatim, as are difficult-to-ascertain details like what somebody was thinking or how the person felt.

In other words, what used to be called making stuff [or sh**] up. Plenty of people have disputed quotes attributed to them in the book, as well, but Wolff says he’s “comfortable” with what he wrote.

Then again, Wolff is making millions, and I’m not. So there’s that.

On Jeff Sessions, Congress, and marijuana law

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m basically with National Review on this:

Under Article II, the executive is obliged to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and, under federal law, marijuana remains prohibited. Using prosecutorial discretion as a smokescreen for nullification is not our definition of “faithful,” however misguided the legislature’s will might be.

Cory Gardner, a Republican senator from Colorado, had harsh words for Sessions. “With no prior notice to Congress,” Gardner griped, “the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in [Colorado] and other states.” This critique rings hollow. It was Congress that established this law, and it is Congress that must repeal it. Indeed, if anyone is “trampling,” it is the legislature of which Gardner is a part. We have long argued that the prohibition of weed is a fool’s game, and we have long urged that it be ended. We have held to this view through a host of administrations, and we hold to this view today. Nevertheless, we believe also that the Constitution must be strictly obeyed, and that congressional inaction presents no magic veto power to the executive. This, put simply, is not Jeff Sessions’s call.

Like it or not, the marijuana horse has left the barn long long ago (that’s a pretty bad metaphor, but you know what I mean). The ban at this point is something akin to Prohibition: it’s just not working, although I actually wish it was, because I think both practices cause a certain amount of destructive behavior (alcohol even worse than marijuana). I believe at this point it should be left to the states, and that the feds should stay out of it, but that must be done by an act of Congress.

Never-Trumpers never-Trumping

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “DNW” writes:

My guess is that most of the rage [at Trump] is not really at his uncouthness, or the many abrasive personality traits he is said to have, but more, or equally, a chagrin and alarm over what he actually is showing signs of being able to accomplish.

Sensitive conservatives like crony capitalism, they made peace with ObamaCare just as they have with every other ultra vires bureaucratic, legislative or government act that transforms free citizens into social resources.

They don’t want the bonds slackened. They like having you in the traces and tugging at the load.

And when you die, leave the keys to the house under the door mat.

What DNW is expressing here is a very popular thought on the right, particularly among Trump supporters. It predated Trump, though, and is not limited to Trump supporters. It reaches its peak in those who I used to call the “let it burn” crowd, who are the ones who claim that there is no difference whatsoever between the two parties except window dressing.

But I disagree, and have been disagreeing for quite some time. Oh, I don’t deny that there are some politicians in the GOP “establishment” who fit that description. But I don’t believe there are anywhere near the number that the burn-it-down crowd alleges, or even the number that DNW seems to think exist.

I don’t buy the idea that most anti-Trump conservatives don’t really want the conservative agenda, or at least most of the conservative agenda. I think their main objections to Trump now are twofold.

The first is still stylistic, somewhat like what was felt by the Kennedy people who hated successor Johnson because he was uncouth. It didn’t matter that Johnson enacted all that civil rights legislation or the Great Society agenda. For such people, style and class meant and means a lot, and Johnson’s (and Trump’s) lack of it fills them with actual revulsion. Trump may be rich and the son of a rich man, but he’s not a smooth classy intellectual (and that’s an understatement). Theirs is a gut reaction to him, and it’s powerful.

Their second objection to Trump is that, if they were to praise him in any important way, it would necessitate admitting that they were wrong about something. Very wrong. That is very difficult for most people, and they are no exception. Au contraire.

It’s even harder for people who are known for being smart and successful and insightful and clever to say, “Hmmm, you know what? I was wrong; this guy isn’t as bad as I thought, and he’s doing some things that I like.” Some Never-Trumpers have managed to make that switch and some haven’t. But I don’t conclude that the ones who haven’t are really uninterested in the conservative agenda to which they profess devotion. They may not even realize it themselves, but their devotion to a certain style of being in the world, and to not having to change their minds in such a public way, just happens to be greater.

Valet Olympics

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes. Seriously. A competition for parking valets.

I’ve long been in awe of the skill of parking attendants in city lots, although I don’t have much experience with other forms of valet parking. I can parallel park well enough (after all, I grew up in NY), but let’s just say that I’d never make it as a parking valet.

On Wolff: the latest chapter in the continuing anti-Trump effort

The New Neo Posted on by

Of course, to call it an “anti-Trump effort” is to both understate and simplify the matter. Since the evening it became clear that Donald Trump would become president of the United States, and millions upon millions of totally shocked Americans (including me) tried to digest the startling news, some huge proportion of them (not including me) have been trying to discredit everything he does and everything he says.

The goal seems to be impeachment. But impeachment alone, although a disgrace, is practically meaningless in terms of actually removing a president. It’s conviction that does that, and though conviction is always a possibility, the bar is set so high (67 votes) that it’s highly unlikely unless something else, and something big, happens.

Democrats are hoping for that “something big” to happen. And if it doesn’t happen, they’ll uncover it because it’s already happened. And if they can’t uncover it, some of them are determined to manufacture it, because it’s just that unconscionable that Trump is president and just that necessary to remove him for the good of the nation.

I certainly was no Trump fan during the primaries—au contraire. I thought he might be a dangerous and tyrannical president. But since he took office, I’ve seen very little evidence of that sort of behavior—and (as I’ve written many times) for the most part I’ve been pleased what what he’s actually done.

So in terms of the Wolff book’s allegations, which are such huge news right now, I’m not planning a point-by-point analysis. I’ll leave that to others, and pick up the story if and when it appears that these claims end up being something more than the latest salvo in the long-continuing fight against Trump. After all, Wolff’s truth-teller credentials aren’t exactly impeccable.

Trump is uncouth, often ruthless against enemies, and more than capable of lying and/or exaggerating. He was elected with the American public knowing all of that, because he demonstrated those characteristics over and over during the primaries. But since taking office, not only has his behavior has been better than expected rather than worse, every serious post-election allegation against him (and there’ve been plenty of them) so far has come to naught despite multiple investigations by people who would dearly love to charge him with something.

The left is salivating over Wolff’s book, though. For now, anyway. The goal is not just to impeach or somehow remove Trump. The larger—and probably more realistic—goal is to discredit the entire Republican Party. That was always the danger in electing Trump—that the combination of an MSM allied against him and his own episodic outrageousness could ultimately end up tarnishing the right in a way that would result in liberal control of the reins of government. That’s the real goal of this entire crusade against Trump: the regaining of power by a left that believes it should be inevitable and permanent, and that will not and cannot rest until it has that power once again.

[NOTE: How did Wolff manage to get his interviews? Here’s the description:

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Wolff says, he was able to take up “something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing” ”” an idea encouraged by the president himself. Because no one was in a position to either officially approve or formally deny such access, Wolff became “more a constant interloper than an invited guest.” There were no ground rules placed on his access, and he was required to make no promises about how he would report on what he witnessed.

Since then, he conducted more than 200 interviews. In true Trumpian fashion, the administration’s lack of experience and disdain for political norms made for a hodgepodge of journalistic challenges. Information would be provided off-the-record or on deep background, then casually put on the record. Sources would fail to set any parameters on the use of a conversation, or would provide accounts in confidence, only to subsequently share their views widely. And the president’s own views, private as well as public, were constantly shared by others. The adaptation presented here offers a front-row view of Trump’s presidency, from his improvised transition to his first months in the Oval Office.

If that’s true, it’s pretty shocking that someone like Wolff was allowed that sort of access. Trump and company should have known it was the perfect set-up for a hit piece. Surely it’s not usual for some random member of the press to be plunked down in the middle of a transitional White House, with full access to anyone wishing to speak with him? Here’s Wolff’s Wiki entry; he’s mostly been a reporter on the media and his reliability has been questioned many times.

The White House has certainly focused on that aspect of Wolff:

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that a forthcoming book containing scathing criticism of the president and his administration from team members and allies was filled with “mistake after mistake after mistake.”

Sanders told reporters at Thursday’s press briefing that Americans “probably could care less about a book full of lying and would really like to hear about” issues on which the administration has claimed victories, including combating terrorism and the economy.

“I don’t think they really care about some trash that an author that no one had ever heard of until today or a fired employee wants to peddle,” she said.

Oh, I know plenty of people who really really care. Most of them hate Trump already, though, so I’m not sure that Wolff’s book and the coverage of it will change many minds.

Others, including former deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh, have denied making statements attributed to them in the book, and Sanders on Thursday characterized the book as “complete fantasy and just full of tabloid gossip.”

Asked to offer examples of falsehoods in the book, Sanders pointed to one excerpt listing White House communications director Hope Hicks’s age as 26 ”” she is 29 ”” and another in which Wolff wrote that Trump responded “who?” when former Fox News chief Roger Ailes suggested John Boehner for the job of White House chief of staff.

“I’ll give you one, just because it’s really easy: The fact that there was a claim that the president didn’t know who John Boehner was is pretty ridiculous, considering the majority of you have seen photos,” Sanders said. “Frankly, several of you have even tweeted out that the president not only knows him but has played golf with him, tweeted about him. I mean, that’s pretty simple and pretty basic.”…

Sanders also disputed a portion of the book that outlines expectations from the top of Trump’s campaign, including campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Trump himself, that he would not win the 2016 election. The press secretary called it “one of the most ridiculous things” from the book.

“The president, the first lady, his family, they wouldn’t have put themselves through that process if, one, they didn’t believe they could win, and two, they didn’t want to win,” Sanders said. “It is absolutely laughable to think that somebody like this president would run for office with the purpose of losing.

Sanders also said one thing that might answer the question of how Wolff got access to his interviewees:

…that 95 percent of the interviews for Wolff’s book were conducted at the request of Bannon…

Bannon was fired last August. And I would guess he realized things were going badly between him and Trump long before that. When did Wolff interview most of his subjects?]

Let it snow

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, we don’t have much choice, do we?

It’s snowing, the wind is blowing (but not, I think, at blizzard level), and I have no reason to go out today.

As for great blizzards of the past, I well remember this one. Fortunately, I was not among those stranded motorists on Route 128, some of whom died because their exhausts got covered and the carbon monoxide backed into their cars. I was safe at home hunkered down with my husband and a fireplace.

Unfortunately, however, I was stranded on a Greyhound bus with a seat near front row and center for this 1967 Midwest biggee. My bus and I were somewhere in Indiana; I’d been on my way to a family wedding where I was scheduled to be a bridesmaid. In those days, forecasting the weather was a great deal more primitive than now, and nobody foresaw the scope of this storm at the time I joined a ragtag group of people who stepped onto that bus and filled every single seat, because the airport was already closed.

I did have the foresight, however, to wear multiple layers of clothing, and so I was very warm. I must have been hungry, too, but I don’t remember that. I chiefly recall an interminable night of sitting with my Intro to Botany text open on my lap, reading the same paragraphs about xylem and phloem over and over and trying vainly to absorb the information, while somebody’s pesky two-year-old roamed the aisles unsupervised, his copiously running nose unattended and dripping with the cold.

How long did the bus sit there without moving? I don’t know, but memory tells me it was at least 24 hours. Did I make the wedding? Yes, barely.

[NOTE: Half of this post has been recycled from a previous one.]

Predicting Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Iran is unpredictable. I have no idea what will happen there.

But I do know that tyrannies stay in power through a number of mechanisms. One is complete mind control, but only North Korea seems to be able to do that in this day and age. But another, and perhaps the most common one, is that the tyrannical regime—which, after all, consists of a small number of people in power compared to the large number of a country’s inhabitants—must have an enforcing agent. The leaders are always outnumbered, after all.

The enforcer can be the military. It can be the police. It can be the secret police or the elite military. It can be (and often is) several or all of the above.

And that group of enforcers must be willing to do the regime’s bidding. Time after time, tyrannies have fallen because the enforcers refuse to enforce the will of the country’s leaders.

Then there is the will of those in charge—in other words, how ruthless they are willing to be. In Soviet Russia, for example, the earliest leaders were plenty ruthless. Think Lenin and Stalin. Later on, though, some of that fervor went out of those in charge. Maybe because they got used to the high life, or because they became somewhat Westernized over time, or maybe they realized how rotten their police state was and they just couldn’t defend it with the same vigor. They didn’t want to lose power, but they just weren’t willing to kill as many people to keep it.

Which brings us to Iran. I don’t even begin to read the minds of the mullahs, but I do believe that religious fervor is more inclined to continue undiminished, because they believe that the kingdom they built in Iran isn’t just one of earth, it’s one of heaven on earth—no matter how many people they have to kill to sustain it.

So I think that it all depends on what the enforcers will do. If enough enforcers turn on the mullahs, that will be the real turning point.

Finally, Steve Bannon gets some respect from the press?

The New Neo Posted on by

Why? Because he said something they want to hear: that the meeting between Kushner et. al. and some Russians was “treasonous.”

Bannon, of course, has reason (or thinks he has reason) to hate Kushner. You may or may not recall this sort of thing:

Steve Bannon”˜s White House exit was partially orchestrated by First Daughter and Presidential Advisor Ivanka Trump and her husband, Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PEOPLE.

“Jared and Ivanka helped push him out,” the source tells PEOPLE, adding, “Bannon being removed changes everything.”

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that Bannon would no longer serve as chief strategist in a statement, saying, “White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day. We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.”

That was back in August. Bannon is a “don’t get mad, get even” sort of guy. Or maybe he’s a “get mad and get even” sort of guy.

And so we have Bannon’s scorched-Kushner policy:

Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, reportedly based on more than 200 interviews with the president, his inner circle and players in and around the administration, is one of the most eagerly awaited political books of the year. In it, Wolff lifts the lid on a White House lurching from crisis to crisis amid internecine warfare, with even some of Trump’s closest allies expressing contempt for him.

Completely unsurprising. Bannon’s one of those people for whom the answer is “neither” when you’re asked the question would you rather have him inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in?

[ADDENDUM: I was wondering what Trump might say. After all, Kushner is his son-in-law, and Trump isn’t a guy who tends to retreat from a fight, or to disregard an insult or a threat. Well, the White House has issued a statement, and it’s a lulu:

Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.

Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look. Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country. Yet Steve had everything to do with the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama held for more than thirty years by Republicans.

Steve doesn’t represent my base””he’s only in it for himself.

Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.

We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down.

Now it’s Steve’s turn.]

How to write attention-getting headlines about the weather

The New Neo Posted on by

CNN seems to have it down: “Winter ‘bomb cyclone’ threatens East Coast, bringing temps colder than Mars.”

In the following excerpt, I’ve highlighted the most fear-mongering words:

A massive “bombogenesis” — an area of rapidly declining low pressure — will wreak havoc on the Northeast this week, threatening hurricane-force winter wind gusts in a region already crippled by deadly cold.

The bombogenesis will result in what’s known as a “bomb cyclone.” And the bomb cyclone, expected to strike Thursday, will likely dump 6 to 12 inches of snow in New England and hurl 40- to 60-mph gusts.

By the end of this week, parts of the Northeast will be colder than Mars.

At Mount Washington Observatory in New Hampshire, the temperature will plunge to -35 degrees Friday night into Saturday, weather observer Taylor Regan said. At last check, the high temperature on Mars was -2 degrees Fahrenheit.

I believe that’s what we used to call a “blizzard.”

And 6 to 12 inches is not nothing, but it’s fairly typical of a snowstorm.

Has the cold been “crippling” and “deadly”? Yes, if you’re out in it long enough, dressed inappropriately enough. I try not to do that, and so do most people around here. It’s been cabin-fever inducing, but I’ve gone out nearly every day for at least a little while, suited up in a knee-length down coat, enormously warm mittens, a scarf, and earmuffs. If I know I’m going to be out for long, I get out the big guns: something on the order of this, only a bit more formidable, and colored blue.

I don’t go out in blizzards if I can help it; I sit around hoping the power doesn’t fail. Power outages are what I fear.

Oh, and that Mt. Washington/Mars thing? No fair comparing the low on the mountain to the high on Mars! But Mt. Washington is famous for having the most extreme weather on earth. Yes, you heard that right—on earth:

Hurricane force winds occur an average of 110 days per year. Mount Washington holds the Northern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere records for directly measured surface wind speed ”” 231 mph, which was recorded on April 12, 1934…

On January 16, 2004, the summit weather observation registered a temperature of −43.6 °F and sustained winds of 87.5 mph, resulting in a wind chill value of −102.59 °F on the mountain. During a 71-hour stretch from around 3 p.m. on January 13 to around 2 p.m. on January 16, 2004, the wind chill on the summit never went above −50 °F.

I don’t plan to be on Mt. Washington tomorrow, when the storm is expected to begin.

I don’t plan to be here, either, but I thought I’d sneak this in because I like it:

[NOTE: I did a search to find out what happens to the homeless when there’s a cold snap like this or a blizzard. Obviously, being outside for long would be extremely hazardous and even deadly if a person is living on the streets. I couldn’t find too much about it with a New England twist, but ordinarily shelters are filled to capacity and over capacity when the weather turns very cold, and there are outreach teams who try to encourage street people to use them. For example:

As a prolonged, bitter cold front descends across the state, homeless shelters in Portland and Bangor are making an extra effort to get people off the streets so they don’t freeze to death.

City officials and shelter staff in the two cities are trying different ways to keep people indoors, now that there’s greater risk that people will die of exposure. In Bangor, shelters have hauled out extra beds, and Portland shelters have beefed up staffing levels.

Police in Bangor said they are ready to shuttle people from the streets to city shelters ”” or just a friend’s house ”” if it means getting people out of the cold.

“The general gist is, when the weather turns cold, or dangerous, we work even more closely with our local shelters,” said Bangor police Sgt. Wade Betters.

In Bangor, the city’s two primary first-come, first-served shelters are nearly always full, but both are adding extra beds this week to accommodate as many people as they can.

…Those who are still sleeping outside in winter have often been barred from shelters, usually for repeatedly endangering other guests. If they have nowhere to go, Bangor officers have allowed people to warm up in the police station lobby.

“We would not turn them away,” Betters said.]