No H in Snake

There's an old (1979) music theory textbook called No H in Snake. I have no idea why it's called that, even though I was taught out of that book as a child. I think one of the activities involved arranging cards with musical notes on them into a row, or "snake," and the notes only go from A to G, so "no H." Anyway, I think you'll agree that it's a very memorable title -- which we used to press into service as the best deadpan surrealist response whenever anyone said "Remember there's no I in team."

In my last post, I noticed the logo for Taiwan's National Health Insurance, which is a stylized green H.

Back in 2021, I noted that the British equivalent of Taiwan's socialized healthcare, NHS, is Hebrew for "snake" -- and also the initials for No H in Snake.

H is the 8th letter, and 8 is the lemniscate. This made me think of the old 8chan logo, which was a green lemniscate that suggests a two-headed snake. The snake imagery was made explicit in the new 8kun logo, though it is unfortunately no longer green.

That 8chan lemniscate -- a mirror-image S in green -- looks a bit familiar, doesn't it?

No H in Snake -- if a figure-eight can represent a snake (à la 8kun), then that gets us to this:

As the context of that magazine cover should make clear, the "NOH8" slogan has nothing to with not hating people and everything to do with promoting the idea that sexual pathologies and perversions are good. The more usual symbol of this ideology is the rainbow -- symbol of God's promise to Noah never to flood the earth again -- so it it presumably not a coincidence that "NOH8" brings to mind Noah and the eight people who were saved in the ark.

Doing an image search for noah 8 brought up this, with a green cursive L similar in general design to the 8chan logo and the No H in Snake treble clef.

Behold there are save two churches only

James Tissot, The Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple

From the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:9-12:

And it came to pass that [the angel] said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

Two churches only. Here's one of them, represented by its president, Harold B. Lee, speaking in 1972:

I want to warn this great body of priesthood against that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has been labeled as a sin second only in seriousness to the sin of murder. I speak of the sin of adultery, which, as you know, was the name used by the Master as he referred to unlicensed sexual sins of fornication as well as adultery; and besides this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world, of which Church members must not be a part.

While we are in the world, we must not be of the world. Any attempts being made by the schools or places of entertainment to flaunt sexual perversions, which can do nothing but excite to experimentation, must find among the priesthood in this church a vigorous and unrelenting defense through every lawful means that can be employed.

The common judges of Israel, our bishops and stake presidents, must not stand by and fail to apply disciplinary measures within their jurisdiction, as set forth plainly in the laws of the Lord and procedures as set forth in plain and simple instructions that cannot be misunderstood. Never must we allow supposed mercy to the unrepentant sinner to rob the justice upon which true repentance from sinful practices is predicated.

And here, in the Current Year, is the other:

Here's their official statement:

The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.

We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked. They already support the sexual mutilation of children; what's left to be shocked by? It still feels unreal, though. I never would have dreamed even a few years ago that this day would come, and it's hard to express the revulsion I feel. Whore really is the mot juste.

Why the Liararchy allowed Roe v. Wade to be overturned -- and why gay "marriage" is next

Roe v. Wade was never the Satanic ideal. The ideal was never for abortion to be legalized by judicial fiat, without the people's consent. Much more effective, in terms of damnation, would be a public referendum on the matter, implicating as many people as possible -- not only those who commit abortions, not only a handful of judges, but millions of voters consenting, like Saul, to the deaths.

But that wouldn't have worked in 1973. The people wouldn't have consented.

So the first step was forced legalization -- leading, slowly but surely, to normalization. Now, after 50 years of abortion being an established constitutional right, the issue is returned to the people, on the understanding that by now the 50-year psy-op will have worked its magic and the majority will be willing to take Moloch's side. After 50 years of Roe, many have been personally involved in abortions. Many others know and love people who have. Many others may see the whole issue differently when it is framed as taking away a constitutional right rather than granting a new one.

In the case of gay "marriage," the normalization process has been orders of magnitude faster, due to propaganda power undreamt of in the 1970s, and the time is probably already ripe for Obergefell v. Hodges to be overturned as well. The social pressure for voters to support gay "marriage" will be even stronger than for abortion. Abortion is generally private, and you probably don't even know which of your acquaintances have been involved in one. "Marriage," in contrast is very public and is central to a person's identity. By now many of us have friends or relatives who are gay-"married." How many -- even among those who opposed such practices in the past -- will be willing to vote to annul those unions?

Of course it is possible that this strategy could backfire, and that the people when given the choice will refuse to choose evil, but I think the Liararchy is fairly confident that won't happen. And even in their worst-case scenario, you still get a hell of a fight, an explosion of hatred on both sides, and another step closer to the pure chaos beloved of Sorath.

The CJCLDS goes full Satan, supports turning kids trans

In his recent General Conference address, "Following Jesus [sic]: Being a Peacemaker," Elder Neil L. Anderson, apostle of the Latter-day Society Against the Use of Nicknames and Abbreviations, reports:

In February, a headline in the Arizona Republic stated, "Bipartisan bill supported by Latter-day Saints would protect gay and transgender Arizonans."

We, as Latter-day Saints, are "pleased to be part of a coalition of faith, business, LGBTQ people and community leaders who have worked together in a spirit of trust and mutual respect."

This bill which enjoys the official support of the Church, HB 2802, is "bipartisan" in the classic sense of being both stupid and evil.

Much of it is about expanding "non-discrimination" laws to include "sexual orientation and gender identity," and to apply even to the very smallest businesses (previously, businesses with fewer than 15 employees were exempt). This means that if an LPGABBQ person applies for a job, you must either hire them or else be prepared to prove that they were rejected for some reason unrelated to sexual neurosis or ideology. (The CJCLDS supports it because there is an exception for religious organizations -- rules for thee but not for me.) This is bad but not shocking, as such tyrannical laws, applied to various other protected classes, are nothing new.

Here's the shocking part:

A. It is unprofessional conduct for a health provider to provide conversion therapy to a patient or client who is younger than eighteen years of age.

B. Subsection A of this section does not apply to [clergy, parents, or grandparents when acting as such, even if they also happen to be health providers].

C. The regulation of conversion therapy is of statewide concern and is not subject to further regulation by a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state.

D. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Conversion therapy":

(a) means any practice or treatment that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a patient or client, including mental health therapy that seeks to change, eliminate or reduce behaviors, expressions, attractions or feelings related to the patient's or client's sexual orientation or gender identity.

(b) does not include a practice or treatment that does not seek to change the patient's or client's sexual orientation or gender identity, including mental health therapy and that meets the following:

(i) is neutral with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity.

(ii) provides assistance to a patient or client undergoing gender transition.

Got that? If it has been decided (by, perhaps, one of the trans teachers schools will be forced to hire) that your kid is trans, the only treatment it will be legal for health providers to offer is "assistance . . . undergoing gender transition."

The CJCLDS leadership supports this. They support it so much that they made an exception to their usual stance of political neutrality to make an official statement endorsing it.

They can burn in hell.

A perversely unlikely misreading

A completely random series of clicks led me to this photo of a woke travesty of a Tarot card (from a deck by a “they/them” human-in-denial who hates sex, hierarchy, the human race, and God, and therefore fundamentally hates the Tarot itself).

When I saw this (a non-hierarchical, non-gendered, non-human, non-Tarot Page of Cups), I misread it as “Reverse of Options.” This is strange because I had just recently experienced the song “Pills and Potions” during the sort of half-waking state that I usually refer to as a “hypnopompic reverie,” and so my mind should have been primed and ready to recognize the (otherwise rather unusual) words reverie and potions.

One of the other cards from this anti-Tarot deck also synched with a cartoon I had seen a few minutes before.

The Bizarro sex talk

Say no to all coveting, stealing, and lusting,
And do not eat lobsters, for they are disgusting.

-- Yes and No

Let's -- to adapt a well-worn Intro-to-Linguistics example of syntactic ambiguity -- talk about sex with Bizarro cartoonist Dan Piraro. I've been a Bizarro reader since time immemorial -- a particular fan of that one where the guy's like "If a croissant is in your portable phone holster, what did you have for breakfast?" -- and I follow Mr. Piraro's blog, on which he occasionally holds forth on non-cartoon subjects. For a creative guy whose brand is Bizarro, he has a strong tendency towards blandly mainstream opinions smack-dab in the middle of the Overton window -- a fact that ought in theory to be surprising but of course isn't. This post of his can therefore be taken as more or less presenting Joe Sixpack's view on the subject of Teh Gay.

So, let's dissect it.

Forget about furniture for a minute, let’s talk about sexual orientation. This is a topic near to my heart because I have one. A sexual orientation. And if there’s one thing I’m completely sure of about, it’s that I have had no control over which way it pointed. [. . .] And I can only assume that if I did not choose what kind of humans would attract my sexual interest, neither do most others. As I said, it’s an assumption so maybe I’m wrong about that.

This is already a question-begging way of framing things. It's the same as the pronoun nonsense. Pronouns are a part of speech close to my heart because I myself expect people to use the correct pronouns when referring to me. My pronouns are he/him, but yours might be he/schmim, they/them, xoo/xiff, or whatever. As for me, being referred to as he and him has just always felt natural for as long as I can remember, and being called anything else would just be weird -- so I can only assume that everyone else's pronominal orientation arose in the same way.

The unspoken assumption is that since the normal comes naturally, therefore the abnormal also comes naturally -- and that assumption is arrived at by framing things in such a way as to exclude the very concept of normality or abnormality. The idea of "sexual orientation" was created to normalize various disorders of sexual attraction; the pronouns-in-your-bio thing was created to normalize the use of ungrammatical or made-up pronouns. If we wanted to normalize pica -- the psychiatric term for the desire to eat things that are not food -- we could start calling normal people cibivores or something ("food-eaters") and cast cibivory as just another "dietary orientation." Why do some people want to eat chalk and gravel? Well, why do you want to eat food? Same thing!

Note that I'm not trying to argue directly against the point that Mr. Piraro is making in this paragraph. Like him, I assume that no one directly chooses to experience this or that sort of sexual attraction (although of course one can choose by one's actions, and by such thoughts as are under conscious control, to entertain an urge or to dismiss it, to fan the flames or to smother them). My point is that the approach he takes -- What could be more natural than a sexual orientation? Everyone's got one! -- biases the whole train of thought that follows.

This approach also has the effect of conflating abnormality with immorality. "Being gay" (the "orientation," not the lifestyle) can't be a sin unless it's a choice -- and it's not a choice, so it's not a sin. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with it, and we should destigmatize it and embrace it. Hell, why not celebrate it? Why not take pride in it? Haven't we conclusively proven that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it?

But try applying that logic to any other abnormal desire, such as pica. Supposing you regularly feel the urge to chow down on feldspar -- and remember we're just talking about experiencing the urge, not about acting on it -- well you obviously didn't choose to feel that particular urge, so the urge itself cannot be considered morally wrong. Therefore, pica should be destigmatized and embraced and celebrated, and we should hold Pica Pride events and fulminate against the evils of picaphobia.

What leads us to this insane conclusion is a failure to distinguish among the various ways in which something can be "bad," and the assumption that if something ought not to be punished as morally wrong (because it is not a choice), it is therefore "not bad" and ought not even to be discouraged as abnormal, unhealthy, or harmful.

At my current age, I understand that sexual orientation is a very slippery, sliding scale. Specific preferences fly all over the place, but in general, the question of whether you’re attracted to your own sex, the opposite sex, or both, presents a kind of scale with single preferences on either end and a 50/50 position in the middle. (If you’re not attracted to either sex, you’re not represented on this scale. Sorry, maybe next time.)

Maybe. That seems to be much more true for women than for men. Anyway, supposing it is true, it suggests that "sexual orientation" is labile and responds to incentives, and that efforts to encourage or discourage particular orientations are not insane attempts to deny and suppress people's fundamental and unalterable natures but are likely to bear fruit, whether for good or for ill.

Anyway, this line of thinking leads me to wonder who are these religious people who condemn as sinners anyone who is not cis-gender? They must think that homosexuality is a choice, right? A sin has to be a choice—you can’t sin accidentally, can you? You can’t unknowingly drop your business card in a lobby and then an old lady with a walker comes by two hours later, slips on it, and dies—you aren’t guilty of the sin of murder, are you? Of course not. So for any sexual orientation to be a sin, first and foremost, it has to be a choice.

First, that's not actually what cis-gender is supposed to mean. It refers not to non-homosexuals but to people who are not in denial about their own biological sex. It's another "cibivore" word, intended to normalize those who are in denial. Basic biological literacy is just another "gender identity" -- everyone has one, you know! What Mr. Piraro means is straight -- another loaded term, originally synonymous with square, as in un-hip. Just like those stodgy L-seven killjoys to begrudge the rest of us a harmless bit of gaiety!

I'd like to emphasize again that there is an element of choice in "sexual orientation." Desires arise unbidden, but it's our choice if we dwell on them or dismiss them, and it's certainly our choice if we embrace a given desire as a central an ineradicable part of our deepest identity, which it would be "hateful" for anyone to criticize or oppose. All normal men have felt sexual attraction for many different women, for other men's wives, and for young women who are biologically mature but legally underage. Most men have probably felt the urge to commit sexual assault. You're not to blame for your hormones, but you certainly are to blame if you deliberately feed and inflame those desires, to say nothing of proudly "identifying as" a philanderer, adulterer, ephebophile, or rapist.

Now, the religious type will say that it isn’t the desire, it’s the act of going through with it that is the sin. Yeah, I get why you make that distinction, but let’s go back a step and ask why you think it’s bad in the first place. It’s because The Old Testament says something about it. You probably wouldn’t have come upon this on your own if it didn’t, unless you’re the type of person who just condemns anyone who is into something you aren’t.

After going on and on about how desire isn't a choice and therefore can't be condemned, Mr. Piraro briefly concedes that "the religious type" actually condemns actions, not desires -- a concession which renders his whole opening argument irrelevant -- but it's already done its work of casting opponents of Teh Gay as bigots who irrationally condemn people for something beyond their control. Mr. Piraro himself seems to have a short memory; a few paragraphs down, as we shall see below, he's back to wondering at those "who think that sexual proclivities are an evil choice."

"Why not the Time Cube?" the late Gene Ray used to ask. "The ONLY REASON is educated stupidity." For Mr. Piraro, the only reason people condemn homosexuality is that the Old Testament says something about it. But that's obviously not true. As Mr. Piraro himself details below, the Old Testament condemns lots of things, from cotton-poly T-shirts to gathering firewood on Saturday, and nobody latches onto it. If people do latch onto the OT's prohibition of sodomy, it's not because they indiscriminately embrace whatever the Old Testament says but because they agree with it -- because they spontaneously feel that sodomy is wrong and that the prohibition makes sense. This spontaneous feeling is probably what accounts for the condemnation of sodomy among the ancient Hebrews and many other ancient cultures. Mr. Piraro is confusing cause with effect. If it's not, as he says, the sort of thing you'd come up with on your own, why did the ancient Hebrews come up with it?

The only other possibility Mr. Piraro has to offer is that people condemn sodomy because they're "the type of person who just condemns anyone who is into something you aren’t." Like, I don't know, badminton or something. Obviously that's not what's going on.

I mean, it’s not like LBTGQ+ are victimizing you in some way, letting air out of your tires, toilet papering your lawn, grabbing your ass at the grocery store. Whatever they’re up to, they’re doing it in the privacy of their personal lives, not yours, so this is a victimless activity. Can there be a crime without a victim?

LBTGQ+! The poor gays, who started this whole thing, have been demoted to fourth billing.

As for this "doing it in the privacy of their personal lives" thing, it sounded good when the movement was first getting started, but it's obviously gone way beyond that. "Pride" takes over all public spaces for one month out of the year, and everyone is under increasing pressure not just to live and let live despite disagreements but to actively endorse and "celebrate" LPGABBQ lifestyles.

If (a) such lifestyles are harmful to the people who practice them, and if (b) destigmatizing and normalizing and celebrating those lifestyles will result in more people choosing so to live, then it seems obvious that "Pride" and all that would be a bad thing. Even if we set spiritual considerations to one side, being a practicing homosexual shortens your lifespan more than being a smoker does. (See "Thank you for smoking" for details.) And while people used to laugh at the idea of "recruitment," the fact is that the relentless pro-Alphabet propaganda campaign has led to a sharp increase in the number of self-identified Alphabet People.

What harm are they doing? Well, at minimum, they're normalizing a harmful lifestyle and pushing it on impressionable children. And you can see that without so much as cracking open your copy of the Old Testament.

But back to the Old Testament, if you’re really going to make the whole world toe the line with every little thing that one book says, good luck. You’ll also have to stop people from wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork, shellfish, or rabbit, and selling their daughters into slavery for the wrong reasons. All that’s in there, too. 

Right. As I said before, this is strong evidence that "it's in the Old Testament" is not the primary reason people oppose Teh Gay.

So who are these people who think that sexual proclivities are an evil choice?

Acting on sexual proclivities can be an evil choice. So much for "Yeah, I get why you make that distinction"! And is anyone going to make a serious argument that acting on one's sexual proclivities is never an evil choice? Everyone, including normal "quadratosexuals," experiences sexual urges which it would be wrong to act on, and everyone recognizes the need to resist those urges. This is like Civilization 101. "But muh sexual proclivities!" just isn't a valid defense of anything.

I suspect most are people who have chosen to live in opposition to their true nature. Surely, these are non-heteros living as heteros.

This is ridiculous. If I'm naturally lazy but nevertheless work hard, am I lazy person living as a non-lazy person? If I am afraid but overcome my fear and do what needs to be done, am I a coward living in opposition to my true nature?

Actually, these are pretty deep questions, questions inherent in the paradoxical concept of "self-control." If one aspect of my nature subjects and controls another aspect -- which is all that "self-control" can mean -- is that good or bad? Which part is really me -- the part that takes control, or the part that shouts "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" What is the True Self? What is your True Self, Dan Piraro? The part that wants to have sex with a particular sort of person? Is that the master principle of your life, to which all else must be subjected?

It not only explains how they think others have chosen to be gay -- because in their mind they chose not to be -- it also explains why they’re so unreasonably angry about people who are living their truth openly; If I have to live a miserable lie, you should have to, too, mofo!

"Mofo" is an ironically appropriate choice of words, since it refers to a sexual proclivity that most everyone agrees definitely should be repressed.

"Living their truth openly" -- is that what they're doing? Well, that is for them to decide. Making that kind of choice is what humans do; it is what makes us human and potentially divine. In the immortal words of the Moody Blues, "We decide which is right -- and which is an illusion." But that doesn't mean every choice we make is Good. Since the Old Testament has been invoked, let's give the last word to Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

One of the most subtle forms of intimidation is the gradual normalization of aberration.

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Remember the Mormons? They walked the earth not so very long ago. Here is the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in 1993. The title of his address is "Behold, the Enemy Is Combined."

[I]t is the engulfing effects of [the] deteriorating world on Church members which is the “clear and present danger.” . . . Yet we must not be intimidated or lose our composure even though the once morally unacceptable is becoming acceptable, as if frequency somehow conferred respectability!

One of the most subtle forms of intimidation is the gradual normalization of aberration. Alexander Pope so cautioned:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Every Mormon used to know and quote those lines from Pope's Essay on Man. They used to turn up in sermons like Ezra Taft Benson's "Satan's Thrust -- Youth," prefaced with "Tolerance is a word valuable in the service of Satan." They seem to have fallen out of favor in recent decades; the formerly-Mormon hierarchy has switched its allegiance to the other Pope and all he represents.

(Pope : the Pope :: science : The Science)

⁂

Here's what Elder Maxwell's successors at The Church That Can't Be Called Mormon Anymore have chosen to put on the homepage of their official website -- which is no longer lds.org because they have renounced the label LDS.

The "LGBT" article is about 1,400 words long and never once mentions, even in passing, that disordered sexual behavior is sinful. Here is the article's one and only use of the word sin:

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. . . . Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

Notice how they conflate experiencing temptation (which is the common lot of man) with choosing to identify as a particular sort of temptation-experiencer, to embrace the temptation as central to who you are as a person. The latter absolutely was considered a sin not so long ago. In my day, the Church never even used words like gay  -- preferring "those who struggle with same-sex attraction" -- precisely because they wanted to avoid encouraging people to identify with their besetting sins.

To see the fundamental dishonesty and cowardice of this stance, imagine replacing the temptation to indulge in socially-promoted sexual perversions with any other, non-socially approved, temptation. Alcoholics, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, men with roving eyes, lazy people. While it may be technically true that a disordered passion is only a sin if you act on it, there would obviously be something deeply wrong with an organization that was constantly harping on the need to understand and welcome necrophiliacs, without bothering to mention that they don't actually condone the sexual abuse of corpses.

In this modern world, where everyone is under overwhelming social pressure not only to tolerate but to celebrate sexual perversion, where it takes great courage even to say publicly that sin is sin, the Church has decided that the message its members need the most is that they need to be more accepting -- only up to a point, of course! -- of this evil. This is an act of moral cowardice and a dereliction of duty. It is indistinguishable from Bergoglio's "who am I to judge" crap and will lead to the same end. The ex-Mormon hierarchy needs to return to Mormonism, stop hobnobbing with the Pope, and reread their Pope.

I now support the LGBTQ movement.

Y'all knew this was coming, ever since I embraced the rainbow flag.

LGB = Let's Go Brandon

T? Q? Hmm . . . whatever could those two letters represent?

I will bet a silk pajama

Thank you for smoking.

Is smoking a fake health crisis, like the birdemic? I'm gradually coming around to that point of view. I've never been a smoker myself (first I was too Mormon, then too mainstream/materialist, and now, well, 42 is a bit late in the day to take it up!), but I've been questioning the smoking-is-bad narrative for years (see my 2011 post on smoking and creativity, for example). What stimulated me to finally post this, though, was Adam Piggott's recent post "Smoking is Cool," plus a growing affection for smokers as just about the only unmasked faces I see in a typical day.

First of all, though, let's take a look at this remarkable little note published in 2001 in a major international medical journal.

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in this journal on the life expectancy of tobacco smokers in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that smokers live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These anti-tobacco groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of smokers rather than promoting their health and well being.

The aim of our research was never to spread more hostility toward those who use tobacco, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of smokers can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for men who smoke is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of male smokers currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, smokers in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of smokers would be greatly improved. Deaths from lung cancer have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their use or non-use of tobacco products or to any other behavioral or social factor. If estimates of an individual smoker's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all others in that population. Individuals who smoke are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of lung cancer on groups, like smokers, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of smokers worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the human rights of tobacco users or any other group.

Just kidding! The note wasn't really about smokers at all, but about men who practice sodomy. (See the original here.) Except for switching sodomy and AIDS to smoking and lung cancer, I have left the article unchanged. It's actually the habit of sodomy that reduces one's life expectancy by 8 to 21 years. The corresponding figure for smoking is 5 to 13 years, depending on how heavily one smokes, so we're talking about the same general ballpark.

So this is how respectable people talk about a practice that is roughly as hazardous as smoking -- and it's how they could talk about smoking, too, only no one ever does. Instead, smoking is singled out and vilified in a way that is, I think, unique. In many countries, including Taiwan, cigarette producers are required by law to disfigure their cartons with large gross-out photos of diseased lungs, rotted teeth, amputated toes, and the like. I understand the US is planning to start doing the same thing this year. Meanwhile, wine bottles remain simple and attractive, and no one is clamoring for them to add photos of cirrhotic livers or puking drunks or whatever. McDonald's menu boards are not required to feature photos of morbidly obese people on oxygen. (Actually, even saying that obesity itself is unhealthy is increasingly a no-no.) Supermarket labels do not feature helpful reminders like "Warning: This chicken was factory-farmed in conditions of extreme inhumanity and received daily injections of antibiotics." Driver's licenses don't include bloody photos of traffic accidents and scary statistics. And of course, sodomy itself is aggressively promoted as something to be proud of. "Joe Camel" ads were banned for targeting children, but banning sodomy propaganda targeting children is like a Nazi war crime or something. QWERTY pride is now a well-established social institution; can one even imagine a "smokers' pride" event? When I was in college, they held such an event on campus every year, but it was promoting illegal cannabis smoking, so it was okay. A similar event to promote good old-fashioned tobacco would be unthinkable.

So what's the deal? In a culture that tolerates, embraces, or actively promotes every imaginable vice, what is it about tobacco smoking that puts it beyond the pale? Yes, it's unhealthy; yes, it's addictive; yes, those who aren't into it generally find it unpleasant -- but those are its selling points! That's what the establishment likes! So why don't they like smoking? The fact that it is a "Native American" drug -- from the same officially approved minority group that brought us such not-gonna-judge drugs as ayahuasca and mescaline -- makes the establishment rejection of it even more puzzling. Better yet, it's got a feminist background; during the first wave of that movement, cigarettes were promoted as "torches of freedom," symbols of equality with men. Today, liberated women are still encouraged to drink and swear and get tattoos, but no longer to smoke. What, I ask again, is the deal?

I don't have an answer to that question, but it's enough to make me think that there must be something fundamentally good about smoking, or it would never be attacked like this -- and that what "everyone knows" about the terrible, terrible health hazards associated with smoking may, on inspection, turn out to be about as valid as what "everyone knows" about the birdemic or global warming. I haven't delved into this at all and probably won't bother to; I'm just saying it looks like a phantom menace and quacks like a phantom menace.

⁂

Mask compliance is currently universal in Taiwan. While I myself keep a mask handy in case I see a cop, I am very, very much the exception. Everyone wears masks all the time. The only unmasked faces I see outside the walls of my own home are those of smokers. It used to be that I would see a face and think, "Hey, a fellow mask rebel! -- oh, never mind, just a smoker." Now, though, I’ve realized that while it may be true that he just took off his mask to smoke and will put it back on again, at a deeper level smokers and non-maskies are on the same side. Whatever else a cigarette may mean, it certainly signifies a rejection of healthism and a refusal to kowtow to goodthink -- and anyone who's signaling that is all right in my book.

We have waited long enough for a gay, illegal immigrant Supreme Court justice.

Sometimes I think it would be more fun to work for the other side.

Note added: For those who don't get the reference, I'm doing my best to parody the un-parody-able.

(A quick survey of judges on TV shows that roughly 100% of them are African-American women, so it really does make you wonder why none of them have made it to the Supreme Court!)

Read a banned book -- no, not that one!

The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has been doing Banned Books Week every year since the 1980s.

Banned Books Week is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read. Typically held during the last week of September, it spotlights current and historical attempts to censor books in libraries and schools. It brings together the entire book community — librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers of all types — in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas, even those some consider unorthodox or unpopular.

It publishes lists of banned or challenged books, encourages people to read them, and encourages libraries to prominently display collections of these books near the entrance, with an ironic "warning" that some people consider them highly dangerous. Because to hell with censorship, right?

So these guys are definitely going to come out with a strong statement supporting Dr. Seuss and condemning the evil jackasses who want to cancel him for daring to celebrate diversity -- right? Right, guys?

Here's the stunning and brave anti-censorship statement the ALA OIF saw fit to release.

How libraries approach the Dr. Seuss books is going to differ, said OIF Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone, based on individual guidelines for collection curation and community demand for certain books. https://t.co/rJdEQJGmr2

— ALA OIF (@OIF) March 3, 2021

Wow, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, way to let these shitbirds have it with both barrels. Nice to have someone standing up for the freedom to read.

⁂

In case you haven't figured it out yet, no content-neutral "anti-censorship" movement actually exists. "Supporting banned books" means supporting the sort of books that usually get banned. Any guesses as to what sort those are? Well, the ALA has prepared a helpful infographic.

See "racism" there in the word cloud showing the reasons for book challenges? You might need a magnifying glass. Oh, and be sure to zoom in and read the yellow light-bulb thing in the lower right corner.

The "censorship" these people oppose is, overwhelmingly, opposition to the sexual revolution and to the glorification of sexual neuroses. That's it. That's what they stand for. They want children to be exposed (against their parents' wishes; see the third green square) to LPGABBQ propaganda -- not, Moloch forbid, to the obscenity of a Qing-era Chinaman wearing traditional clothing and eating rice with chopsticks! When they say they support books "some consider unorthodox or unpopular," they mean unpopular among benighted proles. (What, you didn't think "unorthodox" meant heretical, did you? They obviously don't support crimespeak!) They speak power to truth, not the reverse. They deserve no one's support.

Black crow, black rainbow

A modern-day Balaam wouldn't ride an ass; he'd take a taxi.

Ted Hughes wrote Crow between 1966 and 1969 and published it in 1970. It includes these lines.

To hatch a crow, a black rainbow

Bent in emptiness

over emptiness

But flying

The year 1969 also saw the foundation of the first of several black-led "diversity" organizations to use the name Rainbow Coalition. Jim Crow laws had been abolished a few years before the Rainbow Coalition, but founder Fred Hampton had earlier been a leader of the movement against them.

In 1975, Paul Simon referenced the Hughes poem in the lyrics to "My Little Town."

And after it rains, there's a rainbow

And all of the colors are black

It's not that the colors aren't there

It's just imagination they lack

In 1978, the gay pride Rainbow Flag made its debut in San Francisco. While the colors officially represented various things (red for life, orange for healing, that kind of crap), in practice the rainbow stands for the spectrum of sexual neuroses and perversions, with the whole explicitly representing the cardinal sin of pride. Spiritually speaking, "all of the colors are black." 

In 1995, the "Dark Side of the Rainbow" phenomenon -- pairing the 1973 Pink Floyd album The Dark Side of the Moon with the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz -- was discovered. One of the main characters in The Wizard of Oz is the Scarecrow.

In 2020, the birdemic arrived and was named for the crow -- Corvus corone, a member of the corvid family -- because a scarecrow may scare crows, but in 2020 (as in Soviet Russia), crow scares you!

I am told that in the UK, the rainbow has been (somewhat to the consternation of the LPGABBQ community) coopted as a symbol of the need to "save the National Health Service" by, um, wearing masks and clapping or something. (In Soviet Russia, on the other hand -- and this is one of the few ways in which that much-maligned country was not back-to-front -- medical professionals save you!)

I do apologize for all the "Russian reversals." They're part of my heritage as a Ukrainian-American, but that's no excuse. We all know how annoying it is when someone keeps repeating the same tired jokes -- and (you knew this was coming) in Soviet Russia, the same tired jokes keeps repeating "you"!