Fidel Castro is dead. Given that Cuba is a totalitarian regime whose news cannot be trusted, it’s impossible to know when he actually died, but we can presumably believe this wonderful news item.
Let me point out that he was the usual Rich People’s Leftist (read my latest book to see what I’m talking about) who did nothing helpful for the poor and in fact lived a lavish lifestyle while his people were impoverished (here). Rich People’s Leftism is the leftism of those who come from the upper half who feel guilty about their wealth but who take steps that do more to alleviate their guilt than to actually help the poor. Here in America such leftists constantly press for higher taxes on the rich, when in fact lower taxes on the poor would bring immediate relief to many. More important, they wage a pointless war against capitalism and capitalists when in fact it is easy enough to make capitalism work for the poor (by promoting as much job creation as possible).
So, no, I’m not going to feel a bit sad at this monster’s demise. No one praising him seems interested in acknowledging his brutality, or even the obvious point that he never let the Cuban people decide who was going to rule Cuba.
Obama, of course, was heartbroken. But let me acknowledge that at least his reaction was in perfect accord with ordinary leftist rhetoric of the sort the world has been familiar with for decades. His deal with Iran is, as I have been arguing, completely contrary to that rhetoric, because of the ultraconservative nature of the Iranian regime.
The Scandal Concerning the Cost of Science Journals
Before the Internet came along, it made sense that science journals cost a lot of money to run and publish, so libraries were charged an arm and a leg to subscribe to them. But today all that has changed. It costs hardly anything to put out an online journal – I know because my wife publishes an online journal in art history – yet science journals are still expensive. Why?
Peer Review in Science and the Fraud about Global Warming
And speaking of science, the Economist that arrived today has managed in one sentence to blow the lid off the pretense that “peer-reviewed science” gives strong support to the claims about global warming. That sentence was in an article about reactionless motors for space travel (entitled “Ye cannae break the laws of physics”), about which they are skeptical. After all, such a concept violates Newton’s third law of motion. Yes, they are skeptical, even though a peer-reviewed article has verified that a reactionless motor worked. They write, “peer review means only that the experiment was competently executed, not that its conclusions are true.” Exactly. There are, apparently, limits to peer review, which is what I’ve been saying all along.
Lots of feminists have decided that the white women (53% of them) who voted for Trump are self-hating women. That is, they hate women because otherwise they would not have voted for Trump. See here. But the same can be said of feminists, who won’t support women who have been oppressed by Muslims. These feminists, of course, get to shout their opinions aloud in the media, while my opinion won't be noticed, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong.