Are you telling me that Billy Bob Thornton is lying to me?

I started watching this new cable series, Landman, mainly because it has Billy Bob Thornton in it. I think he’s a good actor, even if he has fallen into the rut of playing bad, cynical characters…which is what he does in this show. It’s about rough, tough, oilmen doing the difficult, dangerous, and lucrative job of drilling for oil in Texas, and it really plays up the idea that manly men are all obnoxious and arrogant because they need to be in order to keep the oil flowing.

I was not particularly enjoying it. It’s a kind of self-serving genre, the whole assholes being assholes because it makes them great at getting shit done thing. I kept at it just because Billy Bob is so entertaining at doing that thing. But then I got to the third episode, where Billy Bob is entertainingly raging at a liberal lawyer woman (of course — no man in this show would be so wimpy) about the futility of wind turbines.

Do you have any idea how much diesel they had to burn to mix that much concrete? Or make that steel and haul this sh¡t out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane? You want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that fսck¡ng thing? Or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan, it won’t offset the carbon footprint of making it. And don’t get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery. And never mind the fact that, if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don’t have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It’d take 30 years if we started tomorrow. And, unfortunately, for your grandkids, we have a 120-year, petroleum-based infrastructure. Our whole lives depend on it. And, hell, it’s in everything. That road we came in on. The wheels on every car ever made, including yours. It’s in tennis rackets and lipstick and refrigerators and antihistamines. Pretty much anything plastic. Your cell phone case, artificial heart valves. Any kind of clothing that’s not made with animal or plant fibers. Soap, fսck¡ng hand lotion, garbage bags, fishing boats. You name it. Every fսck¡ng thing. And you know what the kicker is? We’re gonna run out of it before we find its replacement. It’s the thing that’s gonna kill us all… as a species. No, the thing that’s gonna kill us all is running out before we find an alternative. And believe me, if Exxon thought them fսck¡ng things right there were the future, they’d be putting them all over the goddamn place.

Wait a minute…I’m at a green university that has been putting up turbines. We’ve got a pair of them pumping out 10 million kWh of electricity. We’ve got photovoltaic panels all over campus. We’ve got a biomass gasification facility. We’re officially carbon neutral right now — how could that be, if the installation of these features was so expensive that we’d never be able to offset their carbon footprint?

That stopped me cold. If Billy Bob delivered that rant to my face, I wouldn’t be able to answer it. I don’t have the details to counter any of his points, because I don’t have the background. I have been told that each of our wind turbines is an expensive capital investment, but that they pay for themselves in about a year of operation, which kind of undercuts Billy Bob’s claim. I also live in a region where people are putting them fucking things all over the goddamn place. Who am I going to believe, the scientists and engineers who are providing the energy to run my workplace, or a fictional character in a fictional television show that valorizes the oil industry?

So I stopped watching and went looking for verifiable information, because, you know, university administrators and bureaucrats do have a history of lying to us. Maybe Billy Bob is right. He sure does have a lot of passion on this point, and we all know that angry ranting is correlated with truth. Then I found this video.

It includes references! It turns out that data defeats ranting, no matter how well acted.

(Sorry, I just copy-pasted from the video description, and YouTube butchers URLs.)

[1] Life cycle analysis of the embodied carbon emissions from 14 wind turbines with rated powers between 50Kw and 3.4Mw (2016)
https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/ws/portalfile…

[2] Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart (2019)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science…

[3] Life-cycle green-house gas emissions of onshore and offshore wind turbines (2019)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science…

[4] Life Cycle Analysis of Wind Turbine (2012) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/…

[5] Orders of Magnitude – Energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_…)

[6] The Keystone XL Pipeline and America’s History of Indigenous Suppression
The Keystone XL Pipeline and America’s History of Indigenous Suppression – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

[7] ExxonMobil lobbyists filmed saying oil giant’s support for carbon tax a PR ploy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2…

[8]Bonou, A., Laurent, A., & Olsen, S. I. (2016). Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application. Applied Energy, 180, 327–337.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.apenergy…

[9] Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C., & Hertwich, E. G. (2009). Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 34(3), 742–747.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.renene.2…

[10] GCC – Potential Climate Change report
https://s3.documentcloud.org/document…

[11] Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/…

Basically, scientists have done life-cycle analysis of wind turbines, measure all the energy and CO2 produced to build one of those damned things, and weighed it against the total energy produced over their lifetime, and also compared CO2 produced by a wind turbine against the CO2 produced for an equivalent amount of energy produced by burning coal and oil, and guess what? Billy Bob lied to us all. Wind turbines pay for themselves in less than a year, and oil-burning plants produce 60 times more CO2 than an equivalent bank of wind turbines.

I’m not resuming the series. I was already put off by the gross sexism of the show, but learning that it’s propaganda for Big Oil killed it for me.

I also learned that this show is made by the same people who made another popular series called Yellowstone that I’ve never watched and never will. What I saw of it is that it’s about heroic ranchers in the mountain west, and I’ve known ranchers — they tend to be horrible ignorant people with an extreme sense of entitlement — and I know that the regions full of ranchers tend to be regressive, bigoted, unpleasant strongholds of far-right political movements. Think Idaho. So I’ll pass on that one, too.

I bet it’s easy to get funding for those kinds of shows, though.

That’s so Dawkins

Richard Dawkins has attempted to answer the question “what is a woman” by inventing a definition, while simultaneously decrying attempts to answer such a question with a definition. It’s a sad state when he is reduced to such blatant sophistry.

It’s a long, far too long, article, not at all crisp and succinct, which is what you can expect when a man is floundering to impose untenable nonsense as objective biological fact. I’ll give you the one key paragraph.

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes. Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? Sir Ed Davey, leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, said that women “quite clearly” can have a penis. Words are our servants not our masters. One might say, “I define a woman as anybody who self-identifies as a woman, therefore a woman can have a penis.” That is logically unassailable in the same way as, “I define “flat” to mean what you call “round”, therefore the world is flat.” I think it’s clear that if we all descended to that level of sophistry, rational discourse would soon dig itself into the desert sand. I shall make the case that redefinition of woman as capable of having a penis, if not downright perverse, is close to that extreme.

I have to first mention that he’s wrong, that Davey is not imposing a definition in his argument; he’s making a reductio, that you can defeat a claim that a woman can’t have a penis by…finding a woman who has a penis. He has left open the criteria for womanhood, implying that it is a complex multidimensional problem that can’t be resolved with a single criterion.

To which Dawkins responds by inventing a single criterion that he calls the Universal Biological Definition! If you’re going to complain incorrectly that someone has fallaciously tried to resolve a problem by simply defining the problem away, don’t then indulge in your own attempt to resolve it with a definition! But here we go, Dawkins’ Universal Biological Definition:

I shall advocate instead what I shall call the Universal Biological Definition (UBD), based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD as the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms, and all the way through evolutionary history.

Problem: it is not a universal definition, and Richard Dawkins does not have the authority to tell all biologists what is true. If you ask the American Society for Reproductive Medicine or the NIH (at least, recently — they may not say this anymore as the Trump administration takes a wrecking ball to our research institutions) what the universal definition is, they’ll tell you:

The National Institutes of Health defines biological sex (“assigned sex”) as “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” also referred to by some as “sex traits.” All animals, including humans, have a sex.

Ideologically driven policymakers have introduced or enacted legislation and policies defining legal sex based on biological characteristics at birth, such as genitalia, chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy.

For example, a 2023 Kansas law defines males and females based on reproductive anatomy at birth, stating that females are individuals whose reproductive systems are developed to produce ovaries, and males are those whose systems are developed to “fertilize the ova” of a female. A 2023 Tennessee statute defines sex as a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.

All the scientific societies I have been associated with say something similar. It is rather arrogant of Dawkins, who is not a reproductive biologist, a developmental biologist, an endocrinologist, or has any other relevant credentials to think that he can ignore a consensus and simply decree that his simplistic definition is absolutely and completely universal and true.

Dawkins’ expertise is as an ethologist, someone who studies animal behavior. I don’t understand how an ethologist can come to the conclusion that there is only one simple parameter that determines everything, but I guess that’s the power of motivated reasoning.

He tries to justify it ethologically, but this whole section falls flat.

If you define females as macrogamete producers and males as microgamete producers, you can immediately account for the following facts (see any recent textbook of Ethology, Sociobiology, Behavioural Ecology or Evolutionary Psychology):

  1. In mammals it’s the females that gestate the young and secrete milk.
  2. In those bird species where only one sex incubates the eggs, or only one sex feeds the young, it is nearly always the females.
  3. In those fish that bear live young, it is nearly always the females that bear them.
  4. In those animals where one sex advertises to the other with bright colours, it is nearly always the males.
  5. In those bird species where one sex sings elaborate or beautiful songs it is always the male who does so.
  6. In those animals where one sex fights over possession of the other, it is nearly always the males who fight.
  7. In those animals where one sex has more promiscuous tendencies than the other, it is nearly always the males.
  8. In those animals where one sex is fussier about avoiding miscegenation, it is usually the females.
  9. In those animals where one sex tries to force the other into copulation, it is nearly always the males who do the forcing.
  10. When one sex guards the other against copulation with others, it is nearly always the males that guard females.
  11. In those animals where one sex is gathered into a harem, it is nearly always the females.
  12. Polygyny is far more common than polyandry.
  13. When one sex tends to die younger than the other, it is usually the males.
  14. Where one sex is larger than the other it is usually the males.

Notice all the qualifiers? In this particular clade it works this way, “usually,” “nearly always,” “more common,” etc., etc., etc. Not so universal, then, is it, when even your best examples have to be padded with exceptions. Do polyandrous or monogamous species not exhibit anisogamy? If a female exhibits bright colours, is she no longer a true female (conversely, are drag queens the most female of us all)? If males of a species incubate eggs, are they all faggoty cucks, not deserving to be called male? It seems to me that anisogamy does not and cannot explain all of the complexity of sex. As his own examples show, sex is a diverse phenomenon that you can’t just sweep into one catch-all bin.

I would also note a fallacious sleight of hand: he starts by complaining about a definition of “woman” that allows for women having a penis, and then hinges his entire argument on gametes. Men and women are more than a pile of gametes! There’s a vast body of cultural baggage associated with the human categories of man and woman, and you don’t get to jettison them all as inconvenient to your claim…and similarly, you can’t pretend that all those ethological variations in the sexes of non-human species are unimportant. I know that Richard is exercising his well known penchant for extreme reductionism, but sometimes that just breaks and produces nonsensical visions that do not reflect biological reality at all.

An evolutionary biologist ought to embrace variation and diversity rather than discarding it. That only harms the individuals who are part of the normal range of variation, but don’t belong to the typical median — and this is particularly problematic when you’re dealing with a species that has exploded the range of cultural, phenotypic variation, as humans have done. We’re not penguins or hyenas or ticks, you know. Why ignore all the diversity within a species notorious for its behavioral flexibility?

AI anatomy is weird

Ars Technica has a list of the worst features of the internet. It’s depressing how much of the stuff mentioned is just growing and taking over everything. Sadly, Google gets mentioned three times, for their voice assistant, search, and the incorporation of AI.

I encountered a terrible example of AI assistance. Here’s some AI advice on hygiene.

Does the AI not understand the words “front” and “back”, or is it very confused about the location of the urethra and anus?


Or try this one.

Anti-DEI = racist

Health care workers are being harassed by an organization called “the American Accountability Foundation”. They’re getting letters threatening their jobs.

Federal health workers are expressing fear and alarm after a website called “DEI Watch List” published the photos, names and public information of a number of workers across health agencies, describing them at one point as “targets.”

It’s unclear when the website, which lists mostly Black employees who work in agencies primarily within the Department of Health and Human Services, first appeared.

“Offenses” for the workers listed on the website include working on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, donating to Democrats and using pronouns in their bios.

Wait. Rewind.

…lists mostly Black employees…

What’s that?

…lists mostly Black employees…

Do not try to tell me that the anti-DEI crusade isn’t primarily driven by racism. Just like the anti-immigration policies.

This is America, and it’s racism all the way down.


That’s not all. Here’s a memo from the US Military Academy.

They’re disbanding the Asian clubs, the Hispanic clubs, the Society of Black Engineers, and the Society of Women Engineers, all in order to comply with the president’s executive orders.

How to kill American science

Trump, Musk, and RFK jr are a horrific combo that has discovered how fragile the institution of science can be — all it takes is handing the keys to funding to a small number of incompetents and ideologs. It’s such a simple thing: decree that a few words are verboten and will get your grant application pulled. Take a look at the complete list of words that will flag a grant for being held. They include “gender,” “disability,” and “race”. They include “female” and “women,” but not “male” or “man”. They include “socioeconomic,” “socio economic,” and “sociocultural”…they really wanted to make sure that they got that one covered.

The NSF has sent out this ridiculous decision tree:

Seriously. You want to know how these bad decisions are sailing through? It’s because there is a petty bureaucracy running the NSF that designs redundant, pointless, stupid diagrams like that. It’s Kafkaesque.

The USC professor who is reporting this says:

These keywords could show up in the text of ANY grant involving human participants. If you say you’re going to study men and women, you get flagged. If you say you’re going to control for socioeconomic status – totally standard practice – you get flagged. Disability? Flagged.

The word “systemic” is on the banned list, so if I study systemic inflammation & health, flagged. If I study political science, flagged. If I study trauma, flagged. Keep in mind that the largest mental health provider in the country is the Veteran’s Administration, but we can’t study trauma now?

If I study anxiety via threat-biased attention, the word “biased” gets me flagged. You can’t design a study of humans without using at least one of the terms on the banned list, which means that biomedical, brain, social science research is now on ice in the USA

And then, all the Republicans in congress have predictably caved and are going to approve a manifest madman, “Bobby” as they call him, to control health and human services, while a narcissistic boob, Elon Musk, is running rampant through the country’s finances.

So what next? All political norms have been shredded. Democracy doesn’t matter. Anarchy reigns. The law is irrelevant — do you think the Supreme Court can bring reason back? We’re all helpless, and are reduced to spectators to our rapid, catastrophic destruction. It’s going to get much worse.

Is the only solution a violent overthrow of the Trump regime, a complete dissolution of all of the Trump precedents, and a rewriting of the US Constitution? We have to recognize that the US is broken.

Scientific censorship is here

It has long been a desire by the Republicans to meddle in science — let’s filter out the results we don’t like. Nature reports that their desire has been made manifest: US health agency seeks to cut gender-related terms from scientific papers.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has mandated that all scientific manuscripts produced by its researchers that are under review at a journal be withdrawn so that certain language relating to gender can be stripped from them.

The directive, sent by the agency’s chief science officer to some staff members on 31 January, is meant to bring the CDC into compliance with an executive order issued last month by US President Donald Trump seeking to restore “biological truth” to the federal government by recognizing only two sexes: male and female. Executive orders can direct agencies inside the federal government but cannot change existing laws.

According to a copy of the e-mail, shared in the newsletter Inside Medicine, manuscripts must not include any mention of terms including ‘gender’, ‘transgender’, ‘pregnant person’, ‘transsexual’ and ‘non-binary’, among others. CDC scientists who co-author papers originating from outside the agency that include these terms are also expected to rescind their authorship.

It’s all very Orwellian. They will dictate what words we’re allowed to use, because they believe that they can bend reality to conform. It doesn’t work that way, though. They’re just going to silence scientists who know better.

The CDC mandate, however, erases mention of queer, intersex and transgender individuals from future literature and seems to legitimize “scientific sexism”, says James Mungin, a biomedical scientist at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, who identifies as transgender. Under the new rules, CDC researchers would be unable to share basic demographic data, such as gender identity or sexual orientation, about study participants — omissions that could lead to inaccuracies or ethical breaches if scientists are barred from disclosing why certain participants were removed from a study, Mungin says. Furthermore, gender identity and sexual orientation are nearly impossible to exclude when it comes to the study and treatment of conditions such as HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, potentially causing harm to patients.

“If you’re working in basic science, you might get away with just references to sex, but gender is everywhere in public health,” says Ayden Scheim, a social epidemiologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who identifies as trans and studies the health care of marginalized communities. “Unfortunately, I see two things happening: a lot of these withdrawn papers will never be published” because collaborators outside the CDC aren’t going to agree to omit data, Scheim says, “and in the long term, a lot of research that focuses on health inequities for women or LGBTQ+ people will disappear”.

There were a lot of scientists and lay people who threw around terms like “cancel culture” and “censorship” before Trump took office. Where are they now? They were so touchy about criticism or a refusal to platform bad ideas, but I don’t see them even acknowledging that these are actions well beyond anything that has gone before.

If we let them get away with censoring “gay” and “transgender,” what will we do when “climate change” is forbidden, or “evolution”?

Or “Jew”?

This fuckin’ guy

Here’s one way to convert America to a tyranny: give up on all those ineffective checks and balances in the Constitution by giving immense power to an unelected person with a novel title and no oversight at all. I’m talking about this fucking guy.

Elon Musk has gleefully accepted the job of wrecking the country.

We are in a constitutional crisis. The richest man on Earth is attempting to seize physical control of government payment systems and use them to shut down federal funding to any recipient he personally dislikes. Elon Musk is directly usurping Congress’s most important authority, the power of the purse.

In an obscenely capitalist country like ours, the power of the purse is absolute. He’s already trampling over privacy concerns to steal everything else.

An astonishing number of laws are seemingly being broken here. Serving as head of the newly-invented body known as DOGE (the so-called Department of Government Efficiency), a loose representative of the president without any clear role or official title, Musk has been granted access to highly restricted government computer systems. A private citizen with immense corporate interests and many business competitors now appears to have access to every bit of data the government owns. That includes personal data like names, addresses, social security numbers, health information, and welfare information. It also includes business data, such as data about the contracts and work of his direct competitors. It may be the vastest data breach in the history of the world – an industrial tycoon being handed the entire data repository of the United States government.

I wouldn’t expect Trump to care, or even be aware of the problem, but where is AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Ford, Boeing, Bank of America, etc., all those giant companies whose data is being stolen by a jumped-up South African immigrant and competitor? I don’t want my data handed over to Musk, but I’m small potatoes. Some billionaires ought to get on his case.

Unless, of course, they like this part, which involves diminishing the power of the government.

But this violation, appalling as it is, pales next to the greater constitutional harm. In the US, like any other functioning country, the government gets to control the government’s own spending. This power is assigned to Congress. There is an elaborate political process of primaries and elections through which we elect senators and representatives. Those elected representatives then conduct negotiations – often difficult and acrimonious – and decide how to allocate vast sums of money every year. The allocations include trillions of dollars of taxpayer money and additional trillions of dollars of debt. The totals here are literally beyond the human capacity to envision, which is one reason why we have a long, specific process for determining how they’re used. Congress’s authority is paramount, and no one else – no government agency, no branch, not even the president – can simply overrule Congress and use the money for its own purposes.

In case you’re wondering how Musk is going to disembowel government, he’s just blatantly firing people and confiscating rights, even when he has no recognized authority to do so. People are just accepting it.

Much like a gremlin fed after midnight, Elon Musk is staying up late and causing mayhem. As Musk-backed cuts and changes continue to spread across federal agencies, employees have found that many of the bizarre communications that they’re receiving, as well as the unusual dictats transforming their workplaces in the name of DOGE, are happening late at night and on weekends.

On Sunday night, for instance, federal workers received another unusual email encouraging them to quit their jobs and take a “deferred resignation” option where they will supposedly be paid through September 30 while not working. The original message, sent out on January 28 and titled “A Fork in the Road,” generated intense backlash from federal workers and warnings from union leaders that the offer’s terms and legality were on shaky ground. The follow-up email, formatted as a Q&A and unsigned like the original, assured workers the offer was legitimate. (“We encourage you to find a job in the private sector as soon as you would like to do so,” one passage read, about whether workers can get second jobs during the deferred resignation period. “The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in the private sector.”)

Before Trump’s second term and Musk’s DOGE, it was “very unusual” to receive such important communications outside of normal working hours, one federal employee said, echoing several others. “Avoiding office hours at all costs, it seems.”

Who needs knives in the night when you’re armed with authoritarian memos? He’s just doing it. No one is stopping him. We need more people to rise up and resist.

So much of what he is doing is ridiculously petty.

Other strange after-hours occurrences tread the line between outrage and black comedy, federal employees say. A worker at an intelligence agency says that unidentified outside staffers arrived to sweep the office of anything they felt was related to DEI, a target of a Trump executive order. That included a plaque, confiscated from a supervisor’s desk, which read, “Be kind to everyone.”

OK. No more kindness. These monsters, and the people who appointed them, and the citizens who voted those people in, need to be treated in kind. Do not accept their officious nonsense. Like this one, from the new secretary of transportation:

Rosa Parks might have a few words to say about that. Shut up and sit in the back of the bus, says Secretary Duffy. You’re a distraction. He’s got air traffic controllers to fire.

Ignore that amateur prognosticator

I was watching this video — it’s very good, debunking all the nonsense anti-trans bigots regurgitate to justify their bias — when a face popped up at about 12 minutes that I recognized. Hey! That’s Jay Richards!

Jay Richards was predicting that in about 5 years there’s going to be a massive wave of kids who were duped into sex-change operations coming back to sue the public school system.

In case you don’t know about Jay Richards, he was formerly one of the leaders of the Discovery Institute (he’s now at the Heritage Foundation) who was predicting over 25 years ago that Darwinism was going to be dead and replaced with Intelligent Design creationism in about 5 years.