When The Obvious Becomes "Debatable"

Fig. 1 Sea Level

I. The Spy Boss Knows

Notice this quote from the Security arm of the Director of the National Intelligence Agencies (DNI):

"This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community.

Long-term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These in turn will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years. These effects will be all the more pronounced as people continue to concentrate in climate-vulnerable locations, such as coastal areas, water-stressed regions, and ever-growing cities."

(Report RE Climate Change, cf. Same in PDF). That memorandum mentions sea level rise several times, in the context of a threat to national security.

Fig. 2 Ocean Temperatures

Both the military and the spies have known of the dangers to national security for at least a decade or so (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity, 2).

Another branch of government, the congress, was loudly informed in 1988 (Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate).

II. So Why Doesn't The Warming Commentariat Know?

"We" know that Humble Oil-Qaeda, now known as ExxonMobil, has known that it has been responsible for sea level rise for a long time.

That is, Humble Oil-Qaeda knows what causes sea level rise.

In 1962 they even put a centerfold, two page advertisement in Life magazine bragging about it:

“This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries ... Yet, the petroleum energy Humble [now ExxonMobil] supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second!

(Humble Oil-Qaeda). Thus, if sea level rise is caused by ice sheet and glacial melt (a national security threat according to the national security agency memo quoted above in Section I), then Humble Oil-Qaeda is itself a threat to national security.

Fig. 3 Sea Level

Wouldn't that be a wake-up call for them to begin to avoid that issue, by diverting the focus?

And wouldn't that explain why Oil-Qaeda has been spreading their word through the warming science commentariat no less (The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) ?

I mean spreading the word that the ocean expands from sunlight hitting the sunlight zone (Epipelagic Magic).

Don't laugh, they have spread this "magic," like they have spread pollution of the ocean depths, into the deepest scientific depths:

"As the ocean warms, the density decreases and thus even at constant mass the volume of the ocean increases. This thermal expansion (or steric sea level rise) occurs at all ocean temperatures and is one of the major contributors to sea level changes during the 20th and 21st centuries" (IPCC).

Fig. 4 Ocean Temperatures

"About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space" (National Geographic).

"Rising temperatures are warming ocean waters, which expand as the temperature increases. This thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 - 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution" (Union of Concerned Scientists)..

" ... global sea level rises 0.26 m by 2100, and 0.56 m by 2199 through steric [thermal] expansion; " (Journal of Physical Oceanography, PDF).

(On The Evolution of Sea Level Change - 2). This is no joke, it is the work of a madness unparalleled in human history (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, 2, 3).

III. But What About The Graphs Dredd?

Oh yeah, oops.

The graphs at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 concern the West Coast of the U.S.eh?

The graphs at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 concern the East Coast of the U.S.eh?

The data used to generate them, as usual, is from the World Ocean Database (WOD) and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database.

If thermal expansion is the MAJOR cause of sea level rise, why is sea level falling in those zones as ocean temperatures warm (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) ?

And why is sea level rising in the zones where the temperatures are falling (Fig. 3, Fig. 4) ?

Here is an analysis of the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 data (WOD zones):

WOD Zone: 7716 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 43 upward & 54 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -0.51873
• 200-400m = -0.0067689
• 400-600m = 0.226408
• 600-800m = -0.09294
• 800-1000m = -1.82532
• 1000-3000m = -0.365015

Net change for 6 levels: -2.58236
Years involved: 1971 -> 2015 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (-2.58236 ÷ 44): -0.05869

---

WOD Zone: 7715 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 66 upward & 60 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 0.223065
• 200-400m = -0.199512
• 400-600m = 0.118274
• 600-800m = 0.089372
• 800-1000m = -0.00988184
• 1000-3000m = 0.011626
• >3000m = 0.007874

Net change for 7 levels: 0.240818
Years involved: 1971 -> 2015 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (0.240818 ÷ 44): 0.00547313

---

WOD Zone: 7616 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 22 upward & 15 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.25208

Net change for 1 levels: 2.25208
Years involved: 1974 -> 2015 (41 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (2.25208 ÷ 41): 0.0549288

---

WOD Zone: 7516 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 106 upward & 118 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -0.05813
• 200-400m = -0.46003
• 400-600m = -0.21572
• 600-800m = -0.28918
• 800-1000m = -0.29733
• 1000-3000m = -0.38789
• >3000m = -0.02305

Net change for 7 levels: -1.73133
Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (-1.73133 ÷ 42): -0.0412221

---

WOD Zone: 7515 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 107 upward & 120 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.1308
• 200-400m = 0.02524
• 400-600m = 0.25607
• 600-800m = 0.37842
• 800-1000m = 0.3559
• 1000-3000m = 0.41773
• >3000m = 0.00464

Net change for 7 levels: 3.5688
Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (3.5688 ÷ 49): 0.0728327

---

WOD Zone: 7514 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 156 upward & 148 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.85966
• 200-400m = 0.2249
• 400-600m = 0.22225
• 600-800m = 0.20276
• 800-1000m = 0.15983
• 1000-3000m = -0.18921
• >3000m = -0.06869

Net change for 7 levels: 3.4115
Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (3.4115 ÷ 49): 0.0696224

---

WOD Zone: 7513 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 113 upward & 115 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.71698
• 200-400m = 0.18326
• 400-600m = -0.48497
• 600-800m = 0.22401
• 800-1000m = 0.16605
• 1000-3000m = 0.24659

Net change for 6 levels: 3.05192
Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (3.05192 ÷ 49): 0.0622841

---

WOD Zone: 7512 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 108 upward & 118 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 0.41775
• 200-400m = 1.46936
• 400-600m = 0.73452
• 600-800m = -1.10376
• 800-1000m = -0.01924
• 1000-3000m = -1.02517

Net change for 6 levels: 0.47346
Years involved: 1966 -> 2015 (49 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (0.47346 ÷ 49): 0.00966245

---

WOD Zone: 7412 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 138 upward & 146 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 0.0926
• 200-400m = 0.83028
• 400-600m = 0.45895
• 600-800m = 0.23522
• 800-1000m = 0.24281
• 1000-3000m = -0.28187

Net change for 6 levels: 1.57799
Years involved: 1966 -> 2016 (50 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (1.57799 ÷ 50): 0.0315598

---

WOD Zone: 7312 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 113 upward & 117 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -0.7783
• 200-400m = 0.46787
• 400-600m = 0.33146
• 600-800m = -0.1454
• 800-1000m = -0.25826
• 1000-3000m = -2.26463
• >3000m = 0.05971

Net change for 7 levels: -2.58755
Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (-2.58755 ÷ 55): -0.0470464

---

WOD Zone: 7311 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 85 upward & 79 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 1.7902
• 200-400m = -0.04136
• 400-600m = -0.01788
• 600-800m = -0.44997
• 800-1000m = 0.07329
• 1000-3000m = 0.97109
• >3000m = -0.03354

Net change for 7 levels: 2.29183
Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (2.29183 ÷ 47): 0.0487623

---

Combined averages for 11 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning change trends, the mean average
was 96 upward & 99 downward trends.

Average changes per depth level were:

• 0-200m = 1.01163
• 200-400m = 0.226658
• 400-600m = 0.148124
• 600-800m = -0.0864971
• 800-1000m = -0.128377
• 1000-3000m = -0.260614
• >3000m = -0.00482327

Average change, all 7 levels: 0.906105

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:

• (0.906105 ÷ 55): 0.0164746 C per year

---

IV. So Why Does The Citizenry Have To Sue Humble Oil-Qaeda?

Gotta try something?

In this context, historically the government through the Judicial Branch has protected Oil-Qaeda when it has been sued, because:

Here's the core constitutional fact: a progressive president and Congress now face a conservative judiciary, for the first time since 1937. Obama's ambitious agenda, if enacted, must go before federal courts—where judges can rewrite or strike down key provisions.

(A Case of Big Oil vs. Climate Change, 2). In that case the judges voted to have an en banc hearing, then recused themselves so that the case could not be heard (the judicially honest thing to do was recuse before, not after).

In the Oil-Qaeda oriented 5th circuit (covering oil states like Texas) most of the judges in the federal courts once lawyered for or are sympathetic to Oil-Qaeda.

Thus, they are the majority in (at least) one of the branches of government.

In other cases in less conservative circuits, the picture is also bleak (What Next, Mass Depraved-Heart Murder? - 2).

Maybe in Boston, where the runaways from England landed (hey pilgrim!), there will be a different result (CLV v Humble Oil-Qaeda) ?

Not likely.

V. The Problem Is Psychological,

Not Economic, Not Legal, Not Political

I will close with a quote from some of Sigmund's works:

If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness. But it behooves us to be very careful, not to forget that after all we are dealing only with analogies, and that it is dangerous, not only with men but also with concepts, to drag them out of the region where they originated and have matured. The diagnosis of collective neuroses, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be normal. No such background as this would be available for any society similarly affected; it would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would be the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses power to compel the community to adopt the therapy? In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities. [p. 39] ... Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this——hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension. [p. 40]

(The Authoritarianism of Climate Change, quoting Civilization and Its Discontents, S. Freud, 1929, emphasis added).

---

Everybody Knows, by Leonard Cohen (lyrics here):

---

Typhoon Triplets For Taiwan

Fig. 1 Taiwan Typhoon Perspectives

It is an everyday happenstance that clueless people are called on to misreport scientific news.

The warming commentariat, politicians, and ill-informed scientists make incorrect statements all the time.

It is the normal abnormal scene all too often.

Today then, I can catch up on pointing out some more World Ocean Database (WOD) information as I expose incorrect assumptions and "batshit crazy" statements of the uninformed (e.g. "I think the Earth is in a cooling trend" - House GOP leader).

Fig. 2 Ocean water temperatures

At about 02:15 in this video (Climate Change @ White House), the spokesperson, Fran Ulmer, mentions some 2 dozen villages in Alaska having to be moved due to erosion a la sea level rise.

That is correct as to beach erosion taking place following the loss of ice shelves along the Arctic coast, and the loss of the erosion protection those ice shelves once provided against wind and waves (but, is not correct to the degree that it is said to be based on sea level rise around Alaska, because that is a myth).

Fig. 3 Sea level change in the area of Taiwan

The reality is that Sea level has been falling in Alaska (Alaska Dispatch News) for years.

For one thing, this is because of the melting ice sheet in Greenland.

But, it is also because of the melting land-based glaciers in Alaska ("if glaciers melt in Alaska, sea level around Alaska will drop" - Dr. Mitrovica, Harvard Professor (video below); Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization - 5, Proof of Concept - 3).

So, "what does that have to do with Taiwan typhoons?" (Fig. 1) you may be wondering.

For one thing, not only is there a lot of misinformation about ocean temperatures, especially as it relates to sea level rise and fall, but there are other misconceptions (Fig. 2, Fig. 3).

For example, regular readers know that I have been pointing out the lack of evidence for the thermal expansion hypothesis or myth (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Using the WOD database would eradicate a lot of the misconceptions, such as the notion that hot ocean water caused or exacerbated the three typhoons that hit Taiwan in as many weeks.

Again, Fig. 2 shows that, all things considered, the temperature of the ocean is not the cause of thermal expansion induced sea level change of the magnitude that causes the sea level rise depicted in Fig. 3.

The WOD and PSMSL databases used to make those graphs tell the true story.

Below are analytical results from a module that counts the temperature change ups and downs (which have been recorded in the WOD database) in the listed WOD Zones around Taiwan.

First, the module determines the magnitude of those ups and those downs in each zone:

WOD Zone: 1212 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 103 upward & 109 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -2.0859
• 200-400m = 0.2265
• 400-600m = 0.7284
• 600-800m = 0.05648
• 800-1000m = -0.13203
• 1000-3000m = 0.45227
• >3000m = 0.97503

Net change for 7 levels: 0.22075

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (0.22075 ÷ 55): 0.00401364

---

WOD Zone: 1213 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 162 upward & 151 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -2.7191
• 200-400m = 0.2205
• 400-600m = 2.356
• 600-800m = 0.66678
• 800-1000m = 0.16356
• 1000-3000m = 1.66612
• >3000m = -0.08253

Net change for 7 levels: 2.27133

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (2.27133 ÷ 55): 0.0412969

---

WOD Zone: 1214 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 120 upward & 106 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -1.5794
• 200-400m = 0.6386
• 400-600m = 1.7782
• 600-800m = 0.60483
• 800-1000m = -0.616
• 1000-3000m = 1.52995
• >3000m = 0.03644

Net change for 7 levels: 2.39262

Years involved: 1976 -> 2016 (40 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (2.39262 ÷ 40): 0.0598155

---

WOD Zone: 1112 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 130 upward & 129 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 0.8209
• 200-400m = 2.62725
• 400-600m = 3.80928
• 600-800m = 4.78892
• 800-1000m = 4.29675
• 1000-3000m = 0.63665
• >3000m = -0.60177

Net change for 7 levels: 16.378

Years involved: 1976 -> 2016 (40 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (16.378 ÷ 40): 0.40945

---

WOD Zone: 1113 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 160 upward & 165 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = -0.8171
• 200-400m = 6.5001
• 400-600m = 3.08613
• 600-800m = -0.99731
• 800-1000m = -1.01814
• 1000-3000m = -0.062
• >3000m = 0.10022

Net change for 7 levels: 6.7919

Years involved: 1976 -> 2016 (40 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (6.7919 ÷ 40): 0.169798

---

WOD Zone: 1114 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 140 upward & 155 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 1.1934
• 200-400m = 3.8575
• 400-600m = 0.89494
• 600-800m = -0.25584
• 800-1000m = -0.35074
• 1000-3000m = -0.57875
• >3000m = 0.09945

Net change for 7 levels: 4.85996

Years involved: 1976 -> 2016 (40 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (4.85996 ÷ 40): 0.121499

---

Next, the module also determines the combined mean average magnitude of all those temperature ups and those downs into one result:

Combined averages for 6 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning change trends, the mean average
was 135 upward & 135 downward trends.

Average changes per depth level were:

• 0-200m = -0.864533
• 200-400m = 2.34507
• 400-600m = 2.10883
• 600-800m = 0.810643
• 800-1000m = 0.390567
• 1000-3000m = 0.607373
• >3000m = 0.0878067

Average change, all 7 levels: 5.48576

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:

• (5.48576 ÷ 55): 0.099741 C per year

---

It is obvious that there is no valid reason to hypothesize that the warming in these zones, which amounts to 0.099741 C per year, is the cause of sea level rise or sea level fall around Taiwan.

Likewise, it is not a valid reason to suppose the ocean water temperature rise is impacting typhoons this year any more than it has in the past decade (Fig. 2).

The warming commentariat is not warming up to this reality:

very-hot surface waters ... it’s likely that the waters at depth were also much warmer than usual ... Record-Hot Ocean ... the intensity of Typhoon Megi ... is [due to] increased ocean heat

(... Record-Hot Ocean Waters ..., emphasis added). The WOD data do not bear this out, nor do they bear out thermal expansion as the MAJOR cause of sea level rise.

Globally, by far the greatest percentage of increase in air temperatures is taking place in the Arctic (Climate Change @ White House), and to a lesser extent in the Antarctic.

As Dr. Eric Rignot is fond of saying, yes, these (polar) waters are warming but I would not take a bath in 3 degrees C water (think of the folks who, each year, jump into cold ice water with only swimming trunks on ... and one of them saying this water has warmed up 1 degree C ... whoopie it is warming).

Nevertheless, that ice cold water is "warm" enough to melt the ice sheets and ice shelves (3 - 4 deg. C and above).

Add to that the fact that the air in the Arctic is warming up enough to melt the ice sheets and glaciers there (but you still need a coat to keep warm there).

The ice sheet on Greenland has been melting since circa 1775 (Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 3).

Which shows that the global climate system (The Damaged Global Climate System, 2, 3, 4, 5) is sensitive enough to be damaged without the Earth having to turn into Venus (Environmental records shattered as climate change 'plays out before us').

It took only "25 years of industrial revolution" to begin to damage the global climate system long ago (before the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1778).

"Cold" sea water rise is just as deadly as "warm" sea water rise (Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion, Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5).

---

Mixing disciplines is an antidote to myopia ... (BTW, NASA agrees with Mitrovica see quotes here).

---

Dress Codes: Language As A Clothing Metaphor

Fig. 1 "Your mother wears combat boots clothing."

Is "talk" cheap because it is a luxury, or is it costly ("words matter") because it is a necessity?

At least one observer indicates that luxury is cheaper than necessity in some scenarios:

Sociologist Joseph Cohen of Queens University is fond of saying that “America is a place where luxuries are cheap and necessities costly.”

A recent chart from economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, illustrates this well. Since 1996, the prices of food and housing have increased by close to 60 percent, faster than the pace of inflation. Costs of health care and child care have more than doubled. The prices of textbooks and higher education nearly tripled.
...
In the case of higher education, the nation’s massive student loan industry bears much of the upfront burden of rising prices. To the typical 18-year-old, a $120,000 tuition bill may seem like an abstraction when you don’t have to start paying it off until your mid-20s or later. As a result, the nation’s college students and graduates now collectively owe upward of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt.

(The stuff we need ... and the other stuff). Down through time clothing and even fruit have been metaphors for behavior (e.g. "wolf in sheep's clothing" and "by their fruits shall ye know them").

Clothing still is metaphorical, in the sense and to the extent that behavior defines us:

Today, we design and define ourselves through clothing more than through any other device. Clothing originally evolved to provide protection and warmth. For centuries, it has also reflected gender, age, cultural identity, and class differences—visually distinguishing the ruling, powerful, and wealthy from everyone else. In the contemporary world of customization, mass production, and globalization—with information disseminated at a rate never before experienced— we can choose from myriad styles and types of clothing to alter how we are perceived and identified.

Since the 1990s, a growing number of international artists have been using apparel as a metaphor for shared, as well as personal, concerns.

(Dress Codes: Clothing as Metaphor, PDF; in other words: Dress Codes: Clothing as Metaphor). On another hand, "clothes don't make the man" and "you can't tell a book by its cover" allege that there are holes in our ability to discern the depths when we merely observing the shallows.

Moving along, one can ask or wonder: "if all of this applies to groups, nations, organizations, or cultures, what would that look like?"

The graphic in Fig. 1 indicates that some clothing is sufficiently revealing to in fact "tell the book by its cover," or "know the man by his clothing," at least in the sense of groups within a society (e.g. "hawks" vs. "doves").

So, you may be wondering what this has to do with "language" being as much of a revelatory indicator as "clothing" can be.

Can language reveal aspects of "the book" or of "the man" who is "wearing" that language?

Ok, fair enough ... as a simple exercise let's investigate cultures that use the word "slay".

But first let's investigate the word's traditional meaning:

slay [sley];  verb (used with object), slew, slain, slaying.

1. to kill by violence.
2. to destroy; extinguish.

(Dictionary). Synonyms usually help with the investigation into the meaning of a word:

Synonyms for slay: kill, assassinate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, execute, exterminate, massacre, murder, slaughter, annihilate, do, down, eliminate, erase, finish, hit, liquidate, neutralize, snuff, waste, cut off, do away with, do in, knock off, put away, rub out ...

(Thesaurus). So, what do we make of it when this word, which describes the most heinous of activity, is used casually by groups within a culture, or even when it is used by whole cultures?

First notice this:

Did you watch the Billboard Music Awards last night and follow along on Twitter or Facebook? Or maybe you skipped it and are just catching up on all of the headlines…

One thing is for sure, there were a lot of females “slaying” last night.

I am over it with this word, especially since it’s now used to describe outfits or performances that are only moderately good. It’s completely lost it’s meaning because it’s been so over used!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t “slay” supposed to be reserved for something that is out of this world, over the top, spectacular, cream of the crop, best of the best, most amazing ever, killed it, nailed it, WOW, and holy sh*t that was amazing? Because if you followed Twitter last night, just about every performance was the best thing ever of all time.. Even the ones that were just OK.

(CBS Local News, emphasis added). The commentator was not complaining that the use of the word "slay" in that context represents a watering down of the worst of human behavior (which is human crime).

Instead, the commentator was complaining that "slay" was being used to describe only mediocre performances (the commentator's argument was that "slay" should be reserved for the best human performances).

Perhaps that commentator was a graduate of some astute institutions within our slaying culture (Is War An Art or Is War A Disease?, 2) ?

Or, perhaps just a commentator who wakes up to the lyrics of a "killer" song:

And you killed it, you killed it
You killed it with I love you
And you killed it, you killed it
You killed it with I love you
And you killed with I love you
What am I supposed to say back to you?
You killed it with I love you
(U Killed It). The message subtly broadcast by those who create travesties of art, subversions of language, who extinguish reason, and/or who disable socially mature cultures, is the message that barbaric linguistic behavior is nothing more than fancy clothing.

And this is being done against the backdrop of our culture.

A culture which has been counseled from the beginning to avoid this state of mind, or maybe better said as this mind of state:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.

(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?). The warmonger depicted in Fig. 1 was telling the truth when it said to the president: "it's us or them."

It is getting to be all "US" without "THEM," because "US" is slaying, "US" is killing "THEM" softly with those "US" words.

Anyway, getting back to the words that work, listen to a former Secretary of the Treasury talk with sober words about work clothing:

On the basis of these factors, I expect that more than one-third of all men between 25 and 54 will be out work at mid-century. Very likely more than half of men will experience a year of non-work at least one year out of every five. This would be in the range of the rate of non-work for high school drop-outs and exceeds the rate of non-work for African Americans today.

Will we be able to support these people and a growing retired share of the population? What will this mean for the American family? For prevailing ethics of self-reliance? For alienation and support for toxic populism? These are vital questions. Even more vital is the question of what is to be done.

These questions should preoccupy social science researchers. They are vital to our future.

(A disaster is looming for American men). The bill for wising "US" up will slay "THEM" who are "killing it" :

The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?

(The Atlantic). What the cavalier attitude about barbarianism subconsciously encourages is the spread of a social barbarianism which will slay our society by killing its middle class.

Resist.

---

Really Roberta, softly?

---