"There was a moment of confusion.
"Then the blaster went off again and Schtein was suddenly a dead weight in their arms."
-"Time Patrol," 5, p. 41.
Stane/Schtein has to be disposed of quickly because the story still has to address the question of Everard's and Whitcomb's futures, or lack thereof, in the Patrol. Everard comments:
"'I didn't mean for him to die... But time is...tough. It was written, I suppose.'" (ibid.)
Was it? Everard and Whitcomb had come from a future in which Schtein had not succeeded in changing history so was it (partly) "written" that he would fail? Yes. If he had succeeded, then the twentieth century would have been different.
When Everard punches Lorenzo, the latter winds up dead:
"'Broken neck. I didn't intend that.'"
-Poul Anderson, The Shield Of Time (New York, 1991), PART SIX, 1146 A. D., II, p. 428.
But, this time, Everard thinks that, in the unexpected fight with Lorenzo:
"'...the tide was carrying him...trying to preserve its twisted future - Let's hope we've broken the spell at last.'" (ibid.)
Timelines have inertias. Here we see what that means.
41 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And you have argued that "deleted" timelines were not snuffed out, but became inaccessible to time travelers from the Danellian universe. An idea I like better than entire universes becoming nullities.
Ad astra! Sean
Following up on an earlier combox discussion, there is dissatisfaction with Bojo because of dishonesty and incompetence, not policies. I also try to follow what is happening with Trump.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course thing like incompetence and dishonesty matters. Such as wrong headed energy policies. But I also think many Conservatives with Johnson for straying too far from the beliefs and principles of the great Tory prime ministers of the past: Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, and Thatcher.
Trump is immaterial. What is important is reversing the CATASTROPHIC policies of the aged "Josip" and his extreme hard left puppet masters.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Trump is rather important? He tried to overturn an election result. He initiated and tried to join an insurrection in which five people died. He denounces any and all criticism of him and threatens to stand for election again. There would have been a much bigger political response if even one of the targeted politicians had been killed. But five deaths of other people should surely matter, anyway?
Paul.
As I said, I can't see why the Patrol doesn't just stun-gun Lorenzo while he's alone, zip him back in time, condition him against doing what he's doing, and then drop him back. He needn't even be -aware- of why he's changed his mind about something -- fighting against Roger of Sicily, getting married to Illaria.
Much safer than trying to have an angel appear and give him a lecture.
Why take an unnecessary risk?
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Compared to the equally bad corruption of "Josip," plus his senility, incompetence, and being the captive puppet of the hard left of the Democrats, even Trump does not look so bad.
"Josip" makes even the "real" Emperor Josip look good!!!
Mr. Stirling: Problem is, your alternative scenario would make "Amazement of the World" so much LESS interesting.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I cannot agree! Is Biden corrupt? Equally corrupt? Has he denied an election, caused a riot or five deaths? He cannot be worse than the fictional Josip!
Paul.
Time travellers with stun guns, conditioning and clones would be virtually omnipotent, e.g., prevent someone's death by making ensuring that it was a clone that was present at the time of death. This is suggested in THE ANUBIS GATES by Tim Powers.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, "Josip" is corrupt, as anyone will find out who digs into his biography, at least before his mind started failing. Then his sleazy son Hunter Biden started using him for corrupt purposes.
And simply by REFUSING TO DO HIS JOB AND DEFEND THE BORDERS OF THE US (among other follies) "Josip" has caused the deaths of a vast number of people, both of illegals dying one way or another as they try to sneak in or the 100,000 and counting Americans who have died in the past 1.5 years overdosing on the toxic drugs pouring into the US from the drug cartels.
The "real" Josip III looks increasingly better the more "Josip" bungles and mucks up! Again, a case of real life being more outlandish than fiction.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you have not commented on Trump's attempt to undermine an election or his incitement of a riot.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
BECAUSE, lawyers and former PROSECUTORS like Andrew McCarthy, in the articles they have written analyzing these contentions, gives room for doubt if Pres. Trump was guilty of these things. In criminal trials what matters is not what "appears" to have happened, but whether any alleged offenses meets the strict definitions set by the law and the rules of evidence.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We all saw and heard Trump do what he did. He publicly denied an election result and urged armed demonstrators to fight.
BTW, is the current President really responsible for all the deaths caused by drugs cartels?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Sorry, no. Legal analysts like Andrew McCarthy have said it's not going to be that simple or easy, LEGALLY speaking.
Yes, "Josip" is responsible. He has not been dong his job as president, defending and controlling the borders of the US, which includes at least trying to hinder illegal drug trafficking.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Legally, evidence has to be presented through established procedures but the evidence is there. At least there is a case to be brought.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And a former prosecutor like Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the first WTC terrorist bombers, is not so sure.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what is there to be unsure about?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I will try to send you one of those articles by Amdrew McCarthy. But, speaking from memory, he discussed how Trump merely believing votes for him were not counted does not rise to trying to overturn an election. Also, the strict definitions set by the law on what an offense is and rules mandating a very high bar before anyone can be convicted makes any trial of Trump unlikely.
Not entirely off topic, btw, there has been fresh allegations this week of corruption involving "Josip" and his family. Which the Democrats will try to ignore!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But he did publicly try to overturn an election.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Sorry, no, McCarthy is not convinced whatever Trump said or did reaches to the STRICT standards set by the Constitution, case law, and the rules of evidence. As a former prosecutor he would KNOW what would be permitted or allowed in any trials.
And "Josip" has been doing MANY illegal things since that catastrophic doltard took office! Either on his own or at the behest of his puppet masters.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not involved in these partisan polemics. I am not defending Biden while discussing Trump.
Legality is not a matter of one person KNOWING the score. It is always a matter of arguments for and against brought by equally qualified lawyers. Trump was recorded asking someone to find him more votes in a particular state. He wanted Pence not to accept the election result. He alone started the "Stop the Steal" hysteria based on no evidence. He urged his armed followers to march to the Capitol and fight and there is testimony that he wanted to join the riot. This is at least strong grounds for a prosecution. Someone will then, of course, argue against a conviction on legal or Constitutional grounds.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And those constitutional and legal grounds are what MATTERS. To say nothing of fine details of nuances and intent.
And there has bee CONTRADICTORY testimony about Trump's alleged attempt to join the demonstrators.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What matters is destruction and death and determining responsibility for it. If the testimony is contradictory, then it needs to be settled in court. Legal and Constitutional questions are also issues to be settled in court. They are not reasons for not going to court.
Paul.
Incidentally, as an aside, anyone who's had experience in court knows how utterly untrustworthy eyewitness testimony is. Human memory is constantly reshaped.
(From SM Stirling.)
Not an aside. Highly pertinent.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly. Which is why I'm skeptical of the more hysterical anti-Trump stuff I see.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Is "hysterical" appropriate when referring to criticism of Trump? He, of course, dismisses any and all criticism of him as the greatest witch-hunt in history. Does he have any capacity for self-assessment and self-criticism?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul! Yes, HYSTERICAL, even DERANGED. The foam at the mouth, irrational, over the top hatred I see for Trump from many left wing Democrats in the US makes such terms appropriate. Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Surely there are criticisms to be made or at least discussed about Trump without diverting onto mouth-foaming and irrationality by (apparently) some Democrats?
Paul.
More generally, human beings believe whatever they strongly want or need to believe, or what someone persuasive has told them.
Then they backfill with rationalization; the smarter and better-educated they are, the better at the rationalization.
(Hence rather dull-minded people tend to be more objective in many ways.)
As Nietzsche said, "Es gibt keine Fakten, nur Interpretationen" -- there are no facts, only -interpretations- of fact.
I think that each of us is under an obligation to find out as much of the truth as we can for ourselves.
Two people brought up as Catholic and Muslim could have been switched at birth and each brought up in the other belief. Clearly, just staying with how you were brought up is not enough yet some people are told that it is sinful to risk losing their faith. Another way of bringing up children is to encourage enquiry and respect for diversity.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Your 9.01 PM comment, of course I agree, but I'm seeing SCANT rationality from the extreme left wing Democrats who dominate the party.
Mr. Stirling: I agree! But I also believe the actual facts supports better the conservative, friendly to Christians, libertarian side in so many of our controversies. And not those of the left.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: as an ethical nihilist, I don't have to go looking for "facts" to support my value judgments; I just hold to them because they're mine and I like them. Whose get enforced on society as a whole is simply a matter of who has the biggest fist.
Which is why I call ethical nihilism the "anti-knickers in a twist" personal philosophy. You don't have to get upset nearly as much... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Reasonable points! But I also believe in the value of facts. E.g., it's a FACT that gov'ts can't endlessly pour fiat money backed by nothing into an economy without getting inflation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You won't find many undisputed facts. As soon as we start to discuss policies, we are into interpretations of facts.
Paul.
Fiat money causes inflation. Does speculation also cause it? I think so but at what point do we step from fact into interpretation/theory/opinion?
Sean,
If you state that the actual facts support your view, then you do not agree that there are only interpretations of fact.
Paul.
Sean: the inflationary thing isn't whether the money is 'backed' by anything physical, but whether the amount (and velocity of circulation) of the circulating medium is in excess of the productive capacity available. Eg., Spain got severe, sustained inflation from the gold and silver imported from the Americas. The money was physical precious metals, but the inflation was just as bad, because the amount exceeded what the Spanish economy could produce. And high prices actually sabotaged Spanish production (though it benefitted the Dutch, for example.) The Japanese government has been printing money until the presses smoke since the 1980's in an attempt to stimulate demand, and until this year had deflation rather than inflation, because the world economy was in a deflationary state. When that's the case, the money just vanishes, like air out the airlock of a spaceship if you leave the hatch open. So inflation -can- be a monetary phenomenon, or it can result from inadequate supply of goods, or you can get both at the same time.
(From SM Stirling.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Feeling a bit better.
Actually, I don't disagree with you. I did have in mind more or less what you described. The high inflation we have now is due to excess fiat money not backed by goods and services being produced in the real economy.
I think our bungling gov't has managed to create inflation both as a monetary phenomenon and inadequate goods and services.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
I have my problems with President Biden’s fiscal irresponsibility, expansion of government, and partial forgiveness of student loans (much of which can be called welfare for the upper middle class). However, regarding his alleged failure to defend the country’s borders, the Border Patrol is still apprehending illegal aliens, and doing so in greater numbers than a few years ago. People attempting to apply for asylum (not the same as illegally immigrating) are still being forced to remain in Mexico. As to illegal drugs, it is still a crime to import them, and Customs, the DEA, the Coast Guard, and so forth are still trying to keep them out. The increasing number of Americans being killed by drug overdoses is largely due to the crackdown on legally prescribed opioids, and the smaller quantities of opioids which the DEA is now allowing to be made legally available. As a result, people who are in real and severe pain, and people who became addicted to OxyContin (these are overlapping categories) have in many cases turned to illegal heroin or fentanyl or whatever, and with illegal drugs, you don’t know what you’re actually getting, or in what dosage; hence, there are more deaths from overdoses. This isn’t a matter of failing to defend the country’s borders; it’s a matter of it being essentially impossible to catch every drug mule, or every ounce of fentanyl concealed somewhere in a shipping container of legitimate goods, or in the stuffing of the teddy bear of a little girl returning to the United States with her parents.
You should know that I am not a left-wing Democrat. I made myself unpopular in college with my un-leftist views, and in the first federal election in which I was old enough to vote, I helped re-elect Ronald Reagan. I do not precisely hate Donald Trump (I am not a paragon of virtue, but I am less prone to fury and hatred than I was decades ago), but I am appalled by him. I regard him as a public menace and an enemy of the Constitution, as a malignant narcissist, as Putin’s bitch, and as a man whose sheer stupidity and ignorance would render him unfit for public office even if he were not so utterly deficient in ethics. As someone said more than two years ago, “We have as president of the United States a man whose inability to simulate normal human behavior goes little remarked upon due to his other faults.”
So I believe it to be important as political hygiene for Trump to be exposed and discredited, and preferably convicted and sentenced, and for the Republican Party to return to more or less what it was as the party of Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Reagan, instead of the personality cult of a scoundrel, which is what it has largely become.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Post a Comment