Stevin Koonin ~ Former Energy Dept. Undersecretary (Updated)

(Above video description) Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.

  • “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy,” writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

Via The Wall Street Journal:

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

[….]

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.

[….]

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

…READ IT ALL…

Jesse Lee Peterson Interviews Ann Coulter

GAY PATRIOT h-t…

On this exciting and timely episode of TheFallenState TV, syndicated columnist and New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter joins host Jesse Lee Peterson. In the wake of UC Berkeley cancelling Ann’s scheduled speech, Ann discusses free speech in America and the left’s frequent censorship of the right. One of Trump’s biggest supporters during the election, Ann weighs in on Trump’s actions so far as president. Ann also opens up about her family, being a Christian, and her thoughts on men and relationships.

Here is the article Ann was trying to recall:

IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT!

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:

“The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Hume’s words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage. This illustrated, once again liberals’ amazing ignorance of Christianity. (It also illustrated Jesus’ words: “How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words.” John 8:43.)

In The Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had “dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet.”

Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding apologies from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don’t believe in God, but try to become their own gods.

Does anyone think Tiger’s problem was that he didn’t think of himself as a god? Maybe not always, but definitely after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.

In light of Shales’ warning Hume about “what people are saying” about him, I hope Hume’s a Christian. He might just know what Christianity is, unlike Shales and every other liberal. Given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have a passing familiarity with the basic gist of Christianity.

On MSNBC, David Shuster invoked the “separation of church and television” (a phrase that also doesn’t appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity “out-of-the-blue” on “a political talk show.”

Yes, why would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field!

What religion — what topic — induces this sort of babbling idiocy? (If liberals really want to keep people from hearing about God, they should give Him his own show on MSNBC.)

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage’s indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity “offers the best deal — it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can’t.”

In fact, that’s exactly what Christianity does. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist and “radical sex advice columnist faggot” like Savage would miss the central point of Christianity, but there it is.)

It’s the best deal going. God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you’re in. Your sins are washed away from you — sins even worse than adultery! — because of the cross.

“He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.” Colossians 2:14. Surely you remember the cross, liberals — the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

[….]

The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random:

— “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

— “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” Ephesians 2:8.

— “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23.

In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being “judgmental.” No, we’re relieved….

(read it all)

YUGE Tax Cuts (Dennis Prager)

Dennis Prager reads from an IBD ARTICLE about the benefits from Trump’s tax plan… AS WELL AS starting out the show by showing the ludicrous nature of the envious Left. I include a dissenting call to end the upload.

GAY PATRIOT has some key bullet points:

  • Slightly lower personal income tax rates. (Top rate from near-40% to 35%.)
  • Eliminating almost all income tax deductions, except mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
  • Much lower corporate income tax rates. (Top rate from 35%, one of the world’s highest, to 15%.)
  • A one-time tax on overseas business profits. (That haven’t been repatriated to the U.S. Apple has a lot.)
  • A “territorial system” where future profits that corporations earn abroad, are not taxed.
  • Repealing a bunch of taxes and complications, most notably the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the estate tax.

Here is an excerpt from the article mentioned:

President Trump’s tax plan, unveiled on Thursday, slashes the corporate tax rate from a top rate of nearly 50% to 15%. It’s a smart move. Not only will it kick start the economy and job growth, but it’s likely he’ll be able to get bipartisan support.

Right now, there is no consensus on broad-based tax reform. So, at least for now, a broad tax reform package including tax cuts, fewer deductions and a flattening of tax rates may be tough to achieve. Even Republicans, who are eager for some kind reform, remain split on how it should be done.

But nearly everyone agrees that the current U.S. corporate tax rate is outrageous.

Sadly, average Americans often don’t agree. They believe that corporations pay no taxes. But that’s not true. U.S. corporations pay a top marginal rate of close to 40%, compared to an average of about 24% for all the OECD nations.

That puts U.S. companies at a tremendous disadvantage to other nations’ companies and reduces the money they have available for investing and hiring new workers.

We don’t know what else Trump’s tax reform will contain, but just cutting corporate taxes would be a big winner. Even President Obama supported the idea in 2015, when he and congressional Democrats were considering a deal that would cut corporate tax rates in exchange for spending more on infrastructure.

But apart from Washington political wrangling, the economic reasons for a corporate tax cut are even more compelling.

Back in 2015, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation ran the numbers and concluded that cutting the corporate rate to 15% would boost GDP by 3.7% and actually increase federal revenues by 0.3%.

More importantly, it would be a huge boon to working Americans: “Depending on the size of the corporate rate reduction, we would expect to see an additional 425,000 to 613,000 new jobs, and wages would increase between 1.9% and 3.6% over the long-term.”

That means higher after-tax incomes for all. Talk about a stagnation-buster. That’s a recipe for 3% plus annual GDP growth, something that never happened during the Obama years. The plan that was Trump unveiled Thursday said that one of the goals of tax reform was to “grow the economy and create millions of jobs.”

[….]

Nor is this a “tax cut for the rich,” as some have claimed.

As IBD noted last September, the “dirty little secret” of corporate taxes is that corporations don’t actually even pay them. Average Americans — that’s you — do. You pay it through lower wages, lower returns on investments and retirement accounts, and higher prices for the things you buy.

A study last year by The R Street Institute noted that “some studies suggest that as much as three-fourths of direct corporate income-tax costs are borne by a firm’s workers.”

High corporate tax rates are also why many big American companies are undergoing “inversions” — merging into a foreign company, then relocating their headquarters to the foreign country to avoid super-high U.S. taxes.

In short, our excessively high corporate tax rate does nothing good for the economy, for investors or for workers. While 15% is a very good rate, it would be better to get rid of it entirely….

(read it all)

Israel Carries Out Multiple Strikes

I am not a huge fan of ZERO HEDGE, but this was some good commentary on the actions:

Israeli strikes have hit an arms depot operated by the Lebanese Hezbollah group near Damascus airport, Syrian opposition sources told Al Jazeera. Witnesses said a total of five strikes occurred near the Damascus airport road, about 25km from the capital, early on Thursday. Syrian state TV quoted a military source saying rockets fired from Israeli territory targeted a military area in the southwestern part of the airport which caused explosions.

Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from the Turkish city of Gaziantep near Syria’s border, said opposition activists posted pictures online showing a huge fire near the area.

“We do understand that the Israelis have been carrying out strikes in the past. The last one was in January targeting the Mezze military base.

“In 2015 they also launched attacks near the capital Damascus and in the Golan Heights, killing two prominent Hezbollah commanders, including Jihad Mughniya who is the son of the top military commander of Hezbollah Imad Mughniya who was also killed in Damascus in 2008,” Ahelbarra said.

[….]

“The prime minister has said that whenever we receive intelligence that indicated an intention to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah, we will act.” Katz added. An Israeli military spokeswoman declined to comment.

[….]

This is the second Israeli attack on Syria in the past week: on Sunday, Israeli forces bombed a camp for pro-government forces killed three fighters near the Golan Heights on Sunday according to AFP. Two fighters were also wounded in the attack on the Al-Fawwar camp near Quneitra in southwestern Syria, adding that it was unclear whether the damage was inflicted by an air strike or shelling.

Israel’s army declined to comment Sunday on the attack. On Friday the army said it targeted positions inside Syria in retaliation for mortar fire that hit the northern part of the Golan Heights….

Some news about troop positions that I was not tracking with via DEBKA FILE:

Early Thursday, April 26, a mixed Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah force embarked on a general offensive in southern Syria ready for a leap on Israel’s Golan border. They moved forward in the face of Israeli warnings that were relayed from Moscow to Tehran and Hizballah.

Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman arrived in Moscow Tuesday for a two-day international conference on Security. After meeting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Lieberman said that Israel would not stand for Iranian or Hizballah concentrating military forces on the Syrian-Israeli border. He praised the coordination mechanism between the IDF and the Russian Syrian command as working effectively and preventing unnecessary friction. Officers of the two militaries had so far met nine times. Lieberman will also meet Russian Defense Minister Gen. Sergey Shogun during the visit.

This latest warning was issued by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is visiting the Russian capital this week to attend an international security conference. After meeting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defense Minister Gen. Sergey Shogun, the Israeli minister stated clearly on Wednesday: “Israel will not allow the concentration of Iranian and Hizballah forces on its Golan border.”  

By Thursday morning, it was evident that a decision had been taken in Moscow, Tehran, Damascus and Beirut to ignore Lieberman’s warning.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that early Thursday, Shiite militias under the command of Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers, alongside Hizballah troops, organized as the Southern Shield Brigade, launched their offensive at Mt. Hermon southwest of Damascus, on their way to the Syrian-Israeli Golan border in the region of Quneitra. The Syrian contingents taking part in this push are the Syrian army’s elite 42nd Brigade and elements of the 4th Mechanized Division.

Their first objective is to capture a string of villages held by Syrian rebel groups in the region of Hadar on the Hermon slopes. They are advancing towards the Golan along the Beit Jinn route.

There is no word yet on whether the warning issued by the defense minister from Moscow has produced a direct Israeli response to the provocation. Very possibly the five explosions and ball of fire they set off at Damascus international airport Thursday morning may prove to be connected to that response.

 

“Teach by Contrast” | Walter Martin’s Last Time on TBN

This from MORIEL MINISTRIES (2011) explaining a bit about the above:

In light of another Calvary Chapel pastor making an appearance on TBN’s Praise-the-Lord program, I thought it apropos to share a tape in my collection of how a Bible believer should behave when invited onto TBN or any of the other errant “Christian” networks. What sort of message is communicated when a solid Bible teacher shares the platform with heretics and does not bring reproof? Certainly it gives the impression that the guest endorses the teaching of the hosts and /or founder of the Christian network.

Some argue that if they can’t go on TBN due to its corruption, then they couldn’t show up on ABC, NBC or CBS either. They don’t understand the distinction between being salt and light to the unsaved world and practicing biblical separation from so-called Christians who are spreading false teaching against Jesus Christ. To the unsaved, we can use their media to spread the Gospel, but to the errant brother we are to bring correction and divide if they do not stop their false teaching. For a proof-text consider 1 Corinthians 5:11:

“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner””not even to eat with such a person.”

When Calvary Chapel Albuquerque’s pastor Skip Heitzig went on TBN last week acting like he and his host Phil Munsey were old friends, it was a shame to the spirit of that passage. Phil Munsey and his brother Steve Munsey are two of the most infamous extortioners in the field of Christian television. Munsey has used new age ideas of paradigm shifts and panentheism to spread his unbiblical dominionist views.

In contrast to the compromisers, the late Walter Martin tried to bring correction the last time he made an appearance on TBN. This video tape has never circulated and has not been available anywhere until now that I have posted it to YouTube.

Back in 1985 my younger sister was Martin’s secretary. She and my older sister and I all regularly attended his weekly Bible study. I used to share my research with him and also with my friend author Dave Hunt. Walter and Dave disagreed on many things regarding their styles of apologetics and discernment. Whenever there was a difference of opinion between the two of them, I usually agreed with Dave.

I had had some discussion with Dr. Martin over Dave’s book, The Seduction of Christianity. Walter had been critical about it on the radio having never read it but based his criticisms upon what his personal editor had told him.

One day my older sister was watching Praise-the-Lord when Hal Lindsey was a guest. He was her pastor at that time. Back then Hal used to challenge the teaching of other TBN regulars and Paul Crouch put up with it. However, that got old with the Crouches and when Hal wouldn’t stop criticizing the Kingdom Now doctrine, he was put on the shelf until he learned to kow-tow to them. When my sister heard Hal bring up Walter’s name in the show, Paul and Jan agreed that he was a brilliant man and Hal said you should have him on some time. They both responded – oh sure we will.

So she informed our little sister who told Walter and Walter told her to call TBN and arrange it which she did. However, the Crouches wouldn’t host him so they got prophecy teacher Doug Clark to do so. My younger sister called me on the day of the taping saying that Walter wanted me to go through Dave Hunt’s book, The Seduction of Christianity and highlight things he would be in agreement with. I was happy to do so for him. He used that information to challenge TBN’s blackballing of Dave Hunt and other whistle-blowers.

I stayed home to work the VCR I didn’t know how to program, while my two sisters attended, one in the green room and one in the audience we had stacked with many friends. Walter gave it to them with both barrels. Not only was the program not replayed at its regular slot, but the tapes were not available when people followed up to request one. Back in those days any Praise-the-Lord program could be bought on audio cassette for a small fee. And both Walter Martin and Doug Clark were never invited back. We had heard years later from Doug Clark that during the interview he kept receiving notes from the stage manager telling him to “shut that guy up” and other nasty notes….

Media Shows Their Bias by Labeling (BIAS)

Great study via NEWSBUSTERS:

MRC analysts reviewed all 141 stories on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows that mentioned the efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and their Senate counterparts during the ObamaCare repeal/replacement debate, and discovered that while congressional conservatives were overwhelmingly given ideological labels, those that opposed them were rarely, if ever, labeled by journalists.   

CBS provided the most coverage (54 stories) that mentioned House and Senate conservative efforts on the health care bill. NBC was next (49 stories) followed by ABC, which aired (38 stories) on its morning and evening newscasts during this period. 

In these stories, MRC analysts documented how network reporters assigned a whopping 223 ideological labels to House and Senate Republicans — either to individual members of Congress, or factions like the House Freedom Caucus within the GOP.

Overwhelmingly, the networks used “conservative” tags to talk about Republicans. Fully 80 percent of these labels (179) talked about “conservatives” or those on the “right;” just 20 percent (44) referred to “moderate” Republicans.

Eleven percent of the labels (20) painted conservatives as extremists: “far right,” “hardline,” “very conservative” or “ultra-conservative.” Such deliberate labeling is designed to stigmatize conservatives, casting them as outside-of-the-mainstream ideologues, as compared to their (usually unlabeled) adversaries.

Democrats were never labeled as “liberal” or “progressive.” Twice Democrats were referred to as “moderate,” both times on CBS.  

CBS led the way with 61 uses of the “conservative” label to just 17 “moderate” tags. ABC was second with 60 “conservative” labels and 15 uses of the word “moderate.” NBC had 58 “conservative” labels to just 12 “moderate” uses. 

(read it all)

An older study shows much the same… but it seems to be getting worse. POLITICO is now warning that the media bubble is worse than many think. Here are just a few of the graphs I have saved over the years… I wonder is something analogouse can be pointed out to me by a Leftist?


 photo positive-negative-100-days.png
 photo Gun Control_1.jpg
 photo AZChartNew.jpg
 photo ABCNBCCBSguncontrol.gif
 photo smith khan chart.jpg

Bill Nye, The Not-So-Scientific-Guy

Language warning on some of the below content. Oh, and what is seen cannot be unseen:


Bill Nye (The Not-A-Real-Science-Guy) fancies himself an expert and repeatedly scoffs at anyone who’s skeptical of his particular brand of science….which ironically often lacks actual science. We give you exhibit D from his new Netflix show ‘Bill Nye Saves The World’ on the topic of the “gender spectrum”…

Here is some commentary by RED PILL PHILOSOPHY:


The following excerpt is from THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

The following is excerpted from McGuire’s new book, “Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female

Feminists in the 1960s and 70s argued that men and women are not inherently different. The many apparent differences between the sexes — beyond the undeniable anatomical ones — are simply the result of gender roles people are taught to fulfill, not of their natures as men or women. This was the era when parents were told that their daughters would be just as happy playing with toy trucks as with dolls and that making the switch would help end sexism and liberate girls for a better future. Women sought to detach themselves from the aspects of womanhood they found limiting, especially their fertility.

For decades, gender theory gained steam, seeking the complete abolition of gender distinctions in any way tied to the two biological sexes.

In 1992, family therapist John Gray published Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. The book’s premise was simple: men and women are different, and understanding those differences, not living in denial of them, is the key to relationship success. The book’s popularity exploded. It became not just a bestselling book of its decade, but one of the bestselling books of all time.

It was pop psychology, but it hit a social nerve. The book hit shelves amid a growing effort to build a gender-neutral society. It seemed people were still desperate to understand their differences. Paradoxically, the dawn of gender theory was also the period when social scientists and doctors began to make the most progress in understanding the sexual difference and the delicate physiological interplay between men and women.

Major advances in neurobiology, for example, unveiled just how differently men and women respond physically to intimacy. During intercourse, the female releases more oxytocin than the male. Oxytocin is the hormone that facilitates bonding between human beings, in particular between mothers and new babies and between heterosexual partners. It’s colloquially referred to as “the love hormone,” “the hug hormone,” the “cuddle chemical,” the “moral molecule,” and the “bliss hormone,” and is especially noted for the different roles it plays in female reproduction.

According to the American Psychological Association, “New studies are adding to a body of literature that shows oxytocin plays a key role in maternal bonding and social affiliation — what [social psychologist Shelley] Taylor has labeled the ‘tend and befriend’ response, as opposed to the ‘fight or flight’ response.”

Oxytocin, researchers discovered, makes a woman more vulnerable and attached to the man with whom she is having sex. Men release a small amount of oxytocin during intercourse, too, but they release an even bigger amount of testosterone, which has the effect of suppressing the oxytocin.

So science has a basic explanation for why women will stare at their phone after casual sex, hoping their partner will contact them, while men do not. As one woman wrote in a piece for Elite Daily, “The Truth Behind Why Women Find It Harder to Have Casual Sex than Men Do,” the phenomenon of oxytocin offers “a scientific explanation as to why after sex, women are left wondering if and when she will hear from a guy. All the while, guys are scrolling through Tinder on their couch, wondering if that chicken parm they ordered an hour ago is actually on its way.” “Women,” she writes, “are programmed to become emotionally attached” in a way that men are not.

There is a seemingly unending litany of ways that men and women are different, many of them still unexplained.

As Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield notes in Manliness, his treatise on manhood, data show that women are friendlier. Two-thirds of people who are more inclined toward smiling are women.

[….]

Medical phenomena continue to point to stark differences between the male and female brains.

Men, for instance, are significantly more likely to have reading disorders, something that has been attributed to, among other things, “differences in brain functioning.” And reading disorders may arise differently in men and women. According to a Georgetown University Medical Center study, “Brain anatomy of dyslexia is not the same in men and women, boys and girls.”

The study’s lead author explained, “There is sex-specific variance in brain anatomy and females tend to use both hemispheres for language tasks, while males just the left. It is also known that sex hormones are related to brain anatomy and that female sex hormones such as estrogen can be protective after brain injury, suggesting another avenue that might lead to the sex-specific findings reported in this study.”

The world of science and medicine is trending toward greater, not lesser, understanding of the importance of what makes us different.

Does great variety exist within the sexes? Of course. Some men are poets, some men are soldiers. Some women are trial lawyers, while others write books. Some men vacuum. Some women don’t cook.

And yet, despite historical changes in fashion preferences, domestic arrangements, professional inclinations, and so much more, certain aspects of nature stubbornly persist. Shifts in who wears pink have not changed the fact that women, and only women, can conceive, gestate, and give birth to a new member of the human species. Men are, on the whole, the physically stronger sex. Culture may imbue gender with certain random characteristics, but science is not walking away from sex as a key feature of humanity.

Culture may change, but reality doesn’t…..

Slavery Made the South Poor, Not Rich

This is the article Larry Elder was referencing: “INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY DURING THE CIVIL WAR” (Also see “The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’) —  here is the excerpt from chapter 22 of MY BONDAGE AND MY FREEDOM:

…The reader will be amused at my ignorance, when I tell the notions I had of the state of northern wealth, enterprise, and civilization. Of wealth and refinement, I supposed the north had none. My Columbian Orator, which was almost my only book, had not done much to enlighten me concerning northern society. The impressions I had received were all wide of the truth. New Bedford, especially, took me by surprise, in the solid wealth and grandeur there exhibited. I had formed my notions respecting the social condition of the free states, by what I had seen and known of free, white, non-slaveholding people in the slave states. Regarding slavery as the basis of wealth, I fancied that no people could become very wealthy without slavery. A free white man, holding no slaves, in the country, I had known to be the most ignorant and poverty-stricken of men, and the laughing stock even of slaves themselves—called generally by them, in derision, “poor white trash.” Like the non-slaveholders at the south, in holding no slaves, I suppose the northern people like them, also, in poverty and degradation. Judge, then, of my amazement and joy, when I found—as I did find—the very laboring population of New Bedford living in better houses, more elegantly furnished—surrounded by more comfort and refinement—than a majority of the slaveholders on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. There was my friend, Mr. Johnson, himself a colored man (who at the south would have been regarded as a proper marketable commodity), who lived in a better house—dined at a richer board—was the owner of more books—the reader of more newspapers—was more conversant with the political and social condition of this nation and the world—than nine-tenths of all the slaveholders of Talbot county, Maryland. Yet Mr. Johnson was a working man, and his hands were hardened by honest toil. Here, then, was something for observation and study. Whence the difference? The explanation was soon furnished, in the superiority of mind over simple brute force. Many pages might be given to the contrast, and in explanation of its causes. But an incident or two will suffice to show the reader as to how the mystery gradually vanished before me.

My first afternoon, on reaching New Bedford, was spent in visiting the wharves and viewing the shipping. The sight of the broad brim and the plain, Quaker dress, which met me at every turn, greatly increased my sense of freedom and security. “I am among the Quakers,” thought I, “and am safe.” Lying at the wharves and riding in the stream, were full-rigged ships of finest model, ready to start on whaling voyages. Upon the right and the left, I was walled in by large granite-fronted warehouses, crowded with the good things of this world. On the wharves, I saw industry without bustle, labor without noise, and heavy toil without the whip. There was no loud singing, as in southern ports, where ships are loading or unloading—no loud cursing or swearing—but everything went on as smoothly as the works of a well adjusted machine. How different was all this from the nosily fierce and clumsily absurd manner of labor-life in Baltimore and St. Michael’s! One of the first incidents which illustrated the superior mental character of northern labor over that of the south, was the manner of unloading a ship’s cargo of oil. In a southern port, twenty or thirty hands would have been employed to do what five or six did here, with the aid of a single ox attached to the end of a fall. Main strength, unassisted by skill, is slavery’s method of labor. An old ox, worth eighty dollars, was doing, in New Bedford, what would have required fifteen thousand dollars worth of human bones and muscles to have performed in a southern port. I found that everything was done here with a scrupulous regard to economy, both in regard to men and things, time and strength. The maid servant, instead of spending at least a tenth part of her time in bringing and carrying water, as in Baltimore, had the pump at her elbow. The wood was dry, and snugly piled away for winter. Woodhouses, in-door pumps, sinks, drains, self-shutting gates, washing machines, pounding barrels, were all new things, and told me that I was among a thoughtful and sensible people. To the ship-repairing dock I went, and saw the same wise prudence. The carpenters struck where they aimed, and the calkers wasted no blows in idle flourishes of the mallet. I learned that men went from New Bedford to Baltimore, and bought old ships, and brought them here to repair, and made them better and more valuable than they ever were before. Men talked here of going whaling on a four years’ voyage with more coolness than sailors where I came from talked of going a four months’ voyage…