Contra Mozilla

Saturday, March 29, 2014

A Millenarian Cult

I haven't heard global warming described as such before today, but it makes sense:
The frenzy that was Global Warming, which Archibald rightly calls a “millenarian cult”, is on its last legs. The notorious Climategate emails convinced all but bug-eyed zealots that the “peer-reviewed” “science” was largely a political concoction (Archibald provides a nice summary). The reason global warming was so eagerly embraced is because supporters loved the consequences—government should grow to handle the “crisis”—and because of religion—Gaia was pure until the cancer Man infected it, etc., etc.
Climate models have predicted temperatures that would go up, up, and away! Too bad for the models that the actual temperatures went the opposite direction (for almost 20 years now). Normally scientists abandon models which give failed predictions. When they don’t, which they haven’t, we’re right to suspect they’re not doing science.
Do I believe in climate change? Sure. Some of it is even caused by people (exhibit A: LA, Houston, etc...), but I've also noticed that most of the people who are really on-board with the idea of anthropogenic climate change like its consequences and their version of its solutions more than the theory itself. It does, after all, give them a chance to pretend that their support for abortion and contraception is based on something other than selfish motives.

Nor does that fact that there is overwhelming consensus" among "climate scientists" mean much, since their continued funding is essentially contingent on there being something of a crisis with "climate change."

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Quote of the Day and a Few Good Links (vol. 13)

"Apparently devil worship can only get you a win at the district court level" (Tony McDonald).

We can only hope so.

A few more quick links in the same vein:
  1. A very good discussion of the four key questions which underlie any attempts at defending the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate. That it is a burden against the rights of religion and conscience are obvious, but there are sometimes legitimate reasons for a government to place limitations on these things. However, the HHS mandate fails to satisfy any of these criteria, and thus is naked tyranny.
  2. In related news, some (many? most?) people who support the Obama Administration in this tyrannical exercise of power do so not because they think he is doing the right thing, but rather because they want to see conservatives and Christians suffer. Some go so far as to openly wish that we would all be murdered (or castrated), which is I suppose consistent with their ideology in general. Why stop at murdering babies?
  3. At what point does the analogy to Nazism cease to be hyperbole? One does not need to wear a swastika to plumb the depths of depravity and monstrosity which were the Nazi ideology, or to carry out atrocities which rival (or exceed) those of Hitler and his followers, or to add the extra inhuman touches which make onlookers really recoil.
  4. The runner-up bonus quote of the day: "The leader of the free world met with the president today." Apparently, he talked about abortion and religious freedom; income redistribution, not so much. Bonus for the pope gave President Obama a copy of his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. Nicely done, your Holiness.
That's about what I have time for right now.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Please Pray: For Religious Liberty to be Upheld

The US Supreme court is hearing oral arguments today on two cases over the Tyrannical HHS mandate. Please pray that they will strike down this law as the Tyrannical Dictate that it is.
Prayer for Our Nation
God our Father in Heaven, you chose Mary as the fairest of your daughters; Holy Spirit, you overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation; God the Son, you became incarnate in the womb of Mary, your Mother. In union with Mary, we adore you, the Most Holy Trinity and acknowledge that you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, hold eternal dominion and authority over all nations.
Most Holy Trinity, we place the United States of America into the hands of Mary Immaculate in order that she may present our country to you. Through her we wish to praise and thank you for the great resources of our land and for the freedom, which has been our heritage. Through the intercession of Mary, have mercy on the Catholic Church in the United States. Grant us peace. Have mercy on our president and on all the officers of our government. Grant us a fruitful economy born of justice and charity. Raise up and protect all of our families. Through the intercession of our Mother, have mercy on the sick, the poor, the tempted, sinners—on all who are in need. Above all, we ask Mary to intercede on our behalf that you would protect our conscience rights and religious freedom, upon which our country was founded.
Mary, Immaculate Virgin, Our Mother, Patroness of our land, we honor you and give ourselves to you. Wrap your mantel of protection around each of us and all our fellow citizens. Protect us from all evil and harm. Pray for us, that acting always according to your will and the Will of your Divine Son, we may live and die pleasing to God.
From CatholicVote.

Religious liberty is threatened around the world. Christians are being persecuted (both hard and soft) around the worlds. Just because everybody else is doing it doesn't mean we need to do it here.

Friday, March 21, 2014

A Critique of Modernity in a Review of a Review

John C. Wright offers this lengthy vivisection of modernity in the form of a response to a 60 year of review of "The Lord of the Rings." He has a tendency of being long-winded (even more so than I am), and of going down various rabbit-holes (even more than I do), but it is all interesting and entertaining and mostly correct. More importantly, it is a good read, and an important defense of the virtues, and of truth and beauty and goodness.

Excerpts will not do it justice, but here are a few anyway:
Now, the great matter of heroism is that it comes in three stages, a childish stage, a pagan stage, and a final stage.
The heroism of children, as in STAR WARS, is concerned with the plain and straightforward heroism of bravery and camaraderie; the heroism of pagans, as in Homer, is more mature yet, for it deals with the bright moments of glory and the dark, melancholy sorrow of inescapable fate that follows; the heroism that is more mature yet deals with the dark melancholy of free will and of fates that are freely chosen, albeit that they lead through dark and drear lands, but with the promise, in the end, of a bright harbor at the end of suffering, and a ship to carry the weary traveler away to a home he never knew, somewhere beyond the walls of the world.
Han Solo is an example of the first, as is John Carter the Warlord of Mars, or Robin Hood, or any number of action heroes or superheroes; Achilles is an example of the second, as is nearly every major figure in the matter of Troy; and of the third there are too few to list as examples, but that short list includes humble Frodo Baggins.
Each stage of heroism builds on itself, from mere bravery or courage, to fortitude, and at last to heroic virtue.
Lust and fornication, the moderns certainly admire and support, but lust and romance are opposites, even as fornication and marriage are opposites. The idea of a bride and bridegroom both coming to the marriage bower as virgins and cleaving to each other in tender yet fierce mutual adoration, worshiping each other with their bodies, and forswearing all other partners, this is an image the moderns find repellant, if not incomprehensible. It reminds them of the suburbs, or white picket fences, or Ozzie and Harriet. To them it is saccharine and nauseating. The only marriages they favor are gay marriages.

As for glory and honor and patriotism, love of chivalry and love of nation, the modern mind regard these things with distaste or disgust or even horror. They are regarded as machismo, as sinister attempts to oppress the weak, or to glorify violence and aggression. Patriotism to the modern man is bigotry, and vile; love of God they dismiss as superstition. The moderns have an insolent double standard: The superstition is harmless or even admirable, in an avuncular and condescending way, when practiced by Mohammedans or Buddhists or Animists, but it is an appalling enemy of enlightenment and progress when practiced by Christians.
The modern man disdains heroism in all its forms, and reduces them all to the heroism of children, brushing them away as "childish." Yet, even the child's heroism is greater than the cravenness of the modern men. The heroic virtue of the Christian saint sears the conscience of the craven man like a flame, and thus he hates it most of all, though he attempts to dismiss it as no different than "childishness."
There is a porn star who at the time of this writing is a Duke University freshman who appeared on a ‘rough sex’ website which portrayed her being choked, spat upon, and insulted during the sex act.
To justify herself in the face of criticism, she has publicly and defiantly stated that true feminism, true liberty and happiness, consists of her ‘ownership’ of her body, which ownership renders her immune from criticism, and hence allows her to do whatever degrading acts she wishes to herself for her own pleasure. She absurdly assumes a moralistic stance to blame the decent people who are disgusted by her acts. She is also a homosexual, and suffers from a crippling self-loathing. People who like themselves don’t act out fantasies of sexual degradation.
Reading the words of this poor, young morally crippled fool is a chore I will spare the reader. I am sure you can find her words through a thousand references on the Internet. I will provide no additional links or pingbacks or clicks-through to such sites. I will, nonetheless, mention the clear absurdity the words convey. She objects in the strongest and most morally elevated language, in fiery tones worthy of Tom Paine and Nathan Hale, that anyone should say demeaning things about her choice of playacting in scenes where she is demeaned. In other words, she enjoys being demeaned, but does not want anyone else to demean her. She is a masochist who does not want to be slapped.
This may be a bit of a rabbit hole, yet it is illustrative. Modernity is filled with people made of this material, the hypocrites (literally) who play-act and demand it be taken seriously and then decry those who critique the masks they wear. They are the men without chests, and perhaps worse, the followers of the faceless men who smell of the pit.

They are by nature iconoclasts, but only of fine and holy things, never of ugly and degrading idols; likewise, they are by nature romantics and idealists, but only of what is inhuman and loathsome. They hate happy marriages or heroism, but grow misty-eyed with deep emotion at the sight of Che or Mao lolling atop a mountain of corpses, and when they see the hill of smaller corpses of infants killed in the womb, they laugh and cheer and skylark, bright-faced and starry-eyed with rapture. So they have the same emotions as human beings, but merely reversed like a photographic negative.
 At this point, I've probably quoted as much as good internet etiquette allows without doing a more in-depth analysis or rebuttal. Please do go read the whole thing.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Actually, We're Pretty Much All "Born That Way"

There is an interesting opinion article on The Daily Caller about how the actual intellectual-scholars of LGBT(Q?) history states decisively that Nobody is "born that way." Most of these scholars are themselves members of the LGBT(Q?A?) communities themselves. An excerpt:
But scholars don’t think the ancient Greeks had a gay minority. Rather, that civilization thought homosexuality was something anyone could enjoy. In addition to a wife, elite men were expected to take a younger male as an apprentice-lover, with prescribed bedroom roles. The system was so different from ours that to describe specific ancient Greeks as gay or straight would show profound disrespect for their experiences, and violate the cardinal historical rule against looking at the past through present-colored lenses.
Another example in which evidence of same-sex relations has been misinterpreted to depict a gay minority involves 18th-century upper-class female romantic friendships. Even those women who probably had genital contact with each other in that context thought about sex, gender, and intimacy in such culturally specific ways that scholars have spurned the viewpoint (nearly universal among non-scholars) that any two females who wrote each other love letters and shared a bed were obviously lesbians.
Interesting reading, to be sure. However, there is another way of looking at it. The problem is not that some people are born that way and some are not. Rather, with some few exceptions [1] we are all to some extent "born that way." It's called "Original Sin" (or "the effects of the Fall"). In some cases, that leads to some proclivity (willed or not) towards the particular sin of sodomy (gay or straight), or towards illicit romantic involvements (whether between a married woman and a man who is not her husband, or between two single women, or two siblings, or a man and several women all of whom he attempts to wed). It could also be towards some other sin, such as gluttony (in particular, alcoholism) or sloth (for example, drug addictions).

And many of these other sins cannot really find licit satisfaction, either. Some alcoholics are so badly addicted that a single sip ends in drunkenness (and worse) every time. The kleptomaniac cannot steal even one purse, nor the man whose blood boils with wrath swing even one punch against a defenseless target.

Everybody is tempted by something. We all experience some kind of appetite or some passion or some desire which cannot be satisfied here. We all need temperance, and fortitude, and justice. We all need to die a little to ourselves, because we all have some desires which not only won't, but can't, be satisfied in this life.

----------
[1] The New and Old Adam and Eve.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

TMM: Ridiculous Bans

"Why don't we exclude black organizations from the St. Patrick's Day parade? Black people can still participate but only if they don't have anything identifying themselves as black. White people don’t need to identify themselves as white. St. Patrick’s Day isn't about race.

See how ridiculous that sounds?"

I take this as a sample quote of the reactions I've been hearing about the (often Catholic) organizers' of the St. Patrick's Day Parades (variously, but in particular in New York) decision to not allow a gay pride float (under whatever title it chooses). A logical substitution of sorts, but not really logical since the parade is at least nominally family-friendly. There aren't, after all, many floats promoting heterosexual sex at these vents, either, though there may be the occasional "defense of family" group still active. I wasn't there, and I didn't hear either way if this was the case.

Really, it sounds less ridiculous than
  • Banning COURAGE from a gay parade
  • Banning La Raza from a 4th of July parade
  • Banning the Black Panthers from a Cinco De Mayo parade
  • Banning feminist groups from a rally to promote racial equality
  • Banning a Russian heritage group from a gay parade

Actually, I could keep adding things to this list, but I've got better things to do. Like find a new staple stout to replace Guinness.

Monday, March 17, 2014

They Hate Us More

If the orcs seem to be always fighting each other, it's worth remembering that they hate us more. That's why feminists don't go after multiculturists in general and Muslims in particular if there are Christian men around. In related news, many Muslims apparently still think that it's ok for a man to marry an 8 year old girl (but never the other way around) and (presumeably) to consummate that marriage.

Friday, March 14, 2014

War Against Boys

The war on boys--and ultimately, men--is the front of the culture war that nobody is really interested in talking about, or addressing. Well, almost nobody:
Boys are frequently kicked out of school and sent hurtling on a path towards delinquency and failure, even for minor instances of physical aggression. Does it make sense to treat a kid like a dangerous psychopath just because he got into a minor shoving match or — horror of horrors — a fist fight? This is how boys often express their aggression. Girls express it in more damaging and traumatizing ways. They spread gossip and rumors, they shun and ostracize other girls, and these acts can reverberate through a child’s life much further and deeper than getting pushed into a locker or punched in the nose.
But typical male aggression leads to expulsion, while typical female aggression usually leads to, at most, a stern lecture from the guidance counselor. To make matters worse, we’ve banned and outlawed the healthier outlets for a boy’s energy and rambunctiousness. Schools have increasingly prohibited tag, and kickball, and dodgeball , and football.
Feminism has long since run its course as a healthy and useful movement in society. Now it is less about bringing girls (and women) up as about pushing boys (and ultimately, men) down.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Orthodox to Hold Pan-Orthodox Council

It's officially being called the "Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church" and will be held in Istanbul in 2016. It will be presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Many sources are calling this an "Ecumenical Council," which is huge. We've had 21 of those in the 2000 year history of the Church, but the orthodox stopped participating regularly after the first seven (they sent prelates to the Second Council of Lyons and to the Council of Florence). They haven't had one of their own for 1200 years, under any name.

So, this is pretty big news. May God guide them.

Voter ID Laws Are Racist

And by "racist," we mean they prevent illegal immigrants from voting. They are so racist, in fact, that the Mexican government has strict voter ID laws in place. So really, voter ID Laws should actually make Hispanics feel more at home.

Go figure.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Quick Link: Some Good News

Here is some good news from Texas: 38 of 44 abortion mills which were open in 2011 in Texas have closed, are in the process of closing, or will likely close by September. Of those, 19 will close assuming that the law which was passed last summer isn't overturned in the courts.

Unfortunately, 6 abortion mills will remain open. Also, I'm sure a few more will eventually open under the newer, "safer" (well, physically safer for the women anyway) conditions. But this is largely a good trend to see many of these houses of murder close their doors forever.

The Musical Question Is

"How did these books ever get published?"

And perhaps more importantly, who buys stuff like this?

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Natural and Legal Rights

The Arizona religious rights law has been vetoed by Governor Brewer (R). I mentioned my own initial thoughts about its passage already, including some misgivings about the law itself. I might have considered vetoing it, even though I agree with the law's intent of protecting religious liberties, which are increasingly risking becoming an endangered species of freedom, but with the caveat that something a little more specific be passed.

I've mentioned having some misgiving about the law, and in retrospect I think I can articulate them somewhat now. I'm not particularly worried that gays will be turned away from truly necessary services: the hospital, the emergency room, the supermarket, etc. Indeed, I suspect that few businesses would turn them away, meaning that if they happen upon one which would, the end result is a minor inconvenience for them as they must drive across town to find the business' competitor and do business there instead.

Actually, my main beef with this law is not with the law itself--it could easily be tailored against the "broad...unintended consequences" which Governor Brewer cited as her concerns. Nor do I think that most (perhaps even, many) businesses would be likely to turn away gays, even if the business is owned by a Christian who is so orthodox as to retain a sense of sin. Even some of the businesses which actually have been sued have knowingly served gays in instances not involving "gay marriage/wedding" ceremonies, so it is probably a rare and limited set of conditions under which a gay person would likely be "turned away."

My misgivings are about something which underlies this law and any other which is meant to "protect" our religious freedoms and rights of conscience. Call it an attitude. I am of the opinion that the Tenth Amendment should be more broadly interpreted:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That which is not explicitly addressed by law is not a matter over which people ought to be prosecuted (or persecuted) under the law. The presumption should be that if there is not a law which explicitly require men to render their particular services to others, then the refusal of a service for any reason whatsoever is lawful. The particular application of this law is that unless the State of Arizona (or the US government) explicitly passes a law prohibiting that all businesses must render goods or service to gay people (or whomever), the presumption would be that a business refusing to render such goods or service is not to be held liable for failure to render the goods or services.

Unfortunately, the laws and the Courts have increasingly made the opposite presumption: namely, that which is not prohibited is compulsory. And we have by and large gone along with this interpretation, thereby necessitating various laws to protect particular exercises of conscience which were once taken for granted. We have given up freedom for "equality" and and order for "fraternity", but a false equality and a forced brotherhood (or comradeship).

We have bought into the lie that rights and freedoms come from the state, and only from the state. If a law doesn't explicitly guarantee a right, the presumption is increasingly that we do not have this right. There are two broad reason why freedom is slowly dying in the West:
  1. It has been divorced from order. Ordered liberty is true freedom, and ultimately that order is rooted in morality (which has become something of a boo word with a large segment of society).
  2. It has been viewed as a thing granted by the state rather than a thing which is limited where necessary by the state.
The second of these stems from the first. Part of the problem here is the presumption that the businesses only have this right if it is enshrined in law. Yes, the courts also make this presumption, probably making the laws necessary.

But this is why freedom is dying in the West: we take it for granted that laws give and take away freedom, rights, etc, rather than regulating it. Rather than a law stating that certain type of business (e.g. hospitals) cannot refuse service (because the right to life trumps whatever excuse may be offered), we assume that a law is needed to grant the right to refuse business.

Frankly, we ought to be able to refuse business to whom we please, conscience of otherwise. The Civil Rights Act did away with that. And, for what it is worth, I agree with the intended goal of the law (ending race-based discrimination, for example). However, I think that the racist business owner should ultimately be allowed to refuse service to blacks, even though I disagree that he should do so (and even though I know that the law right now says otherwise). If he did, I d not think he would remain in business for long.

Or, to hit this law a little closer: no one should be compelled to provide services wit which they disagree which do not  harm the society as a whole when withheld. Perhaps you are a florist who worships the demon Gaia [1], there is no reason why you should be compelled to provide flowers to a Christian wedding knowing that children will result from the union. And, in like manner, if you are a Christian who takes seriously the moral prescriptions and proscriptions of the Bible, there is no compelling reason why you should be forced to participate in or otherwise support a "marriage" between two gays. Will some gays (decreasingly) and some Christians (increasingly) be inconvenienced? Yes, but that is ultimately the price of freedom and pluralism.


[0] I don't really like the title, and it's not really a finished post, but I decided to publish (it is a blog, which rewards quantity over quality and timeliness over being well-thought-out).

[1] Forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons, and Gaia worshipers would forbid "breeding" if they could...

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

It's hard to Believe that Anybody Takes the Famous Violinist Seriously

Some people apparently still think it epitomizes an unanswerable argument. Instead, it is a sophomoric attempt to argue via emotion based on a number of flawed premises which nobody applies consistently to any other situation, and which even fails as a simple analogy because in the end, it is nothing like an actual pregnancy.

Second Class Citizens

We hear many complaints of gays, of radical feminist womyn , and of any number of others perpetually and professionally offended classes about being "second class citizens." In reality, we are slowly tailoring the laws and their application so that faithful Christians (and in some cases observant Jews) will be the actual second-class citizens.

The laws are passed in the name of "equality," but they simply transfer which group will be made "unequal", removing some important freedoms along the way. I recently heard this excused under the guise of "freedom from discrimination." This is a risible claim: there will always be some form of discrimination in society. These laws entrench that discrimination, but aim it against certain disfavored worldviews (specifically, Christianity). while lifting it from certain ideologies which are antithetical to Christianity (gay liberationism, radical feminism, etc.). And this will be done for increasingly rare and minor cases, but then applied to increasingly broad cases. n the end, the gays and feminists and other "interested" ideologies will not find that they achieve equality--thought they may achieve protected special status for a time. Rather, they will become the cultural inquisitors (at least so long as they remain useful), and theirs ma be the east merciful inquisition of all.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Job Searching

Still trying to finish my Ph.D., still spinning my wheels on an experiment which may or may not work. Therefore, I'm not getting enough time to write my thesis, or to search for a job for after I graduate.

Speaking of which, I've gone from looking for a dream job to looking for a job with a few basic criteria:
  • Does not involve writing code as the primary function. I don't want to program computers (and I'm not good at it anyway), or to write applets, or for that matter to just use MATLAB/etc to analyze data and write simulations. I'm an experimentalist, not a theoretician or computationalist.
  • Job is located outside of the axis of misery. Another way of saying this is that the job is not in California, New York, Massachusetts, or Illinois. Barring that, it's at least outside fo the major metro areas of those God-forsaking states.
  • Job will pay enough that I can support my family. If I have to move, we will be living off of my salary alone. I'd like to be able to pay down our student loans, and maybe someday own a house. I'd like to be able to retire and live off of my savings when I am elderly and infirm. Perhaps y, say, age 70 or so?
  • I'd prefer something which does involve optics, since that's very broadly the field that I'm in.

You wouldn't think this was a tall order to fulfill. But for some reason every experimental optics program is in LA (specifically, in and around El Segundo) or the San Fransisco and San Jose Metro areas. Lose Alamos and Lawrence Livermore (California, but not in the metro areas) are in a hiring freeze. And most other optics jobs are either computation-heavy or located elsewhere in the axis of misery.

Sigh. It looks increasingly like I may have to move to LA, assuming that I can secure something there.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

This Has the Potential to Be Interesting

Sometimes, the bully meets another, possibly bigger, bully. I don't say this often, but here I'm rooting for the Muslims:
Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.

Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.

But that’s what multiculturalism and unlimited immigration from illiberal countries means...Mahrouk’s view is illiberal. But in Canada we believe in property rights and freedom of association — and in this case, freedom of religion, too.

But McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.

This is in Canada, of course, so it has little bearing on how conscience rights are treated here. Unfortunately, the smart money in our rather stupid society is on one of two other scenarios. The first is the curtailing of the Mohammedan's religious rights: womyn and gays trump multiculturalism [1]. Or if you'd rather, multiculturalism only applies if it can be used to undermine traditional morality and bolster moral relativism.

The worse scenario is that multiculturalism wins, but consistency is not applied. The result is that conscience rights based on Sharia law are prohibited, but the principle is not extended to conscience rights based on Christian (or Jewish) morality. The pessimist in me thinks that this latter option is made even more likely since it would be a flagrant case of sticking it to Christians. That is the purpose of these so-called "Human Rights" commissions (and their equivalents in the US), is it not?




---Footnotes---
[1] I recall that an acquaintance of mine attended a class at some point in which the feminists and the Mohammedans clashed. In the campus setting, womyn trumped multiculturalism. It would be interesting to see if this holds in society at large.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

The Washington Senate Has Done the Right Thing

This is unquestionably a good thing. I have yet to hear an explanation of why people who morally object to these murderous acts should be forced to subsidize them. None--not even from a pro-choice standpoint. This is because the argument does not exist, save in the heads of those who prostitute their intellects to the idols of modernity and Moloch.

It really puts the lie to the argument "Don't like abortion? Don't get one." People who use this argument and then turn around and support bills like this are liars and hypocrites. There is no other word for it. It is analogous to saying "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave," and then demanding that every citizen give money to a collection used solely to cover the cost of providing a slave to those who do not object  to the practice.

It's one thing fail to forbid a great and harmful evil in society. It's another thing entire make it compulsive.