For a perfect example of the gut-over-facts, anti-intellectual mentality that has infected the GOP, look no further than David Limbaugh's latest article, which begins thusly:
"God bless Sarah Palin, and shame on elitists from both sides of the aisle who have denigrated, demonized and dissed her. I don't care how many 'smartest people in the room' types offer pseudo-sophisticated analyses to prove she was a drag on the GOP presidential ticket. They are all manifestly and embarrassingly wrong -- and woefully out of touch -- which is par for the course for elitists."
There you have it folks, ironclad sophistry. Ignore the data, label your opponents "elitists", denigrate the value of sophisticated analysis, and simply assert that which you wish to be true. Polls (read "the facts") consistently showed that Palin was perceived by a majority of Americans to not have the qualifications and personal qualities a president should have. McCain's polling numbers, buoyed by the Palin announcement, started crashing the minute her gut-wrenching interviews hit the airwaves. She became the joke that kept on giving to late night talk shows everywhere. Yet Limbaugh, and many others such as Pat Buchanan, still refuse to accept the data, and go instead with their gut. That gut will get the GOP killed again in 2010 and 2012 if they Palinize another campaign.
Not satisfied with being completely immune to data on one issue, Limbaugh shoots for another:
"Speaking of elitists, it's time to address their contempt for rural and southern America, particularly their ongoing smear of the South (and, truth be told, rank-and-file conservative Republicans) as racist."
Gee David, where in the world would people get the idea that the rank-and-file southern Republicans were racist? Maybe because so many of them tell us they are. Maybe it's the 99% white crowds we see at Republican rallies and conventions.
The Republican party is at a crossroads. It can stay stuck in the ignorant racist past, follow Sarah Palin, or someone like her, remain a minority party and rob America of the strong conservative voice it needs. Or it can dispense with this willful ignorance, get with the modern world, deal with information rather than propaganda, reason rather than half-arguments and innuendo, respect the value of intellect and education, and help us solve the very complicated and real problems facing this country.
At this point, it does not look hopeful.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Kristof on Obama and Brains
Nicholas Kristof has a great article on Obama being our first intellectual president in a while. As he explains, an intellectual is not identified by his IQ, but by his attitude towards knowledge:
"An intellectual is a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity. Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking, because they appreciate the lessons of Sophocles and Shakespeare that the world abounds in uncertainties and contradictions, and — President Bush, lend me your ears — that leaders self-destruct when they become too rigid and too intoxicated with the fumes of moral clarity...
Mr. Obama, unlike most politicians near a microphone, exults in complexity. He doesn’t condescend or oversimplify nearly as much as politicians often do, and he speaks in paragraphs rather than sound bites..."
Among the many views I hope America began to repudiate with the election of Obama is the notion that all knowledge can be expressed in two sentences, that any nuance to opinion amounts to waffling, and that flexibility in the face of new evidence is a strength rather than a weakness. If the Bush administration taught us nothing else, it is that simplistic "for us or against us" thinking simply will not do in an increasingly complicated and interconnected world.
Kristof is also quick to remind us that being an intellectual is no guarantee of success as a leader. However, it's a good start, and a damn sight superior to the alternative.
"An intellectual is a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity. Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking, because they appreciate the lessons of Sophocles and Shakespeare that the world abounds in uncertainties and contradictions, and — President Bush, lend me your ears — that leaders self-destruct when they become too rigid and too intoxicated with the fumes of moral clarity...
Mr. Obama, unlike most politicians near a microphone, exults in complexity. He doesn’t condescend or oversimplify nearly as much as politicians often do, and he speaks in paragraphs rather than sound bites..."
Among the many views I hope America began to repudiate with the election of Obama is the notion that all knowledge can be expressed in two sentences, that any nuance to opinion amounts to waffling, and that flexibility in the face of new evidence is a strength rather than a weakness. If the Bush administration taught us nothing else, it is that simplistic "for us or against us" thinking simply will not do in an increasingly complicated and interconnected world.
Kristof is also quick to remind us that being an intellectual is no guarantee of success as a leader. However, it's a good start, and a damn sight superior to the alternative.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Bill Donahue is an Ignorant Fool
The American Humanist Association ads asking people to be good for goodness' sake has gotten the attention of the Catholic League's Bill Donahue, who appeared on Foxnews with the apparent purpose of making himself look like an angry, ignorant fool. After hearing from the AHA representative, who said outlandish things like "people shouldn't need a god to be good", Donohue went into this amazing rant:
"Frankly there is an agenda here. They always choose Christmas don't they? If this guy had any guts they'd choose Ramadan and explain it to the Muslims. Quite frankly we've had a rash of militant secularist activities through books through movies. Last Sunday in Lansing Michigan gay terrorists stormed a Church that Christians that church. Look these guys are sticking their nose in where they don't belong and this is a cheap way of trying to take a shot at Christmas. They don't have any guts, if they did, they'd go after the Muslims."
What is this obsession with Muslims? What exactly is wrong with an atheist in Christian-dominated America taking up his grievances with the Christians around him without involving Muslims? This is another of those frequent half-arguments we hear all the time from right-wingers. Earth to Donahue: we argue with Christians more than Muslims because the Muslims aren't the ones causing us the problems we debate. It's the same reason we pick on creationists but not astrologers. Let some Muslims and astrologers start messing with our science, our schools, and our political rights, and we'll attack them too. This all sails over Donahue's head. He talks as if this is some sort of contest of bravery. It is akin to responding to MLK's marches to protest racism by saying "If you had any guts, you'd go to Germany and take on the Nazis". Besides, the ad says "god", not "Jesus", so in every way that matters it DOES address the Muslim god, and any other god. Regardless of the gods, you don't need them to be good. Deal Bill.
Then there is the "militant secularist" red herring. Putting up an ad is militant now Bill? What in the world does the AHA's ad have to do with the incident with gays in the church? This is another of those William Ayers arguments: tar by association, make no real argument, and hope the pinheads in the audience put the pieces together the way you want them to.
Sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong? Atheists don't belong in the public square exercising their right of free speech along with everyone else? Donahue is in sore need of a civics lesson, and apparently a history lesson as well. After being reminded that atheists have rights too, Donahue went into an ignorant gallop that would make Duane Gish proud:
"They shouldn't be so profoundly ignorant though. Sociology 101 says morality has always been grounded in religion. They're trying to say no it's grounded in individual's. Well Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience too...you know what? He destroyed his victims, and then he ate them. We saw what happened with militant secularism in the twentieth century. Over a hundred and fifty million people dead because of this man's philosophy: Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and then Stalin. The only reason he has freedom of speech is because Christianity is the foundation of liberty in this country and western civilization. The Judeo Christian ethos allows for this man to be alive, not dead as he would if he voiced the same sentiment someplace else."
Profound ignorance, thy name is Donahue. Sociology 101 says nothing of the sort, since there are societies all over the world that get their morality from nonreligious sources. To hear Donahue speak, one would think the entire world was the Middle East and the Americas, with Western Europe, China, and Australia missing.
OK, so Jeffrey Dahmer was a nasty guy. So? Once again one can be forgiven for being unable to discern Donahue's point, except another Ayersism to tar all atheists as Jeff Dahmers waiting in the wings. Donahue's narrow worldview just can't grasp that millions of people all over the world, and indeed in the United States, get along just fine without any cannibalistic tendencies for religion to restrain.
Then we get the boilerplate Christian apologist revisionist history. Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin were not secularists, militant or otherwise. Hitler was a Christian who believed he was doing the Lord's work. If we are to compare sins, Dahmer's are dwarfed by Hitler's. The others were totalitarians, setting up the state as a religion, and broaching no deviation from the status quo. That is not secularism. Donahue is being intellectually dishonest. I know, shocker.
Bill also needs another history lesson. When Christianity ruled what was to become the United States, there was no freedom of speech. Making statements at odds with the ruling religion of your city or state could earn jail time. It was only when a diverse group of Christians, deists, and atheists drew up our constitution, a completely secular document, did freedom of speech come to be. After all, even the most cursory reading of the Bible reveals an ideology completely at odds with the concept of freedom of speech. "Though shalt not use the name of the Lord in vain", and "he who says 'though fool' is destined for hellfire" hardly imply an attitude tolerate of dissenting speech. It's Thomas Jefferson, not the pope, that we have to thank.
Finally, where besides the Middle East would our freethinking friend be dead for voicing his sentiment? Again, Donahue seems to have blanked out 75% of the earth in his view of the world. Sadly, his is typical of right wing Christian reactions to atheist arguments: revisionist history, guilt by association, red herrings galore, and above all, shout every syllable. And of course, never address the argument.
Tell us Bill Donahue, why are you so angry? I'll tell you why. The real world encroaches on your little fantasy world all the time. People like the AHA rep: polite, well-spoken, well-behaved, atheistic, threaten your little tinker toy world where the solution to all problems is more Christianity, and the enemy is always the unbeliever. The fact is Bill, YOU are free and alive today because of a secular document, without which you'd likely be in the clink yourself.
"Frankly there is an agenda here. They always choose Christmas don't they? If this guy had any guts they'd choose Ramadan and explain it to the Muslims. Quite frankly we've had a rash of militant secularist activities through books through movies. Last Sunday in Lansing Michigan gay terrorists stormed a Church that Christians that church. Look these guys are sticking their nose in where they don't belong and this is a cheap way of trying to take a shot at Christmas. They don't have any guts, if they did, they'd go after the Muslims."
What is this obsession with Muslims? What exactly is wrong with an atheist in Christian-dominated America taking up his grievances with the Christians around him without involving Muslims? This is another of those frequent half-arguments we hear all the time from right-wingers. Earth to Donahue: we argue with Christians more than Muslims because the Muslims aren't the ones causing us the problems we debate. It's the same reason we pick on creationists but not astrologers. Let some Muslims and astrologers start messing with our science, our schools, and our political rights, and we'll attack them too. This all sails over Donahue's head. He talks as if this is some sort of contest of bravery. It is akin to responding to MLK's marches to protest racism by saying "If you had any guts, you'd go to Germany and take on the Nazis". Besides, the ad says "god", not "Jesus", so in every way that matters it DOES address the Muslim god, and any other god. Regardless of the gods, you don't need them to be good. Deal Bill.
Then there is the "militant secularist" red herring. Putting up an ad is militant now Bill? What in the world does the AHA's ad have to do with the incident with gays in the church? This is another of those William Ayers arguments: tar by association, make no real argument, and hope the pinheads in the audience put the pieces together the way you want them to.
Sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong? Atheists don't belong in the public square exercising their right of free speech along with everyone else? Donahue is in sore need of a civics lesson, and apparently a history lesson as well. After being reminded that atheists have rights too, Donahue went into an ignorant gallop that would make Duane Gish proud:
"They shouldn't be so profoundly ignorant though. Sociology 101 says morality has always been grounded in religion. They're trying to say no it's grounded in individual's. Well Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience too...you know what? He destroyed his victims, and then he ate them. We saw what happened with militant secularism in the twentieth century. Over a hundred and fifty million people dead because of this man's philosophy: Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and then Stalin. The only reason he has freedom of speech is because Christianity is the foundation of liberty in this country and western civilization. The Judeo Christian ethos allows for this man to be alive, not dead as he would if he voiced the same sentiment someplace else."
Profound ignorance, thy name is Donahue. Sociology 101 says nothing of the sort, since there are societies all over the world that get their morality from nonreligious sources. To hear Donahue speak, one would think the entire world was the Middle East and the Americas, with Western Europe, China, and Australia missing.
OK, so Jeffrey Dahmer was a nasty guy. So? Once again one can be forgiven for being unable to discern Donahue's point, except another Ayersism to tar all atheists as Jeff Dahmers waiting in the wings. Donahue's narrow worldview just can't grasp that millions of people all over the world, and indeed in the United States, get along just fine without any cannibalistic tendencies for religion to restrain.
Then we get the boilerplate Christian apologist revisionist history. Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin were not secularists, militant or otherwise. Hitler was a Christian who believed he was doing the Lord's work. If we are to compare sins, Dahmer's are dwarfed by Hitler's. The others were totalitarians, setting up the state as a religion, and broaching no deviation from the status quo. That is not secularism. Donahue is being intellectually dishonest. I know, shocker.
Bill also needs another history lesson. When Christianity ruled what was to become the United States, there was no freedom of speech. Making statements at odds with the ruling religion of your city or state could earn jail time. It was only when a diverse group of Christians, deists, and atheists drew up our constitution, a completely secular document, did freedom of speech come to be. After all, even the most cursory reading of the Bible reveals an ideology completely at odds with the concept of freedom of speech. "Though shalt not use the name of the Lord in vain", and "he who says 'though fool' is destined for hellfire" hardly imply an attitude tolerate of dissenting speech. It's Thomas Jefferson, not the pope, that we have to thank.
Finally, where besides the Middle East would our freethinking friend be dead for voicing his sentiment? Again, Donahue seems to have blanked out 75% of the earth in his view of the world. Sadly, his is typical of right wing Christian reactions to atheist arguments: revisionist history, guilt by association, red herrings galore, and above all, shout every syllable. And of course, never address the argument.
Tell us Bill Donahue, why are you so angry? I'll tell you why. The real world encroaches on your little fantasy world all the time. People like the AHA rep: polite, well-spoken, well-behaved, atheistic, threaten your little tinker toy world where the solution to all problems is more Christianity, and the enemy is always the unbeliever. The fact is Bill, YOU are free and alive today because of a secular document, without which you'd likely be in the clink yourself.
Cartograms of Presidential Election Results
Well, we have our final electoral map, and here it is:
Funny, glancing at that map doesn't give one the impression of a big Democratic victory, because the red states are disproportionately large relative to their populations. This is where cartograms come in handy: maps in which the sizes of states are rescaled according to their population. When we do this by state, we get this:
Much bluer, and much more representative of what happened. The same thing can be done with the county map made famous after the Bush election. Not surprisingly, that map in this election doesn't look all that different, or all that blue:
But here comes the cartogram:
That's much more indicative of what happened. And if you dislike the all-or-nothing approach, here is the same cartogram with shades of purple for counties by proportional mix of blue and red votes:
One thing is clear: it is a very purple nation. For more cartograms and explanations, go here.
Funny, glancing at that map doesn't give one the impression of a big Democratic victory, because the red states are disproportionately large relative to their populations. This is where cartograms come in handy: maps in which the sizes of states are rescaled according to their population. When we do this by state, we get this:
Much bluer, and much more representative of what happened. The same thing can be done with the county map made famous after the Bush election. Not surprisingly, that map in this election doesn't look all that different, or all that blue:
But here comes the cartogram:
That's much more indicative of what happened. And if you dislike the all-or-nothing approach, here is the same cartogram with shades of purple for counties by proportional mix of blue and red votes:
One thing is clear: it is a very purple nation. For more cartograms and explanations, go here.
Friday, November 14, 2008
First Exoplanet Pictures?
It seems like just yesterday that we had no evidence of planets outside of our solar system. Now after many such planets have been found, the race is to get the first image of one. This may be it.
"Today, two teams of astronomers announced new exoplanet images, and in each case, I think they have the real deal. Only time and future observations will let us know for certain, but these objects have the look and feel of bona fide planets. One group found a planet orbiting Fomalhaut, the 18th brightest star in the night sky, and one of the Sun’s nearest stellar neighbors. The other team appears to have imaged three planets around a more obscure star known as HR 8799."
There is some great astronomy in there, my favorite being the debate over the dividing line between low-mass brown dwarves and high-mass planets, which may apply to one of these cases:
"...there is still no universally accepted definition of what distinguishes a high-mass planet from a low-mass brown dwarf. According to some astronomers, the line should be drawn at about 13 Jupiter masses — the mass at which a gaseous body can briefly fuse deuterium atoms in its core. According to that definition, Fomalhaut b is clearly a planet.
But other astronomers think the distinction should be based on formation. If a 3-Jupiter-mass object formed like a star from a collapsing gas cloud, it’s a very-low-mass brown dwarf. If it formed inside a disk, then it’s a planet. Since it’s unclear how Fomalhaut b formed, one could argue either way."
It's a pity more people don't understand how arbitrary a lot of astronomical terms are. If they did, they wouldn't have responded to some of the anti-science snarking that went on when Pluto's status was changed. That irony was knee deep: a moment forced upon us by substantial scientific progress portrayed as a sign of scientific impotence. Let's hope the same thing does not happen with the exoplanetary discoveries.
"Today, two teams of astronomers announced new exoplanet images, and in each case, I think they have the real deal. Only time and future observations will let us know for certain, but these objects have the look and feel of bona fide planets. One group found a planet orbiting Fomalhaut, the 18th brightest star in the night sky, and one of the Sun’s nearest stellar neighbors. The other team appears to have imaged three planets around a more obscure star known as HR 8799."
There is some great astronomy in there, my favorite being the debate over the dividing line between low-mass brown dwarves and high-mass planets, which may apply to one of these cases:
"...there is still no universally accepted definition of what distinguishes a high-mass planet from a low-mass brown dwarf. According to some astronomers, the line should be drawn at about 13 Jupiter masses — the mass at which a gaseous body can briefly fuse deuterium atoms in its core. According to that definition, Fomalhaut b is clearly a planet.
But other astronomers think the distinction should be based on formation. If a 3-Jupiter-mass object formed like a star from a collapsing gas cloud, it’s a very-low-mass brown dwarf. If it formed inside a disk, then it’s a planet. Since it’s unclear how Fomalhaut b formed, one could argue either way."
It's a pity more people don't understand how arbitrary a lot of astronomical terms are. If they did, they wouldn't have responded to some of the anti-science snarking that went on when Pluto's status was changed. That irony was knee deep: a moment forced upon us by substantial scientific progress portrayed as a sign of scientific impotence. Let's hope the same thing does not happen with the exoplanetary discoveries.
Election Trivia: The Most Universally One Party States
Quick, in how many states did one presidential candidate get the majority vote in every county?
Three:
Alaska and Hawaii were gimme's for their candidates. The third? Oklahoma, 100% for McCain.
The real message of that map is that the culture war in America is between the city folk and the country folk. In almost every state dominantly red with a few dots of blue, the blue is the cities. Want to know where Dallas, Houston, San Antonion, and Austin are? They are 4 of the 5 blue dots off the Mexican border in Texas. Upstate New York is red, so is the middle of Pennsylvania, and all the eastern, citiless borders of the otherwise solid blue west coast cities.
Three:
Alaska and Hawaii were gimme's for their candidates. The third? Oklahoma, 100% for McCain.
The real message of that map is that the culture war in America is between the city folk and the country folk. In almost every state dominantly red with a few dots of blue, the blue is the cities. Want to know where Dallas, Houston, San Antonion, and Austin are? They are 4 of the 5 blue dots off the Mexican border in Texas. Upstate New York is red, so is the middle of Pennsylvania, and all the eastern, citiless borders of the otherwise solid blue west coast cities.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Limbaugh's Great Speculation
For those who doubt the speculative nature of partisan GOP rhetoric, just check out Rush Limbaugh's latest:
"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."
Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.
But maybe that shouldn't be so surprising, because radio's Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.
"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."
The evidence for all these assertions? Nada, zippo. Rush is simply making shit up. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. What matters is that he isn't dealing with data. He's not dealing with reality. He's simply trying to blame Obama for the GOP's sins, and he's being pretty blatant about it. Shame on those who let him get away with it.
And mark my words. In 4 - 8 years, there will be a group in Wingnutland that will revise history and claim the financial meltdown happened BEFORE Obama was elected. And Rush will be egging them on.
"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."
Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.
But maybe that shouldn't be so surprising, because radio's Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.
"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."
The evidence for all these assertions? Nada, zippo. Rush is simply making shit up. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. What matters is that he isn't dealing with data. He's not dealing with reality. He's simply trying to blame Obama for the GOP's sins, and he's being pretty blatant about it. Shame on those who let him get away with it.
And mark my words. In 4 - 8 years, there will be a group in Wingnutland that will revise history and claim the financial meltdown happened BEFORE Obama was elected. And Rush will be egging them on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
