This is just too sweet. Sarah Palin has an opponent in her governor's race, and you won't believe his name:
"Bob Poe, an erstwhile state commissioner and former president of the Anchorage Economic Development Corp., has announced his run for the Alaska Democratic gubernatorial ticket in 2010. Whether Sarah Palin will seek re-election is yet to be determined."
So now Sarah Palin, the ultimate example of Poe's Law, will be running against a man named Poe. SNL, eat your heart out.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Prelutsky Projects onto Atheists and Homosexuals
Projection is the act of attributing one's own faults onto one's opponent or perceived enemies. Think about all the homophobic homos (Haggert, Foley, etc.), or those who, being incapable of reasoned, unbiased analysis, instead attack straw men while accusing everyone else of having those same flaws. Exhibit A of that last category is this pathetic piece from the king of MSU, Bert Prelutsky. It is a real work of rhetoric art, with practically every statement absurdly false. A major fisking is in order:
"Recently, I noticed a similarity between atheists and homosexuals that hadn't occurred to me before. It has to do with the way they wage their wars. Basically, they erect straw men, put words in their straw mouths, and then engage in battle with these creatures they've cobbled together with spit and glue."
Right Burt, because homosexuals and atheists don't know anything about life in their shoes that you believing heteros do. Seriously, it is comical in the extreme that Burt can preface his stream of ignorant straw with such a projecting preamble. Want straw men? Burt provides:
"It just seems to me that it's high time we began setting the record straight. To begin with, there is no such thing as homophobia. A phobia is defined as a fear or anxiety that exceeds normal proportions. Concocting the word was simply a rather sly way of suggesting that it is heterosexuals who are deviant."
Wow, concocter, they name is Prelutsky. Let's start with the basics: a phobia is defined as "a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.". It is irrationality, not lack of normalcy, that defines a phobia, and there is plenty of irrationality when it comes to homosexuals: simply peruse all the arguments against gay marriage. There's nary a shred of rationality in any of them.
Particularly irrational is Prelutsky's claim that those who recognize homophobia when they see it are suggesting heterosexuality is deviant. Most of the people who do so are themselves heterosexuals, I being one example. Further, the claim is a complete non sequitor, there being no logical connection between irrational fear of gays and the supposed deviancy of heterosexuals. Where is Prelutsky's evidence of any of these assertions? Absent, as always.
"The other lie that is parroted with some frequency is that those who don't fully support the gay agenda are most likely latent homosexuals, which is supposed to suggest, I assume, that lurking inside every heterosexual man is an interior decorator"
There are several lies here, all Burt's as usual. There is no "gay agenda". That would be like labelling the civil rights movement the "negro agenda". There is only an agenda to allow everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike, to choose their mates, and otherwise have the same rights with regard to those mates and the contracts they enter into.
Now what has been observed is that many of those who argue most stridently against homosexuality turn out to be homosexual themselves: Mark Foley, Ted Haggert, Larry Craig, the list goes on. It's not every heterosexual man, but rather the ones that make it their life's passion to slander homosexuals, that should come under the microscope. Such subtlety and sophistication of thought is too much for Prelutsky, who prefers to wallow in sophomoric scatological humor that would do Beevus and Butthead proud:
"The proof that heterosexual men aren't all sitting around fantasizing about being seduced by Boy George or Richard Chamberlain is that every heterosexual man I know prefers having his cavity worked on by a dentist than by a proctologist."
And Burt wonders why those of us in the reality-based community don't take him too seriously, except as a propagandist. Witness the Gish Gallop of untruths:
"Homosexuals ... are as free as they've always been to marry members of the opposite sex. For several millennia, everyone has understood marriage to mean the sacred union of a man and a woman."
Brilliant Burt! And prior to Loving vs Virginia, every person was free to marry anyone of their own race! What pedantic nonsense. The question is whether anyone should be free to marry anyone they choose, or rather, why should marriage be restricted to two people with different naughty bits? The answer certainly is not "that's what we've always done", since that would suggest never changing anything, and more importantly and obviously, Burt's statement is false. He should read his Bible more, where polygamy was common, as it has been for most of human history. Monogamy is the newcomer on the scene. Polygamy is still widely practiced in many places in the world that people who wax ignorant on the subject like Burt does have obviously never visited. Get out more Burt.
"I have asked on more than one occasion if the institution of marriage is to be turned on its head to accommodate the ludicrous demands of a very small number of people, on what moral or legal basis does society then deny fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or, say, your cousin Phyllis and a dozen Elvis impersonators, from tying the knot. If the parties merely need to be consenting adults, on what basis could you prevent Hugh Hefner and his bevy of blonde companions from pledging their troth before man and God? I have yet to receive a response. "
That's because it is a typical red herring, akin to asking "how did life begin?" when arguing about evolution. There is no more need to concern yourself with those other options than there was before. Whatever reasons we had won't go away just because we decided to stop preventing people with matching naughty bits to marry. The genetic and social problems with incest and polygamy aren't effected in the slightest by allowing gays to marry. Now if people like Burt want to claim they are, then they need to make their argument, rather than dodging the issues with this little Coulterish non sequitor.
Speaking of non sequitors, Prelutsky's rants on atheists are even more full of them:
"This brings us to atheists and their own brand of hypocrisy and lies. It's silly enough when they feel they can use logic to disprove the existence of God. But it's worse when in voicing their angry opposition to organized religion, they begin sounding exactly like the religious zealots they claim to despise."
Ah yes, what would an rightwing apologetic rant be without the baseless claim that their opposition is angry. We can't admit our opposition might just have a reasoned disagreement with us, no sirree bob. They are angry and unreasonable, so we don't have to deal with the substance of their arguments.
The comedy level of the claim that atheists are the equivalent of religious zealots is another baseless claim. When atheists start gathering together to worship Darwin, claim those who disagree with us can't be good citizens and will burn in eternal hellfire, equate giving others a voice in the public square with squelching ours, shoot doctors who don't agree with us on abortion, and require that public officials agree with us on the issue of the existence of gods, THEN you can start comparing us to religious zealots.
But then what does Prelutsky know about atheists anyway? He obviously isn't listening to what we say if his comments above are any indication. Atheists do not believe they can use logic to disprove the gods. What we do believe, and are happy to demonstrate, is that we can use science and logic to refute the claims made for the existence of gods, thereby remaining at the rational default position of "no gods". He who asserts must prove, and if proving the existence of gods is too tough a task for Prelutsky, then I suggest he shut up about it until he can. Private faiths should be kept that way. In public, we need evidence.
Finally, atheists do not oppose organized religion. Organize to your heart's content! Believe whatever fool thing you like. Chant away in your churches or synagogues. But if you try to bring that fool nonsense into the public square, you are going to get treated the same way as everyone else. Where's your evidence for that claim? Don't have any? Then sorry, you can't demand that everyone behave as if they agree with you. Our opposition is to the demand that religious views be exempted from the rules of the marketplace of ideas.
Still, it's when they begin blaming all the evils of the world on religion that my own sense of reason and logic kick in. Inevitably, they bring up the Spanish Inquisition, as if the new year we just rang in was 1478. Ask them to make a slightly more contemporary case and they'll bring up Nazi Germany with a "gotcha" gleam in their eye. While it's true that Germany had been a traditionally Christian nation, Hitler was neither German nor Christian. He and his followers were pagans. They didn't march and murder under the cross of Jesus Christ, but under the swastika of Adolf Hitler.
Yes, they marched under a swastika with belt buckles that said "God with us" to the tune of Mein Kamf, in which Hitler speaks often and frankly of his godly mission. 95% of Germany during both World Wars was Lutheran or other Christian denomination. By promoting the notion that Germany suddenly became Pagan under Hitler, Prelutsky reveals that logic and reason are not his concern.
And Jesus Jumping Christ, does Burt really expect us to believe the atheists he supposedly talks to have trouble coming up with contemporary examples of the evils of religion? 9/11 anyone? You remember that right, where religious extremists caused world turmoil and killed thousands of people for the sake of 72 virgins from Allah? Jim Jones ring a bell? How about all that religious brotherly love in Iraq or Israel? Burt strains credulity to the limit expecting us to believe these conversations with atheists occurred anywhere but in his rather dull imagination.
Whenever atheists blame religion for causing most of the world's mass murders, they merely prove that they're not only bigots, but ignoramuses. While nobody knows exactly how many millions of innocent people have been butchered in the past 90 years, we do know that the vast majority died at the hands of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, atheists all.
Burt shouldn't be spouting about others' ignorance while so prominently displaying his own. We've already noted that Hitler was not an atheist. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot might have been atheists personally, but it does not at all follow that atheism was therefore responsible for their acts, any more than the fact that they were all men was. Correlation does not imply causality. When one studies their political methods, it becomes clear that all three men set up pseudoreligious authoritarian regimes, demanding absolute obedience and disallowing dissent.
None of this is inherent in atheism. As is constantly pointed out, a lack of belief is nothing to build on. One might was well claim that the Tyrannical Three's lack of belief in mermaids is what did the trick. It was and is tyrannical authoritarianism which we atheists are concerned about. We object to them regardless of whether they are based on religion. Tyranny is tyranny.
Finally, notice the sure sign of a crank here: mutually contradictory theories. Prelutsky labels Hitler an atheist (no gods) and a pagan (many gods) within a few sentences of each other. As long as he's not recognized as the Christian he was, right Burt?
The only exceptions to that rule, of course, are those who have been gassed, beheaded and blown up, by the Muslim faithful. And yet Islam, interestingly enough, is the one religion that doesn't seem to enrage atheists! Could the reason possibly be that, for all their huffing and puffing about how awful all religions are, even the atheists understand that Jewish and Christian martyrs will die for their beliefs, whereas Islamics will kill you for theirs?
This is MSU salad Burt. Atheists object greatly to Muslims all the time. We were critical of them when 9/11 occurred, we were critical of them when they threatened the Dutch cartoonists, and we continue to be critical of them. This "No atheists against Muslims" meme has become dogma to the paranoid right. To illustrate how much so, consider the great cracker incident wherein PZ Myers threatened to desecrate a Eucharist from a Catholic mass. Typical were comments like this:
"If you REALLY want to do a courageous, revolutionary act, defecate publicly on a copy of the Quran. Or do you have the cojones? Christians won't attack you for desecrating a host, but will those wonderful cuddly peace-loving Muslims be as forbearing if you used their book for a toilet? Well, how brave are you?"
Well PZ went ahead and did it, as we all knew he would. There in the trash was the Eucharist, on top of ripped pages from the Quran, and for good fairness measure, the God Delusion. Game over right? Wrong! Even after the event Myers continued to get notes from people making the same tired refuted argument. Like Prelutsky, they aren't interested in what atheists really do, only what those fauz atheists in their heads supposedly do. That's the bottom line with Prelutsky: no interest in reality, only in making shit up about people whose mere existence threatens his infantile worldview.
"Recently, I noticed a similarity between atheists and homosexuals that hadn't occurred to me before. It has to do with the way they wage their wars. Basically, they erect straw men, put words in their straw mouths, and then engage in battle with these creatures they've cobbled together with spit and glue."
Right Burt, because homosexuals and atheists don't know anything about life in their shoes that you believing heteros do. Seriously, it is comical in the extreme that Burt can preface his stream of ignorant straw with such a projecting preamble. Want straw men? Burt provides:
"It just seems to me that it's high time we began setting the record straight. To begin with, there is no such thing as homophobia. A phobia is defined as a fear or anxiety that exceeds normal proportions. Concocting the word was simply a rather sly way of suggesting that it is heterosexuals who are deviant."
Wow, concocter, they name is Prelutsky. Let's start with the basics: a phobia is defined as "a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.". It is irrationality, not lack of normalcy, that defines a phobia, and there is plenty of irrationality when it comes to homosexuals: simply peruse all the arguments against gay marriage. There's nary a shred of rationality in any of them.
Particularly irrational is Prelutsky's claim that those who recognize homophobia when they see it are suggesting heterosexuality is deviant. Most of the people who do so are themselves heterosexuals, I being one example. Further, the claim is a complete non sequitor, there being no logical connection between irrational fear of gays and the supposed deviancy of heterosexuals. Where is Prelutsky's evidence of any of these assertions? Absent, as always.
"The other lie that is parroted with some frequency is that those who don't fully support the gay agenda are most likely latent homosexuals, which is supposed to suggest, I assume, that lurking inside every heterosexual man is an interior decorator"
There are several lies here, all Burt's as usual. There is no "gay agenda". That would be like labelling the civil rights movement the "negro agenda". There is only an agenda to allow everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike, to choose their mates, and otherwise have the same rights with regard to those mates and the contracts they enter into.
Now what has been observed is that many of those who argue most stridently against homosexuality turn out to be homosexual themselves: Mark Foley, Ted Haggert, Larry Craig, the list goes on. It's not every heterosexual man, but rather the ones that make it their life's passion to slander homosexuals, that should come under the microscope. Such subtlety and sophistication of thought is too much for Prelutsky, who prefers to wallow in sophomoric scatological humor that would do Beevus and Butthead proud:
"The proof that heterosexual men aren't all sitting around fantasizing about being seduced by Boy George or Richard Chamberlain is that every heterosexual man I know prefers having his cavity worked on by a dentist than by a proctologist."
And Burt wonders why those of us in the reality-based community don't take him too seriously, except as a propagandist. Witness the Gish Gallop of untruths:
"Homosexuals ... are as free as they've always been to marry members of the opposite sex. For several millennia, everyone has understood marriage to mean the sacred union of a man and a woman."
Brilliant Burt! And prior to Loving vs Virginia, every person was free to marry anyone of their own race! What pedantic nonsense. The question is whether anyone should be free to marry anyone they choose, or rather, why should marriage be restricted to two people with different naughty bits? The answer certainly is not "that's what we've always done", since that would suggest never changing anything, and more importantly and obviously, Burt's statement is false. He should read his Bible more, where polygamy was common, as it has been for most of human history. Monogamy is the newcomer on the scene. Polygamy is still widely practiced in many places in the world that people who wax ignorant on the subject like Burt does have obviously never visited. Get out more Burt.
"I have asked on more than one occasion if the institution of marriage is to be turned on its head to accommodate the ludicrous demands of a very small number of people, on what moral or legal basis does society then deny fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or, say, your cousin Phyllis and a dozen Elvis impersonators, from tying the knot. If the parties merely need to be consenting adults, on what basis could you prevent Hugh Hefner and his bevy of blonde companions from pledging their troth before man and God? I have yet to receive a response. "
That's because it is a typical red herring, akin to asking "how did life begin?" when arguing about evolution. There is no more need to concern yourself with those other options than there was before. Whatever reasons we had won't go away just because we decided to stop preventing people with matching naughty bits to marry. The genetic and social problems with incest and polygamy aren't effected in the slightest by allowing gays to marry. Now if people like Burt want to claim they are, then they need to make their argument, rather than dodging the issues with this little Coulterish non sequitor.
Speaking of non sequitors, Prelutsky's rants on atheists are even more full of them:
"This brings us to atheists and their own brand of hypocrisy and lies. It's silly enough when they feel they can use logic to disprove the existence of God. But it's worse when in voicing their angry opposition to organized religion, they begin sounding exactly like the religious zealots they claim to despise."
Ah yes, what would an rightwing apologetic rant be without the baseless claim that their opposition is angry. We can't admit our opposition might just have a reasoned disagreement with us, no sirree bob. They are angry and unreasonable, so we don't have to deal with the substance of their arguments.
The comedy level of the claim that atheists are the equivalent of religious zealots is another baseless claim. When atheists start gathering together to worship Darwin, claim those who disagree with us can't be good citizens and will burn in eternal hellfire, equate giving others a voice in the public square with squelching ours, shoot doctors who don't agree with us on abortion, and require that public officials agree with us on the issue of the existence of gods, THEN you can start comparing us to religious zealots.
But then what does Prelutsky know about atheists anyway? He obviously isn't listening to what we say if his comments above are any indication. Atheists do not believe they can use logic to disprove the gods. What we do believe, and are happy to demonstrate, is that we can use science and logic to refute the claims made for the existence of gods, thereby remaining at the rational default position of "no gods". He who asserts must prove, and if proving the existence of gods is too tough a task for Prelutsky, then I suggest he shut up about it until he can. Private faiths should be kept that way. In public, we need evidence.
Finally, atheists do not oppose organized religion. Organize to your heart's content! Believe whatever fool thing you like. Chant away in your churches or synagogues. But if you try to bring that fool nonsense into the public square, you are going to get treated the same way as everyone else. Where's your evidence for that claim? Don't have any? Then sorry, you can't demand that everyone behave as if they agree with you. Our opposition is to the demand that religious views be exempted from the rules of the marketplace of ideas.
Still, it's when they begin blaming all the evils of the world on religion that my own sense of reason and logic kick in. Inevitably, they bring up the Spanish Inquisition, as if the new year we just rang in was 1478. Ask them to make a slightly more contemporary case and they'll bring up Nazi Germany with a "gotcha" gleam in their eye. While it's true that Germany had been a traditionally Christian nation, Hitler was neither German nor Christian. He and his followers were pagans. They didn't march and murder under the cross of Jesus Christ, but under the swastika of Adolf Hitler.
Yes, they marched under a swastika with belt buckles that said "God with us" to the tune of Mein Kamf, in which Hitler speaks often and frankly of his godly mission. 95% of Germany during both World Wars was Lutheran or other Christian denomination. By promoting the notion that Germany suddenly became Pagan under Hitler, Prelutsky reveals that logic and reason are not his concern.
And Jesus Jumping Christ, does Burt really expect us to believe the atheists he supposedly talks to have trouble coming up with contemporary examples of the evils of religion? 9/11 anyone? You remember that right, where religious extremists caused world turmoil and killed thousands of people for the sake of 72 virgins from Allah? Jim Jones ring a bell? How about all that religious brotherly love in Iraq or Israel? Burt strains credulity to the limit expecting us to believe these conversations with atheists occurred anywhere but in his rather dull imagination.
Whenever atheists blame religion for causing most of the world's mass murders, they merely prove that they're not only bigots, but ignoramuses. While nobody knows exactly how many millions of innocent people have been butchered in the past 90 years, we do know that the vast majority died at the hands of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, atheists all.
Burt shouldn't be spouting about others' ignorance while so prominently displaying his own. We've already noted that Hitler was not an atheist. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot might have been atheists personally, but it does not at all follow that atheism was therefore responsible for their acts, any more than the fact that they were all men was. Correlation does not imply causality. When one studies their political methods, it becomes clear that all three men set up pseudoreligious authoritarian regimes, demanding absolute obedience and disallowing dissent.
None of this is inherent in atheism. As is constantly pointed out, a lack of belief is nothing to build on. One might was well claim that the Tyrannical Three's lack of belief in mermaids is what did the trick. It was and is tyrannical authoritarianism which we atheists are concerned about. We object to them regardless of whether they are based on religion. Tyranny is tyranny.
Finally, notice the sure sign of a crank here: mutually contradictory theories. Prelutsky labels Hitler an atheist (no gods) and a pagan (many gods) within a few sentences of each other. As long as he's not recognized as the Christian he was, right Burt?
The only exceptions to that rule, of course, are those who have been gassed, beheaded and blown up, by the Muslim faithful. And yet Islam, interestingly enough, is the one religion that doesn't seem to enrage atheists! Could the reason possibly be that, for all their huffing and puffing about how awful all religions are, even the atheists understand that Jewish and Christian martyrs will die for their beliefs, whereas Islamics will kill you for theirs?
This is MSU salad Burt. Atheists object greatly to Muslims all the time. We were critical of them when 9/11 occurred, we were critical of them when they threatened the Dutch cartoonists, and we continue to be critical of them. This "No atheists against Muslims" meme has become dogma to the paranoid right. To illustrate how much so, consider the great cracker incident wherein PZ Myers threatened to desecrate a Eucharist from a Catholic mass. Typical were comments like this:
"If you REALLY want to do a courageous, revolutionary act, defecate publicly on a copy of the Quran. Or do you have the cojones? Christians won't attack you for desecrating a host, but will those wonderful cuddly peace-loving Muslims be as forbearing if you used their book for a toilet? Well, how brave are you?"
Well PZ went ahead and did it, as we all knew he would. There in the trash was the Eucharist, on top of ripped pages from the Quran, and for good fairness measure, the God Delusion. Game over right? Wrong! Even after the event Myers continued to get notes from people making the same tired refuted argument. Like Prelutsky, they aren't interested in what atheists really do, only what those fauz atheists in their heads supposedly do. That's the bottom line with Prelutsky: no interest in reality, only in making shit up about people whose mere existence threatens his infantile worldview.
Life on Mars Says the Methane?
Scientists have discovered plumes of methane rising from the surface of Mars, which is consistent with the existence of microbes:
The researchers today today are reporting that in 2003 and 2006, they recorded plumes of methane rising from the surface of the Red Planet. Working back from their measurements of methane in the air, the researchers pinpointed some particular spots on Mars where the methane came from. And it’s a lot of methane they’re talking about–19,000 metric tons of the stuff in one plume. It’s coming out of Mars at the same rate seen at methane-producing spots on Earth.
Those places on Earth happen to be places where microbes are churning the gas out. There might be other ways of getting plumes of methane into the air–generating it from magma, for example. But in a paper published today by Science, Mumma and his colleagues point to the possibility that microbes buried a mile or two under the surface of Mars might be responsible.
There are also nonbiological possibilities, so we need to restrain our excitement a wee bit. Still, it's hard to ignore what could be the most momentous event in science since Einstein's theories.
The researchers today today are reporting that in 2003 and 2006, they recorded plumes of methane rising from the surface of the Red Planet. Working back from their measurements of methane in the air, the researchers pinpointed some particular spots on Mars where the methane came from. And it’s a lot of methane they’re talking about–19,000 metric tons of the stuff in one plume. It’s coming out of Mars at the same rate seen at methane-producing spots on Earth.
Those places on Earth happen to be places where microbes are churning the gas out. There might be other ways of getting plumes of methane into the air–generating it from magma, for example. But in a paper published today by Science, Mumma and his colleagues point to the possibility that microbes buried a mile or two under the surface of Mars might be responsible.
There are also nonbiological possibilities, so we need to restrain our excitement a wee bit. Still, it's hard to ignore what could be the most momentous event in science since Einstein's theories.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Saggy Pants Ban to Eliminate Crime!
The Jackson Mississippi city council has dropped its saggy-pants ordinance, an attempt to ban the most moronic fashion trend ever, far worse mullets or white leisure suits, being functionally idiotic as well as aesthetically so. It also does social damage, being yet another sad case of people in a group suffering from a stereotype of stupidity (inner city blacks) perpetuating that stereotype by dressing stupidly. Ditto for the sideways hats (recall Otis on the old Andy Griffen show). I roared with laughter once watching a group of kids walking to school through some 3 or 4 inches of standing water with those idiot pants on, having to pull up their pants legs to keep them out of the water. I couldn't help unleashing a "Hey dumbasses! Wear your pants right and you won't have that problem!"
Here's an idea: instead of banning them, how about a public education program reminding these morons that this fashion originated in prison with guys who got it up the ass a lot. Now how tough and macho do you feel?
But seriously, what caught my eye with this article was something the mayor said about it that sounded eerily familiar:
He said many of the young men who wear saggy pants also get in trouble at school or with police.
He said the ordinance was an attempt to "save all the children we can."
Now where have I heard similar reasoning before?
In the US:
Accidental shooting injuries by people with guns: ~200,000/yr.
Accidental shooting injuries by people without guns: 0
Ah there, you see? Ban saggy pants because saggy pants are involved in so much crime. That way the saggy-pants related crime will drop to zero! Never mind that the perps will merely wear something different, or use a different weapon, and commit the crimes anyway. You also hear similar arguments with regard to alcohol, textbook examples of confusing correlation with causality.
Here's an idea: instead of banning them, how about a public education program reminding these morons that this fashion originated in prison with guys who got it up the ass a lot. Now how tough and macho do you feel?
But seriously, what caught my eye with this article was something the mayor said about it that sounded eerily familiar:
He said many of the young men who wear saggy pants also get in trouble at school or with police.
He said the ordinance was an attempt to "save all the children we can."
Now where have I heard similar reasoning before?
In the US:
Accidental shooting injuries by people with guns: ~200,000/yr.
Accidental shooting injuries by people without guns: 0
Ah there, you see? Ban saggy pants because saggy pants are involved in so much crime. That way the saggy-pants related crime will drop to zero! Never mind that the perps will merely wear something different, or use a different weapon, and commit the crimes anyway. You also hear similar arguments with regard to alcohol, textbook examples of confusing correlation with causality.
Atlas Shrugged, The Cliff's Notes Version
Whether you are a fan of Ayn Rand (I remain one of the spirit, if not the intellectual rigour, of her work) or not (commies), this is a hilarious short version of the story, written in an over-the-top Randian style:
"Yes Dagny, you silly silly woman, I may seem a slacker to you, but after ten pages of explanation you will know that it is you who slack and it is I who serve a higher cause which will not be explained for another seven hundred pages. Remember, I am a d'Anconia which goes without saying that I know what I am doing," he mocked. He was so perfect at mocking. No man mocked like Francisco. How she wanted to be back in his arms. Were it not for... no! He was a slacker! The very embodiment of slack yet... yet he slacked with purpose. Even that was perfect. No man slacked like Francisco.
And no one brought it like Rand.
"Yes Dagny, you silly silly woman, I may seem a slacker to you, but after ten pages of explanation you will know that it is you who slack and it is I who serve a higher cause which will not be explained for another seven hundred pages. Remember, I am a d'Anconia which goes without saying that I know what I am doing," he mocked. He was so perfect at mocking. No man mocked like Francisco. How she wanted to be back in his arms. Were it not for... no! He was a slacker! The very embodiment of slack yet... yet he slacked with purpose. Even that was perfect. No man slacked like Francisco.
And no one brought it like Rand.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Difference Between an Ideologue and a Partisan
In a post ostensibly about the difference between denialism and plain old ignorance, Kevin Beck also gives a good example of the difference between an ideologue and a partisan:
Gribbit: "First the obvious. Those in charge in Washington are tax happy. They've never seen a tax proposal they haven't liked."
Beck: "Of course. But if you read the post Gribbit wrote six hours after churning out this one, you'll see him complaining that Obama is promising tax cuts; rather than express relief, he calls this 'hypocrisy.' Gribbit and his ilk never leave any doubt that they care very little, if at all, about the actual fate of the country; they just want to vent their spleens, consistency be damned.'
This is too common in American political discourse. Partisans have turned our process into a sporting event, with 2/3 of the population like Gribbit, rooting for their side. Someone with an ideological difference on an issue will cheer when their opponent changes to an agreeable position. "Welcome to the fold, what took you so long?" is the appropriate response, not to play the "hypocrite" game. The majority GOP reaction to Obama's decision to not use public funds was a perfect example. Only a partisan Republican would condemn their opponent for changing to a pro-marketplace position. A free market advocate would cheer the move.
Gribbit: "First the obvious. Those in charge in Washington are tax happy. They've never seen a tax proposal they haven't liked."
Beck: "Of course. But if you read the post Gribbit wrote six hours after churning out this one, you'll see him complaining that Obama is promising tax cuts; rather than express relief, he calls this 'hypocrisy.' Gribbit and his ilk never leave any doubt that they care very little, if at all, about the actual fate of the country; they just want to vent their spleens, consistency be damned.'
This is too common in American political discourse. Partisans have turned our process into a sporting event, with 2/3 of the population like Gribbit, rooting for their side. Someone with an ideological difference on an issue will cheer when their opponent changes to an agreeable position. "Welcome to the fold, what took you so long?" is the appropriate response, not to play the "hypocrite" game. The majority GOP reaction to Obama's decision to not use public funds was a perfect example. Only a partisan Republican would condemn their opponent for changing to a pro-marketplace position. A free market advocate would cheer the move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
