Friday, June 4, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Stupid Things Democrats Say: Here's Your Chance Democrat Haters
For all of you splitting at the sides at my policy of not allowing tit-for-tat partisan political comments, this post is for you. Here's your chance to make good your boasts that the Democrats are just as stupid as the Republicans. Think my posts are biased against the GOP because its stupidity gets highlighted more than that from the Democrats? Now's put-up-or-shut-up time. To maintain focus and avoid the tactics of obfuscation (which is one of the main bases for my policy), here are the ground rules:
1) Give an exact quote by a Democrat with either a primary source, or a respected non-Rupert-Murdock-owned secondary source. No paraphrasing, no "watch this link", no "Ann Coulter said so", no "Some people say".
2) Describe what changes would need to be made to the statement to make it correct, and if it is a scientific subject, source your answer to some widely respected authority on the matter (ie a scientific organization or representative of its view). We can't measure how wide of the mark an idiotic statement is if we don't know what a true statement would be, and differing with GOP orthodoxy does not idiocy make.
3) Tell me what statement by a GOPer is comparable. Be sure to keep in mind #2, as well as how respected the speaker is on his side of the aisle, and how large an audience he has. It's hardly reasonable to compare something said by a Gaia tree-hugger whose group meets in a phone booth with something Sarah Palin said.
Failing to conform to this criteria will result in noninclusion. This is not an opportunity to toss as much shit against the wall as you can in an effort to see what sticks.
My contention, as made evident by my many blog postings on this subject, is that the "breathtaking inanity" (Bush-appointed Judge Jones' description of the Intelligent Design crowd) expressed by GOP politicians and supporters dwarfs that of Democrats by orders of magnitude, both in wideness of the reality mark, and the audience and respect such views get. It's never been my contention that there are NO stupid crazy democrats. But democrats who say things every bit as crazy as what creationists say are mostly laughed at by other Democrats, or hidden in the attic. They don't nominate them for Vice President. They don't make their views part of the party platform. The GOP does.
On every issue where there is a clear scientific consensus, and the two parties differ, it is the GOP on the ignorant side of the aisle. Whether it is evolution, global warming, stem cell research, abstinence-only birth control, and a host of other issues, it's the democrats that side closest to the best science we have. The Republicans pay lip service to science, and try desperately to give the impression that their ideology is supported by it, but in the end when science clashes with their ideology, ideology wins. That goes for overtly religious subjects like evolution, to more secular religious views like supply-side economics and pure capitalism. The Laffer curve is every bit as religious, and evidence-free, as a 6,000 year-old-earth is, as is the notion that government ruins everything. Ever hear of WWII, the moon landing, or the interstate highway system? Government programs all.
Again, that's not to say the Democrats are above criticism. On too many subjects, they deviate from clear science and mathematics (the drug war, gun control, social security, etc.) It's just small potatoes compared to what Republicans do, and is usually a lesser level of error. I'd compare the Republicans and Democrats to two doctors presented with our sick society. The Democrats want to bleed it with leeches. The Republicans want to pray for its recovery. While both solutions are clearly flawed, the Democrats are epistemologically eons ahead. At least their proposal understands that there are physical forces at work here, that they are part of the body politic, and curing what ails it means changing that physicality somehow. The Republican method doesn't even seem comfortable with objective reality, and is essentially relying on magic. The Democrats flaws can be changed with data. The GOP is stuck where it is forever, because to them, what seems true in their gut, or their mind, makes scientific evidence-gathering irrelevant. Republicans are, in every way that matters, still living in the 18th century. They never went through the scientific renaissance. They are still Aristotelian.
Think I'm wrong? Here's your chance to prove it.
1) Give an exact quote by a Democrat with either a primary source, or a respected non-Rupert-Murdock-owned secondary source. No paraphrasing, no "watch this link", no "Ann Coulter said so", no "Some people say".
2) Describe what changes would need to be made to the statement to make it correct, and if it is a scientific subject, source your answer to some widely respected authority on the matter (ie a scientific organization or representative of its view). We can't measure how wide of the mark an idiotic statement is if we don't know what a true statement would be, and differing with GOP orthodoxy does not idiocy make.
3) Tell me what statement by a GOPer is comparable. Be sure to keep in mind #2, as well as how respected the speaker is on his side of the aisle, and how large an audience he has. It's hardly reasonable to compare something said by a Gaia tree-hugger whose group meets in a phone booth with something Sarah Palin said.
Failing to conform to this criteria will result in noninclusion. This is not an opportunity to toss as much shit against the wall as you can in an effort to see what sticks.
My contention, as made evident by my many blog postings on this subject, is that the "breathtaking inanity" (Bush-appointed Judge Jones' description of the Intelligent Design crowd) expressed by GOP politicians and supporters dwarfs that of Democrats by orders of magnitude, both in wideness of the reality mark, and the audience and respect such views get. It's never been my contention that there are NO stupid crazy democrats. But democrats who say things every bit as crazy as what creationists say are mostly laughed at by other Democrats, or hidden in the attic. They don't nominate them for Vice President. They don't make their views part of the party platform. The GOP does.
On every issue where there is a clear scientific consensus, and the two parties differ, it is the GOP on the ignorant side of the aisle. Whether it is evolution, global warming, stem cell research, abstinence-only birth control, and a host of other issues, it's the democrats that side closest to the best science we have. The Republicans pay lip service to science, and try desperately to give the impression that their ideology is supported by it, but in the end when science clashes with their ideology, ideology wins. That goes for overtly religious subjects like evolution, to more secular religious views like supply-side economics and pure capitalism. The Laffer curve is every bit as religious, and evidence-free, as a 6,000 year-old-earth is, as is the notion that government ruins everything. Ever hear of WWII, the moon landing, or the interstate highway system? Government programs all.
Again, that's not to say the Democrats are above criticism. On too many subjects, they deviate from clear science and mathematics (the drug war, gun control, social security, etc.) It's just small potatoes compared to what Republicans do, and is usually a lesser level of error. I'd compare the Republicans and Democrats to two doctors presented with our sick society. The Democrats want to bleed it with leeches. The Republicans want to pray for its recovery. While both solutions are clearly flawed, the Democrats are epistemologically eons ahead. At least their proposal understands that there are physical forces at work here, that they are part of the body politic, and curing what ails it means changing that physicality somehow. The Republican method doesn't even seem comfortable with objective reality, and is essentially relying on magic. The Democrats flaws can be changed with data. The GOP is stuck where it is forever, because to them, what seems true in their gut, or their mind, makes scientific evidence-gathering irrelevant. Republicans are, in every way that matters, still living in the 18th century. They never went through the scientific renaissance. They are still Aristotelian.
Think I'm wrong? Here's your chance to prove it.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
More Tea Party Loonies Coming to a Race Near You
Think Ron Paul and his aversion to aspects of the Civil rights Act are just dandy fun, be sure to check out this summary of Teapartiers running for office, where you'll find gems like these:
World Wrestling executive Linda McMahon
Tim D'Annunzio, for whom we find this wonderful description:
In Hoke County divorce records, his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple times as a teenager.
The doctor concluded that his religious beliefs were not delusional. A judge wrote in a child support ruling a few years later that D'Annunzio was a self-described "religious zealot" who believed the government was the "Antichrist." The judge said he was willfully failing to make child support payments.
Sharon Angle, the Tea Party’s top candidate in the GOP primary to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), is benefiting from an implosion by frontrunner Sue Lowden, who has been sinking in the polls ever since she suggested that poor Nevadans could “barter” with their doctors, perhaps by giving them a chicken in exchange for services...Angle’s ultra-conservative positions, which include abolishing the Department of Education and ending virtually all campaign finance restrictions
Ain't it great where the person suggesting we pay our doctors in chickens is the sane one?
Vaughn Ward, an Iraq war vet who had been endorsed by Palin and was highly touted as a recruit by the national party...was caught recycling lines from then Sen. Barack Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Ward had also been rebuked for making it appear that Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo endorsed his campaign when, in fact, he had not. And on at least two occasions, Ward suggested that Puerto Rico, where primary opponent Labrador was born, is a foreign nation.
Well Hell, what do you expect from a party whose presidential candidate didn't know where Spain is.
Will America really elect insane people to office. Tune in November.
World Wrestling executive Linda McMahon
Tim D'Annunzio, for whom we find this wonderful description:
In Hoke County divorce records, his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple times as a teenager.
The doctor concluded that his religious beliefs were not delusional. A judge wrote in a child support ruling a few years later that D'Annunzio was a self-described "religious zealot" who believed the government was the "Antichrist." The judge said he was willfully failing to make child support payments.
Sharon Angle, the Tea Party’s top candidate in the GOP primary to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), is benefiting from an implosion by frontrunner Sue Lowden, who has been sinking in the polls ever since she suggested that poor Nevadans could “barter” with their doctors, perhaps by giving them a chicken in exchange for services...Angle’s ultra-conservative positions, which include abolishing the Department of Education and ending virtually all campaign finance restrictions
Ain't it great where the person suggesting we pay our doctors in chickens is the sane one?
Vaughn Ward, an Iraq war vet who had been endorsed by Palin and was highly touted as a recruit by the national party...was caught recycling lines from then Sen. Barack Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Ward had also been rebuked for making it appear that Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo endorsed his campaign when, in fact, he had not. And on at least two occasions, Ward suggested that Puerto Rico, where primary opponent Labrador was born, is a foreign nation.
Well Hell, what do you expect from a party whose presidential candidate didn't know where Spain is.
Will America really elect insane people to office. Tune in November.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Free Market of Health Care: A Simple Rebuttal
Homeopathy.
Millions of people have decided, via their rugged individual minds, that water is medicine. "Inefficient market" is too kind a term.
Millions of people have decided, via their rugged individual minds, that water is medicine. "Inefficient market" is too kind a term.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul, Tea Partier, De Facto Segregationist
In case anyone actually needed the proof, Rachel Maddow does a masterful job here and here giving Rand Paul enough racist rope to hang himself. Paul prattles on about how he's not a racist and hates discrimination, and then waffles and dances like a madman to avoid answering the simple question of whether his view would allow businesses to refuse to serve blacks, or gays, or women, or whoever they want. Of course it would, and Paul should have been less of a pussy and just flat said that it did. He should have said that as a libertarian, he would rather suffer the negative repercussions of private business discrimination than suffer from government interference in that part of life, however big talk it'd be from a white male who wouldn't be the one suffering, rather than try to pawn it off as some sort of hypothetical, abstract discussion. That made him come off as a dishonest, patronizing sleazebag.
But I'm really waiting for all the Tea Baggers to come forward and denounce Paul's de facto support of racial discrimination (you can't say you're for dike breaches but against floods), and an effective social return to 1960. Come on guys, you SAY you aren't a bunch of racists - now put up or shut up.
We all know its the only time they'll be quiet.
But I'm really waiting for all the Tea Baggers to come forward and denounce Paul's de facto support of racial discrimination (you can't say you're for dike breaches but against floods), and an effective social return to 1960. Come on guys, you SAY you aren't a bunch of racists - now put up or shut up.
We all know its the only time they'll be quiet.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
O'Reilly's Parade of Stupid
In case you missed it, here is Bill O'Reilly's recent parade of stupidity:
Here's Bill giving Ann Coulter a chance to babble nonsensically about those evil, fictional "liberals" who are against everything, and who loved Hitler. And Don't dare think rationally!
Of course what would an article featuring stupidity be without an appearance by Sarah Palin, revealing clearly her desire for a Biblical government, and her complete ignorance, compounded by Bill's, of the religion-free nature of our Constitution. I would love just once to hear someone blabbing on about how relevant The Ten Commandments is to our government to name a single law forbidding worshiping idols, or coveting, or not keeping the sabbath. Methinks they don't even know the contents of their own religion.
And finally, listen to Bill take the daring position, no doubt popular in his great-grandmother's time, that redistribution of wealth is a new and dangerous concept. Happens every time a tax is collected, or a government program implemented. Do try to keep up.
Imagine what the below-average Republicans must be like...
Here's Bill giving Ann Coulter a chance to babble nonsensically about those evil, fictional "liberals" who are against everything, and who loved Hitler. And Don't dare think rationally!
Of course what would an article featuring stupidity be without an appearance by Sarah Palin, revealing clearly her desire for a Biblical government, and her complete ignorance, compounded by Bill's, of the religion-free nature of our Constitution. I would love just once to hear someone blabbing on about how relevant The Ten Commandments is to our government to name a single law forbidding worshiping idols, or coveting, or not keeping the sabbath. Methinks they don't even know the contents of their own religion.
And finally, listen to Bill take the daring position, no doubt popular in his great-grandmother's time, that redistribution of wealth is a new and dangerous concept. Happens every time a tax is collected, or a government program implemented. Do try to keep up.
Imagine what the below-average Republicans must be like...
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Only in Alabama
Let's hope, anyway. First Bradley Burne gets accused of not being ignorant enough (believing in evolution but not the Bible), then he rebuts with 'DIRP! Yes I are!':
"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God. As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."
Enjoy, for just a moment, the schadenfreude at the quote-minders eating their own.
But back to harsh reality, this is a race for Governor folks. GOVERNOR! We shouldn't tolerate this nonsense from someone running for dog catcher, much less Governor. I guess given the recent rise of dull stars like Glenn Beck in the conservative constellation we should have expected this. Nonetheless, the next time someone tries to use the fact that Sarah Palin was governor as justification for giving credibility to her views, show him this half wit.
Also keep this in mind the next time someone insults your intelligence with the "oppressed Christians by the liberal media" meme. If the media had the slightest bit of objectivity, much less an anti-Christian bias, this guy would be eviscerated on every news network for a week. Instead, that appeal to the 19th century Republican base there in Alabamy might just help him win him the election.
"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God. As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."
Enjoy, for just a moment, the schadenfreude at the quote-minders eating their own.
But back to harsh reality, this is a race for Governor folks. GOVERNOR! We shouldn't tolerate this nonsense from someone running for dog catcher, much less Governor. I guess given the recent rise of dull stars like Glenn Beck in the conservative constellation we should have expected this. Nonetheless, the next time someone tries to use the fact that Sarah Palin was governor as justification for giving credibility to her views, show him this half wit.
Also keep this in mind the next time someone insults your intelligence with the "oppressed Christians by the liberal media" meme. If the media had the slightest bit of objectivity, much less an anti-Christian bias, this guy would be eviscerated on every news network for a week. Instead, that appeal to the 19th century Republican base there in Alabamy might just help him win him the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
