If you don't believe in 'X,' then don't 'X'

John C. Wright explores a favorite anti-morality and anti-rational trope of "liberals" and libertarians, which is commonly encountered in the old "If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one" pseudo-argument.

In the comments, The Deuce offers an especially amusing reformulation of the pseudo-logic: "If you don't like carbon emissions, don't emit any!"

How long, Gentle Reader, do you think we'll have to wait for the "liberals" to follow the logic of their own "argument" when it comes to that particular score?

The Question Will Be Raised

Todd Wood, quoting from (and commenting upon) "intelligent interventionist" Leonard Brand's book:

Last but not least, I got my copy of Leonard Brand's revised Faith, Reason, & Earth History today. Like the original edition, Leonard continues to use "intelligent interventionist" rather than "creationist," at least in part because he thinks "creationist" is too narrow to describe his position. Here's a passage that I really liked:

In the long run, the beneficial approach is for interventionists to conduct themselves as genuine scientists and get actively involved in research. It is better to develop an alternative paradigm than to merely poke holes in someone else's theory. If interventionist efforts only center around disproving the prevailing evolutionary paradigm, this question will be raised: What do you have that is better?

Amen to that.

Oh, indeed; the question will be raised. But the question is invalid; it is not a rational question, it is not a logical question. It is, putting it in the best light, an emotional tantrum; putting it in a more realistic light, it is intellectual dishonesty.

And, smuggled into the question is this assumption/assertion: "Unless you replace my false beliefs with other beliefs (and they must be beliefs that I will accept), then you have no right to punch holes in my false beliefs."

The "prevailing evolutionary paradigm" is wrong. It is, in fact, false. Period.

That truth must confronted and admitted. Letting the 'scientistes' (*) off the hook for their anti-reason and intellectual dishonesty does no one, including them, any good.

So, yes: "conduct [yourselves] as genuine scientists and get actively involved in research." But not because of an intellectually dishonest pseudo-question.


(*) 'Scientiste' is a word I coinded a few years ago to denote scientific poseurs; the word is coined on the model of 'artiste' (as in, Miss Piggy, 'The Artiste'). 'Scientiste' refers to any proponent of scientism (**) -- scientismist was too much a mouthful. And not nearly mocking enough.

(**) Or, 'Science!' as Matteo calls it.

Who told you that you were naked?

Jonathan Acuff ('Stuff Christians Like'): Thinking you're naked

Printing body parts

The Economist: Making a bit of me A machine that prints organs is coming to market

'Gagdad Bob' on Leftist anti-humanism

'Gagdad Bob:' The Cosmically Infrahuman Agenda of the Proglodyte Left

A lengthy excerpt:

...
"As Scott summarizes him, Michael Polanyi pointed out that what distinguishes leftist thought in all its forms is the dangerous combination of a ruthless contempt for traditional moral values with an unbounded moral passion for utopian perfection.

"The first step in this process is a complete skepticism that rejects traditional ideals of moral authority and transcendent moral obligation. This materialistic skepticism is then combined with a boundless, utopian moral fervor to transform mankind.

"However, being that the moral impulse remains in place, there is no longer any boundary or channel for it. One sees this, for example, in college students (and those permanent college students known as professors) who, in attempting to individuate from parental authority and define their own identities, turn their intense skepticism against existing society, denouncing it as morally shoddy, artificial, hypocritical, and a mere mask for oppression and exploitation. In other words, as the philosopher Voegelin explained it, the vertical is 'immamentized' into the present, expressing the same religious faith but in wholly horizontal and materialistic terms.

"What results is a moral hatred of existing society and the resultant alienation of the postmodern leftist intellectual. Having condemned the distinction between good and evil as dishonest, such an individual can at least find pride in the unblinking 'honesty' of their condemnation. Since ordinary decent behavior can never be safe against suspicion of sheer conformity or downright hypocrisy, only an amoral meaningless act can assure complete authenticity. This is why, to a leftist, the worst thing you can call someone is a hypocrite, whereas authentic depravity is celebrated in art, music, film, and literature. It is why, for example, leftist leaders all over the world were eager to embrace a nihilistic mass murderer such as Yasser Arafat, or why they so adore the anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-capitalist thug Hugo Chavez."
...

A sane man realizes that doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing the wrong thing. But leftists -- having willfully embraced the insanity that there is no right/good (or, if there is, that it cannot be known) -- have nothing left but a nihilistic hatred.


Here is another good post by 'Gagdad Bob:' On Economic, Intellectual, Spiritual and Political Bubbles

Christianity is not a suicide pact

DutchNews.nl: Christians can't vote for Wilders, say vicars

A Christian cannot vote for Geert Wilders' anti-immigration party PVV, say 75% of church leaders in a poll of 1,200 ministers and church workers in the Nederlands Dagblad.

The ministers represent a cross-section of all the Netherlands' Protestant churches, representing 2.3 million people, the paper says.

One third of the people polled said there were people who supported Wilders in their communities and 5% said Wilders had a lot of support.

'Wilders and the PVV's views contradict Christianity,’ one minister told the paper.

Whatever these people are vicars of, it isn't of Christ: Christianity is not a cultural/social suicide pact.

Good Intentions

(Hosted on Bob Parks' NMATV.com) Dr. Walter Williams: Good Intentions

Walter Williams’ 1985 PBS documentary Good Intentions based on his book, The State Against Blacks (1982). The documentary was very controversial at the time it was released and led to many animosities and even threats of murder. In Good Intentions, Dr. Williams examines the failure of the war on poverty and the devastating effect of well meaning government policies on blacks asserting that the State harms people in the U.S. more than it helps them.

Well, you know the old saying, beloved of "liberals" and bureaucrats everywhere: Teach a man to fish and you have a job for a day; but, give a man a fish and you have a guaranteed lifetime employment.

The Rules Are Always Different

The rules are always different when "liberals" are in charge.

Comes this news item:

Chicago Sun-Times (via AP): Ky. man charged with threatening Obama in Web poem

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A Kentucky man has been charged with posting a poem threatening President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama on a white supremacist Web site.

U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Stephan M. Pazenzia said Johnny Logan Spencer Jr., 27, of Louisville wrote and posted the poem, titled "The Sniper," on a page called NewSaxon.org. The site is described as an "Online Community for Whites by Whites." The poem was posted in August 2007, according to an arrest affidavit.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin on Friday ordered Spencer released on $25,000 bond, but kept under house arrest at a family member's home. He's charged with making threats against the president and threatening to kill or injure a major candidate for the office of the president.

The poem describes a gunman shooting and killing a "tyrant" later identified as the president, setting off panic in the wake of the fatal shot being fired.

"The bullet that he has chambered is one of the purest pride, And the inspiration on the casing reads DIE negro DIE," the poem states.

Spencer used the online moniker "Pain1488," a reference to a phrase used by white nationalists as well as an homage to Adolf Hitler.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Chance told Whalin that, even though investigators linked no weapons to Spencer, the poem doesn't qualify as protected political speech.

"This is a threat by an individual against an individual simply because of who he is," Chance said. "He is the president and he is black."

Federal public defender Laura Wyrosdick said no one took action to harm Obama in the two years the poem has been publicly available.

"We're here today because Mr. Spencer allegedly wrote a poem, a work of art," Wyrosdick said.

After the hearing, Spencer's cousin, Paula McGill of Louisville, said family members were shocked by Spencer's arrest.

"I don't think he thought it was going to catch up with him," McGill said. "He's not a harmful guy at all."

The Secret Service became aware of the poem just after the 2008 election that made Obama the first black president in the country's history. An arrest affidavit says the Secret Service referenced the writing in a report on the white supremacist National Socialist movement. But at the time, the affadavit says, "Spencer was never identified, located, or interviewed."

The investigation started a week ago when an informant faxed a copy of the writings and Spencer's identity to the FBI, Pazenzia said.

Pazenzia said Spencer acknowledged writing the poem but gave multiple addresses to investigators, none of which appeared to be his actual residence. Searches of the homes were fruitless, Pazenzia said.

Spencer is currently on probation from a state drug conviction in Louisville.

If convicted of the new charges, he could face up to 15 years in prison.

Let's see, Gentle Reader: this (alleged) poem was written and posted in 2007, more tham a year before the election of (alleged)-President Obama.

Meanwhile. Was anyone even questioned about that 2006 piece of "art?" To ask the question is to answer it.

Steyn on the Persecution of Geert Wilders

Mark Steyn: The absurd trial of Geert Wilders

As with most anything Steyn writes, the whole article is well worth Gentle Reader's read, especially if one cares about liberty. An excerpt:

At a certain level, the trial of Geert Wilders for the crime of “group insult” of Islam is déjà vu all over again. For as the spokesperson for the Openbaar Ministerie put it, “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

Ah, yes, in the Netherlands, as in Canada, the truth is no defence. ...
...
It gets better. The judge in his wisdom has decided to deny the defendant the level of courtroom security they afforded to Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. Wilders lives under armed guard because of explicit death threats against him by Mr. Bouyeri and other Muslims. But he’s the one put on trial for incitement. His movie about Islam, Fitna, is deemed to be “inflammatory,” whereas a new film by Willem Stegeman, De moord op Geert Wilders (The Assassination of Geert Wilders), is so non-inflammatory and entirely acceptable that it’s been produced and promoted by a government-funded radio station. You’d almost get the impression that, as the website Gates of Vienna suggested, the Dutch state is channelling Henry II: “Who will rid me of this turbulent blond?”
...
In the old days-divine right of kings, rule by patrician nobility-it was easier. But today’s establishment is obliged to pay at least lip service to popular sovereignty. So it has to behave more artfully. You’ll still have your vote; it’s just that the guy you wanted to give it to is on trial, and his platform’s been criminalized.

To return to where we came in, what does it mean when the Ministry of Justice proudly declares that the truth is no defence? When the law stands in explicit opposition to the truth, freeborn peoples should stand in opposition to the law. Because, as the British commentator Pat Condell says, “When the truth is no defence, there is no defence”-and what we are witnessing is a heresy trial. The good news is that the Openbaar Ministerie is doing such a grand job with its pilot program of apostasy prosecutions you’ll barely notice when sharia is formally adopted.

Wicked!

An interesting tangental discussion arose in a different thread; I thought it deserves its own thread. So, in this post I'll duplicate the discussion to-date.

The topic here is the making of distinctions with respect to the two very different senses in which the word 'evil' is used ("natural evil" and "moral evil"), and whether 'evil,' in either sense, can rightly be said to exist.

A secondary topic which may or may not develop in this thread has to do with the idea that 'evil' in the world is a logical necessity of the world existing. A few weeks ago, I'd started, but never finished, a post on this matter (* see below); perhaps the idea can be explored in this thread.


Getting back to the primary topic of this thread, on a wholly different matter, I had written, rather in passing --

... I had intended to point out that his first sentence ("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil').

Cathy initiated the discussion --

("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil').

I know this is off the point at the moment, but I wonder if you'd be interested in coming back to this?

I replied --

Cathy: "I know this is off the point at the moment ..."

That's quite all right; discussing this is much more interesting than all that up there.


Ilíon: "I had intended to point out that his first sentence ("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil')."

By the term 'good,' we mean two very different things (made clear by context):
1) that which is desirable (but having no direct moral content);
2) that which is moral.
The [first] usage is frequently referred to as "natural good;" the second [as] "moral good."

Consequently, by 'evil' we mean two very different things (made clear by context):
1) that which is undesirable (but having no direct moral content);
2) that which is immoral, which is to say, wicked.
The [first] usage is frequently referred to as "natural evil;" the second [as] "moral evil."

The word 'wicked' always means 'immoral,' it always indicates a moral judgment; but the word 'evil' may or may may not indicate a moral judgment. Consequently, it both amuses and annoys me how people toss around the word 'Evil' (especially when one can, so to speak, hear the capital 'E').

For instance, with respect to a "natural good:"
It is a good condition to be intelligent -- but the possession of intelligence is morally neutral; to be intelligent, even to be the most intelligent person in the world, says nothing about one's moral state. Likewise, it is an evil condition to lack intelligence (to use a word from above, to be 'stupid') -- but the lack of intelligence is morally neutral; to be stupid, if one is indeed stupid, says nothing about one's moral state, it is not to be a wicked person.


Ilíon: "... evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil')."

If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "natural evil," then 'evil' is the absence of "natural good."

If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "moral evil," then 'evil' is the denial of, or repudiation of, "moral good."

===
If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "natural evil," then 'evil' is the absence of "natural good."

For instance, to be alive -- to possess life, to exist -- is a "natural good;" the possession of all other "natural goods" depend upon the possession of this one. For, if one does not posssess life, or existence, one cannot possibly possess any other "natural good" which mat exist.

But, what when one dies? Does one now "posses death" or "possess non-existence" whereas one previously possessed life or existence? No, one hasn't traded an existing (and previously possessed) "natural good" for its opposing "natural evil." Rather, it is simply that one has lost the "natural good" which previosly one did possess.

All "natural evils" are like this: they are not things or states which exist literally, but rather are states of privation of some "natural good."

===
If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "moral evil," then 'evil' is the denial of, or repudiation of, "moral good."

I would suppose that this is not where you wondered what I meant? But rather that this seems to you self-evident?

Cathy replied --

Hi, Ilion. I'm always fascinated by thinking about thinking, but it's always been in the context of being aware of one's psychological or emotional beliefs, perceptions and reactions. Can we start off by saying that if I'm just too far in the weeds, you recommend a good Introduction to Philosophy, (and by "good" I mean valid regarding information, and presented in a manner accessible to the unread), and we could come back later if you want to?

Regarding "natural good' and "natural evil", I'm following ok -- 'Natural evil" being what might be called "bad" or "ill", meaning undesirable.

But I did not realize until I read "...evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good ...", that I have always thought of moral evil as something more active than the absence of moral good. I mean, Evil-with-a-capital-E as being destructive of, rather than devoid of, Good. But this comes from a since-I-was-a-kid religious perspective, and I don't know whether I'm mixing apples and oranges.

I replied to Cathy --

Cathy: "Can we start off by saying that if I'm just too far in the weeds ..."

No shame in that.

And it's not as though I'm a heavy-hitter, either. I've just been thinking about these sorts of things for a long time, and thinking about what other people have said.

Cathy: "... you recommend a good Introduction to Philosophy, (and by "good" I mean valid regarding information, and presented in a manner accessible to the unread), and we could come back later if you want to?"

I have no idea a good introductory book to suggest. But, as much C.S.Lewis as you can get your hands on. I mean, the "serious" stuff, rather than the novels (and by that I mean only that the novels are too indirect with respect to the question you've asked).

Cathy: "... (and by "good" I mean valid regarding information, and presented in a manner accessible to the unread) ..."

That's one of my peeves with philosophers and theologians as general classes; most of them are just useless. Who gives a damn that they can impress one another building elaborate houses of cards if they have nothing to say to the rest of us?

Cathy: "... that I have always thought of moral evil as something more active than the absence of moral good."

Well, no, that's not quite what I meant. That's why I said: "evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil')." My statement was meant to compact both uses, and the distinction, into one sentence.

We use the terms 'good' and 'evil' in two slightly different, and yet related, ways, probably going back to early Greek philosophers 2500 years ago -- something along the lines of: companionship is desirable; lack of companionship is undesirable; to possess wisdom is desirable and seems to be more than simpy desirable, for the goodness of possessing wisdom seems imperative, seems to be something we *ought* to seek; to spurn wisdom is undesirable and worse, for if one *ought* to seek wisdom, then to spurn wisdom is worse than simply lacking it. So, the good of possessing companionship seems to be different from the good of possessing wisdom.

What I said in the initial statement is easier to see with respect to natural evils that with respect to moral evils. It holds in both cases, it just may take more concentration to grasp it with respect to moral evils.

Natural evil is the absence of natural good; moral evil is the turning away from, the repudiation of, the denial of, moral good. Natural good (and natural evil) can be seen as "that just happens;" moral good (and moral evil) results from agents freely acting. So, in that regard, yes, moral evil is indeed "something more active than the absence of moral good," for it's a choice.

And yes, one is certainly correct to see "Evil-with-a-capital-E as being destructive of, rather than devoid of, Good." It's similar to a (very virulent) biological parasite.

But, moral evils don't exist in their own right. Moral evils "exist" and have meaning only in reference to, only as the repudiation of, moral goods. If there were no moral goods at all, there could be no moral evils; but if no agents were morally evil, agents could still be morally good. They just might not appreciate it.

Also --

Cathy: I 'm pretty sure I have a thought trying to form. :) But in the meantime, thanks, and have a good night.

Ilíon: Well, I may be expressing myself poorly.

Or, I may be mistaken (but, of course, I don't think I am, else I'd not have said what I said).

The Deuce (whose LiveJournal is here) wrote --

I think it's harder to make the case that moral evil doesn't really exist than that natural evil doesn't.

As you pointed out, natural evil is an absence of natural good, and it's at least awkward to say that an absence - a lack of presence or existence of something - itself exists or is present.

But moral evil is a rebellion against good. And rebellion, it seems to me, is a real existing thing.

Cathy wrote --

Well, first off, i realized I'm not clear on the definitions of the critical terms.

For example, in the context of murder as a "moral evil" , is the "evil"
the intent to murder,
the act of murdering,
the effect (death of the victim) ?

Second, I was trying to think of an example where there can be good, absence-of-good, and evil; my question being Isn't evil different than absence of good.

Say there are cash boxes for voluntary donations to a demonstrably worthy cause of a reliable agency, and that all Persons are comparably circumstanced.
. Person A places a donation into a box -- intent/act/effect are good
. Person B steals a cash box -- intent/act/effect are evil
. Person C does nothing --
Is this 'evil' since it is absent of good? Is there a "moral neutral" category? (Unless Person C chose not to steal a box, in which case, is doing nothing "good"?)

Or, is the Person B scenario simply more evil, because there are [multiple] evils , both the not-helping absence of good, and the not-respecting-other-people's-property absence of good?

If you decide you don't want to play anymore, I will totally understand!

(I have to assume it's a good thing (for society in general) that my library is fresh out of C.S. Lewis. *sigh* Back to Amazon.)

=====
(*) The post I had started on the idea that 'evil' in the world is a logical necessity of the creation and existence of the world got this far:

That there is 'evil' in the world is a logical necessity of the creation of the world.

That statement, while perhaps I may in the future formulate it better, is not difficult to understand ... once Gentle Reader gets past certain common, but incorrect, usages of certain terms.

For instance, the unqualified term 'evil' does not really refer to "moral badness," much less does it mean "maximal moral badness" (à la Stalin, Mao, and Hitler), the proper term for "moral badness/deficiency" is 'wickedness.' The term 'evil,' unqualified, is about lack or deficiency or undesirability, it is not about morality. Specifically, the term 'evil' refers to a lack or deficiency of 'the good' (which unqualified is also not about morality).

Similarly, the term 'perfection' is not about "maximal moral goodness," but rather it refers to wholeness, fullness and completion, to totality. The proper meaning of 'perfection' can be seen in the stock phrase "a perfect stranger" -- the stranger is not 'perfect' because he's morally good, he may in fact be wicked, but rather he is said to be a 'perfect' stranger because he is thought to be wholly unknown.

The idea I meant to pursue has to do with God's perfection (fullness/compleness) of goodness, and that the Creation, being "not-God," definitionally cannot be perfectly good. That is, even without considering the moral evil which results from agents choosing to spurn 'the good,' the world necessarily contains some lack of or privation of (natural) goodness.

This is boring -- yet necessary

This thread is a continuation of the prior one concerning 'Vox Day' and his Ilk. Frankly, this sort of thing bores me, and I expect it bores Gentle Reader. Yet, sometimes, these things need to be done.

Having watched them in action before, I know that the next step 'Spacebunny' and 'Vox Day' will undertake is to delete (if they haven't already begun to do so) the posts, and thus the argument I made, against the way they and their 'Ilk' misuse the word 'stupid.' So, in this post I'm going to preserve (and perhaps comment upon) what was said against that eventuality.

First, of course, there is 'Vox Day's' post/thread Atheists hate individual rights; a fairly standard 'Vox Day' effort. I had intended to point out that his first sentence ("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil').

But, I decided to read the comments before making any post of my own, and so, since I posted a response to something 'Spacebunny' had said, the post I'd initially intended to make was never made.


After some back-and-forth, 'LaileB' posted:

Vox Day: Persuasive to whom? A deaf, dumb and blind kid? Myers has now stated that both libertarians and the North Koreans are extreme and pathological right-wingers. That's simply insane. And the Left is always claiming that their leftist rivals are right-wingers. Look at Stalin and Hitler, Stalin and Trotsky, Mao and Kruschev, and so forth.

LaileB: Rabid militarism is a right wing ideology...always has been. the main difference between left and right is akin to the difference between revolution and authority and its entirely possible to go from the one to the other depending on your situation...leftist revolutionary clamoring for the defense of individual rights often become strict autoritarians when they aquire the power of a state to back them up, clamping down on the very rights they used to claim to cherish. Likewise, military dictators will just as often suddently become the avowed champions of individual rights after they ve been throw out of power. The regular predictibility with which this occurs is almost laughble.

'LF' responded:

LaileB: Rabid militarism is a right wing ideology...always has been

LF: Read Liberal Fascism. You are either misinformed, or a liar.

I hope Gentle Reader understands me well enough to know that I not only agree with 'LF' in his assessment, but also consider it to be just about the only appropriate response (the other major response being to totally ignore 'LaileB') to the disingenouos content of that first sentence of 'LaileB's' comment. I mean, it's not as though one can reason with someone willing to so glibbly spout leftist talking-point nonsense.

Also, as 'Phileagle' pointed out in response to 'LF's' post, the topic hadn't been 'militarism' ("rabid" or not) contrasted to a philosophy of 'individual rights,' but rather 'totalitatialism' contrasted to a philosophy of 'individual rights.'

Anyway, 'Spacebunny' replied to 'LF:'

LF: Read Liberal Fascism. You are either misinformed, or a liar.

Spacebunny: You left out abject stupidity - it applies in this case based on previous comment threads.

As I said in a comment in the other thread, I loathe sloppy reasoning; and sloppy language (as this comment is) is both evidence of, and a cause of further, sloppy reasoning. I see it as being our duty, as rational beings, to help one another overcome the sloppy reasoning into which we all fall at one time or another.

I replied to 'Spacebunny:'

Spacebunny: You left out abject stupidity - it applies in this case based on previous comment threads.

Ilíon: Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself.

Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is.

And, the 'Ilk' being who and what they are, we're off to the races.

Now, as Gentle Reader can easily see, this is a very mild and temperate criticism, very non-accusatory, very non-condemnatory, very neutral; no snark or sarcasm (as is popular amongst the 'Ilk'); a simple statement of fact. Is it not at once clear, Gentle Reader, that there is nothing at all there to give insult nor to justify taking insult?

Certainly, I could have been even more clear had I thought to append "on account of his stupidity" to the second sentence. But seriously now, given the context, and given what I did write, does not one expect that a non-stupid person shall understand that I am not asserting some sort of "get out of jail free" card for persons who truly are stupid?

Someone going by 'JACIII' responded:

Ilíon: Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself.

Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is.

JACIII: You disregard the willfully obtuse.

And, at about the same time, 'Spacebunny' posted the very thoughtful, and well thought-out, response:

Ilíon: Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself.

Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is.

Spacebunny: BS

I can tell you, Gentle Reader (but don't tell her), for a moment there, I wondered whether I was in error about the nature of stupidity and our moral obligations with respect to stupid persons. But, I quickly recovered: for after all, I have reasoned carefully about the matter; I have thought it through and know that I am correct.

To 'JACIII,' I replied:

JACIII: You disregard the willfully obtuse.

Ilíon: Not at all. The willfully obtuse are not stupid, they are intellectually dishonest (which is a specialized form of being a liar).

'LF' had already mentioned the possibility that 'LaileB' was lying; "willfully obtuse" falls within the gamut of "liar." As I mentioned above, I have thought through these issues.

To Spacebunny,' I replied:

Spacebunny: BS

Ilíon: I was wrong: you're not so rational, after all.

Do you also mock cripples?

How terrible of me to venture the possiblity that she's not so rational as I had previously thought/hoped! *sigh* As I keep telling Gentle Reader, I am not one of those wishy-washy "nice" people (who tend to be very not-nice when they are thwarted) -- I speak to others as is appropriate to their behavior.

Now, knowing what the 'Ilk' are like (and what 'Spacebunny' is like), I ought to have asked, "Do you also mock cripples [*because* they are cripples]?"

But, Gentle Reader, what is the context here? Does the context not include my initial two statements to which she replied, "Bullshit," to wit: "Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself," and "Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is." Is it not the case that the context and topic is responsibility-given-choice?

Is not one to be excused for assuming that a non-stupid person has paid attention to the context and content of what she is calling "Bullshit?"


'JACIII' responded:

Ilíon: Not at all. The willfully obtuse are not stupid, they are intellectually dishonest (which is a specialized form of being a liar).

JACIII: Hardly. The willfully obtuse merely guard their stupidity. That's why we have seperate words for liar and stupid, though I see the condition you refer to occasionally.

This is par for the course: refusal even to think about what has been said, combined with a response that means "Well, sure; but I'm still going to assert that you're wrong." I suppose he does "see the condition [which I] refer to occasionally" ... after all, *everyone* looks in the mirror. Occasionally.

'JACIII' responded (to my question to 'Spacebunny'):

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?

Again, Gentle Reader, what is the context of this comment, and what is the content of the argument I made? The argument is two points:
1) Certain liabilities are not chosen;
2) It is an error (how much more neutral could I have been?) to mock, or to express anger toward, a person on account of the liabilities over which he has no control.

I replied to 'JACIII:'

JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?

Ilíon: The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist.

and:

JACIII: Hardly. The willfully obtuse merely guard their stupidity. That's why we have seperate words for liar and stupid, though I see the condition you refer to occasionally.

Ilíon: Are you even paying attention to the words you're typing?

Clue: willfully -- the willfully obtuse choose to behave as though they were stupid. But they are not stupid: the stupid are stupid, and they do not choose to be stupid. To behave as though one were stupid is quite a different thing from actually being stupid.

Pray, Gentle Reader, forgive the logically disjointed nature of this ... I'm duplicating the posts in chronological order. I'm also leaving out a few posts which seem to me to be wholly irrelevant; for instance, someone posting as 'Mr. B.A.D.' replied to that last post with this cute-but-pointless observation: "Momma always said stupid is as stupid does."

'JACIII' replied:

JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?

Ilíon: The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist.

JACIII: Secondary amusement provided, as you are vaguely amusing.

'JACIII' also said:

JACIII: English. Plain English - willful does not mean "pretending to be"

We are both OT - I know what you mean to communicate, and you might some day figure out what I am communicating.

I never responded to this (never saw it, in fact). And, of course, in plain English, JACIII really ought to find an English tutor; I fear he is too far gone for a dictionary.

Then, 'Taylor,' having apparently not paid much attention, combines parts of two of my posts, and asks:

Ilíon: ... the stupid are stupid, and they do not choose to be stupid.

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

Taylor: Why would you compare a cripple, who is quite aware of his condition, with this idiot who quite obviously considers himself intelligent enough to debate with people of normal intelligence or better? I would absolutely mock a cripple who was racing a 100-yard dash against able-bodied men. He'd be a freaking laughing stock. An idiot with a big mouth who thinks himself even more clever than those he debates here should be mocked as well.

Notice, Gentle Reader, Taylor copies the word 'choose' ... and still misses the point.

Also, she's misusing the word 'idiot' in just the same way that 'Spacebunny' initially misused 'stupidity.' Really! When supposed adults insist upon talking like kindergarteners, should we be surprised that they think like kindergarteners? [Initially, I wasn't going to say such a direct and "insulting" thing, but after rereading Taylor's post, I realized that she'd want me to say that.]

'MarkkuKoponen' said:

MarkkuKoponen: There's stupidity that comes from low intelligence, and there is stupidity that comes from having fed folly, instead of wisdom to your mind all your life. The latter can occasionally be very funny.

To the 'Ilk,' in general, I said:

Ilíon: To assert that someone is stupid is to assert that he does not -- and cannot -- understand the thing about which he (allegedly) is stupid. If one asserts that another is stupid, then one has simultaneously asserted that one has no moral right to be angry with him or to mock him with respect to that thing, for one has asserted that he did not choose and cannot change his situaton.

Frankly, I cannot see where we ever have enough information to really know that any person, even a retarded person, is indeed stupid. It may simply be that he needs to work harder than most other persons to understand the thing about which we suspect he's stupid. In which case, he's not stupid, but rather retarded -- and he, and likely we, are simply too impatient to work through it.

Replying to 'MarkkuKoponen,' I said:

MarkkuKoponen: There's stupidity that comes from low intelligence, and there is stupidity that comes from having fed folly, instead of wisdom to your mind all your life. The latter can occasionally be very funny.

Ilíon: That's not stupidity; that's intellectual dishonesty.

Stupidity is not a choice.

Again, Gentle Reader, keep in mind the context here: we are talking about the question of whether it is factually correct to accuse persons who choose to make foolish, illogical and irrational arguments of being 'stupid;' and, secondarily, whether it is then morally permissible to mock or express anger toward these persons (if we *have* called them 'stupid') on that basis.

Getting back to 'Spacebunny,' she said:

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.

To 'JACIII,' I said:

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?

Ilíon: The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist.

JACIII: Secondary amusement provided, as you are vaguely amusing.

Ilíon: And you're obviously a fool -- that's a moral judgment, but the way, not an accusation that you're stupid.

Again, Gentle Reader, I'm duplicating these posts in chronological order.

Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.

Ilíon: Merited?

What *are* you people?

Recall, Gentle Reader, the context in which these statements and questions are made; to wit: the argument I initially made, and which she has cleverly "refuted" by the quite devastating expedient of simply informing me that it is "Bullshit."

Back to 'MarkkuKoponen,' who said:

Ilíon: That's not stupidity; that's intellectual dishonesty.

MarkkuKoponen: Intellectual dishonesty is when you know your rationale doesn't hold water. It is different than a state where you would have had, genetically, the capacity to not be stupid, but you lost it by reading the wrong books, being with the wrong people, watching the wrong TV shows etc.

But, what is it that 'MarkkuKoponen' is denying is intellectual dishonesty? To quote his prior post: "... and there is stupidity that comes from having fed folly, instead of wisdom to your mind all your life." This "feeding" is a choice; and it is not merely ignorance (lack of knowledge), but is an active choice to fill one's mind with anti-knowledge. Such a choice is 'foolishness' (which is a species of intellectual dishonesty); it is a very different thing from 'stupidity.'

Replying to an old post, 'Spacebunny' said:

Ilíon: I was wrong: you're not so rational, after all.

Spacebunny: Well, considering I've never had any particular regard for your, ahem, abilities or opinions. I shall simply have to cry myself to sleep tonight.

Now, do try to get back on topic.

You just know I am wounded to the core by that, do you not? ['Spacebunny' has edited this post; I don't have the original content. I recall it being a bit less friendly than it now is.] But, Gentle Reader, notice that last charming bit -- it's a disingenuous little game that 'Spacebunny' and 'Vox Day' play ... they are *so* concerned that threads stay on-topic ... after, of course, they themselves, and their 'Ilk,' have driven it all over the map (and hvee made their best and prolonged attempt to provoke their target into behaving as insultingly and basely as they do).

'Vox Day' (apparently fearing that 'Spacebunny' is in over her head) writes:

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

VD: No, that is my job. Even won an award for it, as a matter of fact.

'Spacebunny' said:

Ilíon: What *are* you people?

Spacebunny: We are the rational set not crippled by our emotions dear.

Whatever I said in response to this has been deleted. I don't recall what I said. I know that I referred to 'Spacebunny' as 'Dearest:' I mean, she *did* refer to me as 'dear;' it seemed only polite to return the endearment. I think I made the observaton, possibly by way of a rhetorical question, that the 'Ilk' are behaving much the same way that "Evangelical Atheists" tend to behave.

'MarkkuKoponen' said (to VD):

MarkkuKoponen: So, what was the best shot at little crippled boy?

This is a pointless post, I include it as it further demonstrates the nature of the 'Ilk,' especially in light of that "stay on topic" command: these people are hypocrites, they're intellectually dishonest.

'Taylor' asks/demands:

Taylor: So, did Ilion immediately delete his own comment stating that many of us here are like Evangelical Atheists, or was it deleted for him?

Hey, Ilion, please resubmit that gem if you deleted it yourself. I mean, you must really think it to have posted it. And if you don't think it, then why post it?

and 'MarkkuKoponen' answers her:

MarkkuKoponen: His name is not a link, so he has not registered, and therefore can't delete comments.

I include this because it's all that remains (so to speak) of my deleted post to 'Spacebunny.'

'MarkkuKoponen,' always scrupulously on topic, informs us:

MarkkuKoponen: Ilion obviously played the good ol' Poke the Bunny Shockwave game.

I haven't the faintest idea what he means; though I'm sure it was deeply thought out and on topic.

Coming late to the game, 'Arielle' said:

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.

Ilíon: Merited?

What *are* you people?

Arielle: Certain conditions should not be held as a "get out of jail free" card. Being crippled does not elevate a person to sainthood, nor confer some special right to escape the mockery that anyone else would receive for doing or saying foolish things.

Also coming late to the party, 'TheAardvark' said:

Ilíon: Merited?

What *are* you people?

TheAardvark: I was an aide to handicapped students at our college, and yes, some of them were eminently mockable, especially the ones who milked their condition for pity, favors, like that. Often, they were mocked by their fellow wheelies.

To 'Arielle,' I replied:

Arielle: Certain conditions should not be held as a "get out of jail free" card. Being crippled does not elevate a person to sainthood, nor confer some special right to escape the mockery that anyone else would receive for doing or saying foolish things.

Ilíon: Are you really so incapable of reading-in-context?

It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.

[I later said essentially the same to 'TheAardvark.'] And 'Arielle' replied:

Arielle: You're correct on that. However, your original point is not a valid one, because "stupid" can also mean "foolish person" and that is obviously the meaning Spacebunny had in mind.

I suppose one ought not expect much better from persons who speak (and think) like kindergarteners.

Staying strictly on topic, 'Spacebunny' said:

Ilíon: It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.

Spacebunny: And what moral system would you be basing this idiocy on because it certainly isn't JudeoChristian.

Can you believe this woman? Hell, she's *worse* than the typical "Evangelical Atheist;" they only "argue" that we Christians are are clearly "stupid" (grossly misusing the term) as proven by the fact that we are Christian.

Coming een later to the party, 'Shrubbery' graciously informed us that:

Arielle: Certain conditions should not be held as a "get out of jail free" card. Being crippled does not elevate a person to sainthood, nor confer some special right to escape the mockery that anyone else would receive for doing or saying foolish things.

Ilíon: Are you really so incapable of reading-in-context?

It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.

Shrubbery: What a load of bull shite. I'm a "cripple", a pejorative to the more sensative, and I find nothing immoral about mocking gimps. It's actually quite fun. On a serious note, mockery in and of itself is not an immoral practice, something it seems you have to assume in order to make the point you're vainly trying to make. Overt hostility may be immoral but that is largely contextual. And, as a couple folks have already asked, from what source do you divine your moral authority to claim mockery is immoral?

Maybe the leaves are blocking his sight, since he clearly has no idea what I've argued.

Commenting in general, 'Matt' said:

Matt: These so-called "stupid" people are mocked because they're lazy, and often insulting. They don't immediately question themselves after their beliefs are questioned. These are the folks who are told time and time again, read the damn facts but still refuse to admit to themselves that they were wrong, instead choosing to act like jackasses. They aren't ignorant of the facts, incapable of understanding. They just don't want to admit, understand or accept.

Not having the information is one thing, but dismissing it without a reason is another. They're just lazy. No one here is mocking developmentally challenged people, because developmentally challenged people don't come to this blog, or write articles discussing theology!

Don't think of stupidity as permanent, and you won't have a problem.

Now, simply saying "That's untrue, and demonstrably so, moron" without explaining yourself or pointing the way to where you got your information is obnoxious, but if that's what wets your fancy for whatever reasons, then good luck.

Well, yes; these so-called "stupid" people are just that: so-called, in contrast to being actually stupid.

Jumping back into the game (and recall, he'd expressed concern about staying on topic, even before 'Spacebunny'), 'JACIII' answered a most pressing question:

Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?

Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.

Ilíon: Merited?

What *are* you people?

JACIII: The Ilk, of course.

To an earlier post from 'TheAardvark,' I replied:

Ilíon: Merited?

What *are* you people?

TheAardvark: I was an aide to handicapped students at our college, and yes, some of them were eminently mockable, especially the ones who milked their condition for pity, favors, like that. Often, they were mocked by their fellow wheelies.

Ilíon: As I said to Arielle --
Are you really so incapable of reading-in-context?

It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.

^ that is the point.

Realizing that 'JACIII' has been lacking some critical information (recall, he needs an English tutor), I thoughtfully informed him that:

JACIII: The Ilk, of course.

Ilíon: That's a "who."

What you people are are fools.

Now, one of the interesting things about fools (and bullies), is that they can dish it out, but can't take it:

Ilíon: What you people are are fools.

TheGivingTree: If an idiot calls someone a fool in the forest, does the Ilk care?

Well, they do give every indication of caring, do they not? Also, 'TheGivingTree' appears to be another of the 'Ilk' who is working with a kindergartener's playground vocabulary. Goodness! Why doesn't he just totally break my heart my calling me a "doo-doo head?"

The long-lost 'Taylor' feels the need to make her presence known:

JACIII: The Ilk, of course.

Ilíon: That's a "who."

What you people are are fools.

Taylor: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Buh-bye now. Adios. Have a nice life. Ciao. Take care now. Take care. Now.

Eagle-eye 'Spacebunny' pops out of the warren, to declaim:

Spacebunny: Ilion- I notice you have failed to cite the moral authority for your "you're mean" claim of immorality. Please do so before you comment again.

What a hypocrite (and bullying coward) this woman is. Recall, Gentle Reader,

Also, there is that kindergartener vocabulary again (the "you're mean" thingie); I mean, even aside from the fact that my argument had nothing to do with whether she's "mean," but rather had to do with her sloppy language and (as became apparent over time) her sloppy thinking.

'Toby_Temple' said:

Toby_Temple: Ridicule, just like respect, is merited

Of course, that was never at issue. I'm more than willing to see this as a simply a sensible statement, rather than just another one of the 'Ilk' acting the fool.



But, as I said, the 'Ilk' are who and what they are; and 'Spacebunny' (and 'Vox Day,' though he must have gotten his fix earlier) apparently needs to take insult, and give insult (it's just too bad that I can't be insulted), for some odd reason I'm sure I'll never understand; so:

Spacebunny: Ilion- I notice you have failed to cite the moral authority for your "you're mean" claim of immorality. Please do so before you comment again.

Ilíon: Dearest,

You petty (*) and foolish, morally obtuse woman (as see above), what more is there to say?

(*) By the way, "mean" (as see above) means "petty" -- not that one expects someone walking around with a kindergarten vocabulary to know that.

One does not expect that this post will long remain on 'Vox Day's' blog, because bullies can dish it out (especially if they have a "posse" to back them up), but they cannot take it.

If the 'Ilk' have already (or do hereafter) say any more on this particular topic, I'll not be bothering to go looking for it, nor update this post. As I said, if find this sort of thing to be quite boring (if sometimes necessary); I've said what I mean to say.

What is one to say?

What can one say of 'Vox Day' and 'Spacebunny' and the Ilk? They're fools (and jerks).

ps. I don't at all mean to imply that I have not long been aware of the fact (at least with respect to him), I've known it for years.

pps. This is cryptic, of course; so, to explain:
1) Someone with the handle 'LF' told some atheistic type (who was behaving like a "troll") that he was either ignorant or a liar;
2) 'Spacebunny' told 'LF' that he'd left out the option "abject stupidity;"
3) I told 'Spacebunny' that someone who is indeed stupid cannot help himself, and that it is wrong to mock or be angry with someone over his (alleged) stupidity;
4) and it goes downhill from there ... because fools do not take to correction.

Comic Sins

Comic Sins

Didn't see that coming

Airport Body Scanners Violate the Teachings of Islam, Says Muslim Group

Though (as Kathy Shaidle reminds us), "Blowing up airplanes? Not so much."

From the CNSNews.com article:

...
"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," FCNA explained. The group noted that Islam emphasizes modesty, considering it part of the faith. "The Qur'an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts" and to be modest in their dress.

While exceptions can be made in cases of "extreme necessity," FCNA indicated that passenger body scans do not rise to that level.
...

Apparently, a school full of fully-clothed (except for having taken off their body-bags) school-girls trying to flee a burning school building also does not rise to the level of "extreme necessity" (link ).

Which seems more likely:
a) Moslems will stay off airliners ... and thus, Moslems (of a certain sort) will find it more challenging to blow up airliners or simply to act in ways so as to intimidate the other passengers;
b) the US government will cave to Moslem objections to full-body scanning ... even as it would have disregarded any objections the rest of us might have had.

Before Pornistan

Before Pornistan ... What a (Mostly) Real Woman Looks Like

For whatever her reason, Kathy Shaidle links to some other blog on which are posted pictures of Playboy's Miss March 1966. Now, may Gentle Reader bear with me, the reason that *I* draw your attention to this is that we may mentally compare the former ideal of female beauty, from near the start of the pornification of our society, to the plasticized monstrosities which are today held up as the ideal, now that our society is fully pornified.

Now, I personally much dislike peroxide-blonde hair, and I'm not crazy about natural blonde (I prefer a rich brunette color) ... but what man in his right mind wants a woman with plastic tits, when the real thing is so beautiful? Also, what man in his right mind wants a woman who will not keep the beauty of her breasts for only him?

What benefit, exactly, has the Pornistan we now live in done any of us?

Palm-gate

For once, I have thought of an amusing turn-about before Kathy Shaidle did!

In her 'Sarah Palin's Redneck Teleprompter' post about how some "liberal" bloggers (and columnists, no doubt) are trying to equate Palin's cribbing some notes on her palm with the Teleprompter Kid's dependence on his TelePrompTer, Kathy Shaidle links to the Small Dead Animals blog postof the same title (in which SDA juxtaposes a video of the TK in non-action with a photo of Palin's hand), saying "Damn, wish I'd thought of that!"

My first thought on reading about the "Palm-gate" ;) flap is that Palin ought to start out a speech (this would be especially funny were she directly debating alleged-President Obama at the time) by joking, "I, too, have brought my TelePrompTer" and then simply displaying her palm.


Also, slightly off-topic, had I written Palin's GOP convention speech, in which she compared being a small-town mayor to being a "community organizer" -- except with actual responsibilities -- I'd have turned that around and said rather, "... Being a small-town mayor is sort of like bring a 'community organizer' -- except without the responsibilities."

What Is An Ideology?

What is an ideology? Why is it that 'ideology' frequently, and 'ideologue' almost always, are words with negative connotations?

This post was prompted by a mini-discussion on the 'Oz Conservative' blog of whether there is a conservative (core) ideology, and what it would be, if there is.


An ideology is a simplistic valuation-in-isolation of just a few (or even just one) of the goods human beings naturally value: an ideology absolutizes those (few) things it values.

For instance, "liberals" value equality (just as we conservatives do) -- but because they refuse to place it in a proper context, which context includes justice and liberty, their view of equality is ideological; it's not equality-before-the-law, but rather egalitarianism.

For instance, libertarians value liberty (just as we conservatives do) -- but because they refuse to place it in a proper context, which context includes justice and duty, their view of liberty is ideological; it's not liberty-within-the-law, but rather libertinism.


In response to the question, “What is Conservativism?” I said:
“Conservativism is the mindset and act of knowing and holding to a proper and virtuous balance between the competing goods of human nature.”

My point was that there are things we humans naturally value, which we should value, but that there is a tension, and even sometimes a competition, between these goods: if we do not keep them in a proper balance, we end up with monstrous ideologies with destroy individuals or entire societies.

Repeal the 17th

Over at 'The Hyacinth Girl,' I off-handedly expressed the opinion that "it would probably be a good thing to repeal the 17th amendment (popular election of senators)."

Cathy wanted to know my reasons for saying that; this was my response to her:

Much, perhaps most, of what's wrong in DC is because federalism has been broken -- the States are no longer actually states of the United States, they've become provinces ruled/administered by Uncle Sam. The Civil War damaged federalism, and then, when the Progressives of a century ago convinced the nation to change the whole dynamic and rationale of the Senate, and thereby change the relationship between the States and the Federal government, federalism bit the dust.

Whether or not the Progressives -- the political ancestors of today's "liberals" -- intended to reduce the States to provinces, that has been the result. And it follows from popular election of the Senate.


[Cathy asked:] "Wouldn’t [repeal of the 17th amendment] just insulate them (the senators) from the will/wishes of the constituents?"

As compared to what? Now? It seems to me that their only real constituents are themselves ... so long as they can finance their continual reelection bids, they rarely have any real worries about the voters.

The senators were intended to represent the States, that is, to represent the views and interests of the specific governments which make up the United States. The senators were *not* intended to represent The People -- that is what the House of Representatives is for (and even that is by State).

When the thirteen colonies declared their independence from Great Britain, they asserted that they were each sovereign states; that is, that they were each the political and moral equals of Great Britain and all the other sovereign states in Europe. The Senate is intended to reflect this assertion; in the Senate, all the States are equal, regardless of their comparative wealth or territorial extent or population or any other factor.

The Senate was created in the first place because the smaller States would not have joined the Union without this fundamental equality. The Founders seem to have thought that the Representatives for the various States would tend to vote as blocks, and thus the smaller States would have had little to no say in the running of the Federal government -- notice that last part; it all goes back to federalism and the sovereignty of the individual States which make up the Union.

Now, as things have worked out, the Representatives tend not to vote as blocks-by-state, but rather each individual Representative tends to be a "political entrepreneur."

And, since the 17th amendment, the Senators have also acted as "political entrepreneurs," rather than as the representatives of their State governments -- so long as he can continue to convince hundreds of thousands (or millions) of voters, that is, people who who do not know him and have no contact with him, that he's "doing a good job," rather than the relative handful of other politicians in his State, who do [know] him and his capabilities, because they've worked with him for years, then he's pretty much set for life.


Do you really think there'd so many senators "serving" for forty and fifty years if they had to win the approval of other politicians, who actually know them?

It's about federalism, which is about liberty.

Fewtril no.274

Deogolwulf: Fewtril no.274

There has been raised a horde of men, if so honorific a title may still be retained for them, who cry out “sky-fairy!” whenever they hear the word “God”, rather as Ivan Pavlov’s dogs salivated whenever they heard bells and whistles, albeit with a crucial difference: the dogs could not be inculcated to fancy that in their mindless reflexes they were on the side of reason.

White House credits 'stimulus' with up to 2 BILLION 'jobs'

Yahoo! News: White House credits stimulus with up to 2M jobs

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is trumpeting a new White House estimate that his top economist calls "stunning": His stimulus plan has already created or saved up to 2 million jobs.

The analysis is part of the administration's quarterly report to Congress on the controversial $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts he signed weeks after taking office. ...

Let's see, $787 billion divided by 2 million "jobs" that were "created or saved" equals a cost to the taxpayers of $393,500 per "job" that was "created or saved" (*) -- that is, IF the number of "jobs" which were "created or saved" were actually so high as 2 million.

BUT, the terminology that "up to 2 million jobs" were "created or saved" means that we're talking about some hypothetical number less than 2 million. Therefore, the cost to the taxpayers is some unknown number greater than $393,500 per "job" that was "created or saved."

Hells bells! Why not just claim to have "created or saved" up to 2 BILLION "jobs" -- that claim would be just as honest and just as meaningless as the claim advanced.


(*) equals a cost to the taxpayers of $393,500 per "job" that was "created or saved" -- this computation ignores, of course, that the US doesn't have the $787 billion in the first place, and so must borrow it or "create" it via inflation; and so the real cost to the citizens of the US is much higher than $787 billion.


Here's Bob Parks' take: Obama Math

How do you celebrate the first anniversary of the Second Coming?

Charles Krauthammer: The Age of Obama: Anno Domini 2

...
Yet the failure of these universalist institutions and paper agreements seems to leave no lasting impression. Did we learn nothing from the Kellogg- Briand Pact, whose signatories included Germany and Japan, that abolished war forever--an absurdity that won U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg the 1929 Nobel Peace Prize?

Sound familiar? But at least Kellogg got it for an actually signed useless treaty. Obama got his Nobel for merely imagined useless treaties, most notably the one Obama has been insisting on from Prague to Turtle Bay on universal nuclear disarmament.
...

Gentle Reader will surely wish to read it all.

Black History Month 2010

Bob Parks: Black History Month 2010

Oops! He did it again!

Ya' gotta admit: That Man has problems

It's not just that That Man is supposedly the President of the United States and he goes around bowing to everything in sight; it's that he's supposedly an American and he goes around bowing to everything in sight.