Author: VD

Running, running

After having already announced he will no longer debate Creationists, apparently PZ Myers felt it necessary to explain, yet again, why he will not be debating me at any point now or in the future:

Who is Vox Day? He’s a recipient of wingnut welfare, a pretentious nobody who had a rich and rotten crook for a father and who writes cheesy fantasy novels in between penning cheesy political discourse. I’m not some bigshot in my field, but I can recognize an ambitious nobody with nothing to offer, so no, I won’t ever be debating that clown.

What an astonishing surprise! I find it totally indicative of his characteristic laziness with regards to facts that Paul Zachary should assert I am a recipient of “wingnut welfare”, as if that was relevant anyhow. First, it is public knowledge that I had a record contract, a music publishing contract, a book contract, a national syndication contract, and three different million dollar game contracts before I turned 28. None of these had anything to do with Daddy’s computer graphics hardware company, which I left after two years of working there after college. I never needed any welfare, and unlike Paul Zachary, I never lived off the taxpayer either.

Those who like to imagine my father’s investment in WND had anything to do with my column being published there are clearly finding it convenient to forget that I was nationally syndicated by the syndicate arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, that bastion of wingnuttery, five years before I wrote my first column for WND.

What the butterfly collector is too stubborn to accept is that his continued evasion of my two challenges on the existence of gods and evolution will always haunt his intellectual credibility as a would-be spokesman for atheism and scientific materialism. I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn’t even a bigshot in his own field?

As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They’ll run away with alacrity.

When the criticism of my WND columns on Pharyngula was first brought to my attention, I referred to Paul Zachary as Pharyngurl because I genuinely thought he was a woman on the basis of the arguments he was presenting. Years later, it is highly amusing indeed to see that he still runs like a girl.

Kelo, six years later

A classic example of why government should never be permitted to seize private property for any reason:

Kelo Aftermath — The Final Indignity

As regular readers of this blog know, the redevelopment project that gave rise to the wretched U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, never came about. In spite of the city’s boasting about the quality of its plans, nothing was ever built on the Fort Trumbull site from which the city displaced an entire unoffending, well maintained lower middle-class neighborhood. Though the formal taking took place in 2000 and the U.S. Supreme Court gave its approval to it in 2005, the city’s project has been a failure, with 91 acres of waterfront property sitting there empty and overgrown by weeds.

Still, despite the loss of the tax base, the forced seizure of the neighborhood was probably worth it. After all, even weeds are to be preferred to those ghastly lower middle-class people who drink beer, call in to vote on American Idol, and indulge in lawn ornaments. Brrrrrrrr! But wouldn’t it be tremendously interesting to see local governments start applying Kelo to eliminate low tax revenue neighborhoods that just happen to be vibrant?

Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it

Libertarians hunt humans

It’s true, we do, at least those of us who can afford it. But in our defense, the most dangerous game does make for excellent blood sport. There’s nothing like tracking down a frightened, naked liberal you’ve given a twelve hour start, following the crimson trail left by her bleeding feet, then luring her from her hiding place with a soft call of “universal health care”. The look on her face through the scope is always hilarious; sometimes it’s even hard to make the kill shot because you’re shaking too hard with laughter.

Libertarians also drink expensive wine out of human skulls. In fact, that’s what inspired Byron to write “Lines Inscribed Upon A Cup Formed From A Skull”, only the real lines were quotes from Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.

The fake Dr. Doom

Things must be getting bad. They’re so bad that Nouriel Roubini actually thinks he can risk turning bearish again:

Speaking at the Ambrosetti Forum on the shores of Lake Como, near Milan, Roubini said in an interview: “We are in a worse situation than we were in 2008. This time around we have fiscal austerity and banks that are being cautious.” Roubini, known for his bearish views on the world economy, thinks that there is a 60 percent chance of a second recession imminently.

This guy is a complete fraud. He got lucky once, and ever since has been sticking to the mainstream consensus expectations for fear he’ll be wrong again. If he’s saying “there is a 60 percent chance of a second recession” that really means that the statistical shenanigans that disguise the ongoing 2008 to 2011 depression as a recovery are failing.

Supply, demand, and education

It is ironic indeed that those who make a fetish of education are themselves so badly educated that the are unaware of the Law of Supply and Demand. It genuinely appears to surprise them that increasing the supply of university graduates would lower the value of a university degree.

More than a quarter of graduates do not have a full-time job three and a half years after leaving university. A staggering 115,000 youngsters who graduated in 2007 have been consigned to the unemployment scrapheap, lumbered with a dead-end part-time job or are still in education, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

The research will raise serious questions about the value of getting a degree when tuition fees increase from £3,290 to £9,000 next year…. It follows a study last week which revealed that one in five graduates earns less than a person who left school with as little as one A-level.

There is no question about it. The value of getting a degree declines with every additional degree that is granted. And as the number of less educated, more highly skilled workers declines, their value will increase. Furthermore, the expansion in the number of university graduates has coincided, unsurprisingly, with a significant decline in the quality of the educations they have received.

The PZ Myers Memorial Debate

Since we have learned that the Fowl Atheist, Paul Zachary, has given up the art of debating Creationists, (and no doubt numerous Christians will have to remind him of this when he calls into a radio show and attempts to ambush them), it appears we shall have to find another atheist with whom to debate the topic I suggested three years ago. Hence this announcement of the first PZ Myers Memorial Debate, dedicated to the short-lived, but inglorious debating career of our favorite community college butterfly collector. I’m sure we all recall how beautifully he ran; Paul Zachary’s reaction to a challenge reminded me of Usain Bolt’s to the sound of a starter’s pistol.

Of course, a debate requires an opponent, so I’m interested to know if there is an atheist who would like to contest the assertion that there is not only substantial evidence for the existence of gods, but that the logic and the evidence in support of the existence of gods is superior to the logic and the evidence for the nonexistence of them.

This will be a written debate. Each party will simultaneously submit an initial statement of no more than 1,500 words for the other party to critique, and both parties will have one week to respond to the other’s initial statement with a critique of no more than 2,000 words. Whoever the judges determine to have won the first round will have the choice between writing the next post or replying to the first-round loser’s next post. There will be five rounds, after which one side or the other may concede or simply withdraw, or continue if both parties wish. The second to fifth rounds will be limited to 3,000 words.

If you happen to be interested in opposing the assertion, please put your name forward along with any credentials you might deem relevant. I’m also interested in three judges, one Christian, one agnostic, and one atheist, so please put your name forward if you would like to be a judge and believe you are impartial enough to focus on the quality of the arguments. If multiple atheists wish to debate, I will post their names and encourage a discussion among them in order to allow them to select the strongest candidate.

I’m also interested in hearing recommendations on a scoring system. I was thinking of having the judges each award up to 5 points on each exchange, but perhaps someone will have a better idea.

Anyhow, it would be impossible to put up a worse showing than the Fowl Atheist, so if you’re interested, do let me know.

Holocaust a surprising boon for Jews

Without the Holocaust, would the Jews ever have gotten their own internationally recognized state in Palestine? Would they be able to so easily trump every criticism of a Jew, be it legitimate or illegitimate, by simply crying anti-semitism? Sure, the Tribe would probably still run Hollywood even if there had never been a Holocaust since they created it, but would Ben Shalom be Chairman of the Federal Reserve and would Jews be so heavily represented in the U.S. Senate, the Congress, and the U.S. media without it? Clearly, Jews should be as deeply grateful to Mister Hitler for helpfully slaughtering a few million of their fellows as China’s girls are for a mere 43 million of them being sacrificed to the greater good of their sex:

[G]ifted young women are increasingly common in China’s cities and make up the most educated generation of women in Chinese history. Never have so many been in college or graduate school, and never has their ratio to male students been more balanced. To thank for this, experts say, is three decades of steady Chinese economic growth, heavy government spending on education and a third, surprising, factor: the one-child policy….

Still, 43 million girls have “disappeared” in China due to gender-selective abortion as well as neglect and inadequate access to health care and nutrition, the United Nations estimated in a report last year. Yin Yin Nwe, UNICEF’s representative to China, puts it bluntly: The one-child policy brings many benefits for girls “but they have to be born first.”

No doubt we will soon read about how the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis has brought about a renaissance of Tutsi intellectual life in Rwanda and be informed that it was a combination of the sack of Rome, the Black Death and the Mongol invasion of Europe that accounts for that continent’s historical significance. No doubt the AGW/CC crowd will want to ride this pale horse too.

A formidable defender of Darwin

Since Paul Zachary is so fearful, perhaps I should debate this kid. He can’t be any less capable of presenting a logical argument, and clearly he can parrot the current Cult of Darwin consensus with the best of them:

Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were “gaps” in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in the New York Times.

After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, “Evolution, I think, is correct!”

That’s the most extended discussion of Darwin’s theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.

Well, if a nine year-old kid thinks it’s correct, it must be correct! QED. Miss Coulter’s last claim is certainly interesting, given the massive emphasis that the Cult of Darwin places upon exposing schoolchildren to its relentless propaganda at an early age. But who would have thought that children who can barely learn to read in 12 years of public school might have a tough time retaining anything they’ve been taught about a dynamic quasi-scientific theory?

Personally, I tend to find it extremely amusing when accused of being ignorant about TENSTE(p)NSBMGDaGF. Never mind that I was taught about it in public school by credentialed members of the Cult of Darwin in precisely the manner the cultists advocate. The fact is that unlike most Darwinians, I have read seven of Richard Dawkins’s ten books, two of Stephen Gould’s, a random assortment of books by other authors including Charles Darwin, Marc Hauser and Daniel Dennett, around 50 published papers which relate to natural selection in some way and more than 20 years worth of magazines such as Natural History and New Scientist.

This doesn’t make me any sort of expert on the subject. But I should think it tends to indicate that I am not completely uninformed about it. And it’s certainly ironic to be repeatedly accused of ignorance when not having read any economists from Turgot to Tobin or theologians from Tertullian to Craig ever seems to prevent credentialed Cult of Darwin members from opining authoritatively on economics or theology.

All ur bikes are belong to us

It’s always interesting to see when one aspect of the overblown Nanny State is at war with another aspect of it. I think we can safely declare the Green movement dead with this report of egregious child abuse:

“On August 25th my 10 year daughter arrived home via police officer, requested to speak to me on the front porch of my home. The officer informed me that in his ‘judgement’ it was unsafe for my daughter to ride her bike to school.”

Ms Tryon called the mayor’s office and the chief of police office in order to determine what laws she was breaking by allowing her daughter to ride her bike to school. Her daughter’s route to school was reasonably safe.

Major Verran of the police department returned Ms Tryon’s call. She said he told me, “He had spoke with the District Attorney’s office who advised that until the officer can speak with Child Protective Services that if I allow my daughter to ride/walk to school I will be breaking the law and treated accordingly.

She asked, “What law she would be breaking to which the answer was ‘child neglect'”.

Ms Tryon confirm with Major Verran that her daughter was indeed breaking no laws at any level, but it was Ms Tryon who was breaking the law by allowing her daughter to ride/walk to school. Even though it only takes her daughter 7 – 9 minutes to bicycle to school, she is expected to ride the bus.

By the way, in Big Government Europe, children are not only expected to walk to school, but this time of year there are massive posters put up warning drivers to be careful and on the lookout for schoolchildren walking to and from school. The only police involvement is to man the crossings at the busy streets.

As a commenter on another site pointed out, it’s a fascinating charge of child endangerment, especially considering that the schoolbus she will be required to ride doesn’t have seatbelts, much less five-point child safety seats. But let’s not be too harsh on the police officer. He’s just concerned for her safety, because the police are all about protecting and servicing.

What feminism is

In Gloria Steinem’s own words:

“Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you are not the boss of me,’ and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether.”

In other words, it is an intrinsically childish ideology founded on an abstraction and defies empirical reality and the entire historical record of Man. That sounds about right.