Category: Uncategorized

To me, it’s less offensive that the Wisconsin court decided that it’s acceptable for the police to plant GPS tracking devices without a warrant. The problem is that the police want to do it in the first place:

Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody’s movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday. However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was “more than a little troubled” by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals. As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights — even if the drivers aren’t suspects.

As I have said many times before, the police are not on your side. They consider you to be the enemy, at best, the potential enemy. In light of this, the only rational response is for the American citizenry to view them in precisely the same way. Don’t kid yourself. If their superiors ever decide to order them to do what numerous other authoritarian governments have ordered their police and security forces to do in the past, I will be surprised if a single one of them will have the courage to resign, let alone resist. They’ll just follow orders and do it, regardless of whether that involves spying on citizens, hunting for constitutionally-protected arms, or rounding up Juden.

Ron Paul was Right

Less than five years after Karl Rove mused openly about the possibility of Republican dominance for decades – an idea which was absurd at the time – the Republican Party finds itself in disarray. The moderate wing is showing itself to be as RINO as ever, and in one case, that of Sen. Arlen Specter, the pretense is finally over. It goes without saying that the moderates are wrong; their advice to do as the Democrats do, only a little less enthusiastically, not only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamic nature of electoral politics in a democracy, but ignores the fact that this was essentially George W. Bush’s approach to governance.

Legal Insurrection on the conspiracy of culinary silence:

My two posts on the televised Obama/Biden burger joint visit and Obama’s request for Dijon mustard, MSNBC Hides Obama’s Dijon Mustard (aka Dijongate) and Thou Shall Not Mock Obama’s Mustard, generated enormous reaction. Neither of these posts was about mustard as such, but rather, the absurd extent to which the Obama administration went to create a “real guy kind of quality” image of Obama/Biden eating “Hell Burgers,” and how MSNBC played along like a loyal worshipper through its coverage and editing…. But there was a serious overall point, being the absurd image control and media fawning. Needless to say, the nutroots portrayed the posts as being a complaint about the type of mustard Obama used. A useful device of distortion straight from the Media Matters playbook.

Seeing how my posts were distorted was not terribly surprising; that is how things go on the internet. The level of vitriol was something I knew existed, but had never personally experienced. As crazed as the published comments were, there were others I didn’t publish telling me to kill myself and do other things, and plenty of bizarre e-mails. All of these people made fools of themselves.

The reaction proved one thing I already knew: The cult of personality surrounding Obama is real. And many of the cultists are demented, dangerous or both.

As the professor says, it’s not exactly news that Obama has an insane cult of personality. As the Other McCain points out, this is just more evidence that “MSNBC and other major media are… doing public relations for the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.” What I find much more interesting is that MSNBC apparently believes it is somehow possible to hide the fact that Obama is an effete elitist from the American public. It’s like trying to conceal Barney Frank’s homosexuality or Tommy Lee’s affinity for strippers.

If you think that little of your potential audience’s intelligence, you shouldn’t be surprised that no one watches you; they clearly aren’t capable of finding the on-switch. Most people are idiots, not algae.

In this week’s Black Gate post, I’ve reviewed Rage of the Behemoth, the new heroic adventure anthology from Rogue Blades. If you enjoy old-school pulp adventure fiction of the sort that Robert Howard used to write, or even the newer school variety such as David Gemmell, I highly recommend putting this collection of stories on your reading list as its hit rate is much better than the norm. The entire review is at Black Gate while the book itself can be ordered in a few different collector’s editions directly from Rogue Blades.

Obama puts the lie to the fearful community of comedians and their oft-repeated idea there’s nothing funny about him:

“During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days.”

“My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.”

He’s got better writers than John Stewart, anyhow. And although the “bare arms” one was painfully lame, let’s face it, she’s his wife. You can hardly blame the guy for keeping it safe on that one.

I just think it’s too bad that someone hasn’t run with the idea I read about in the comments to some site the other day, in which Obama gets caught smoking by his wife, then ums and ahs in helplessly incoherent babbling until Rahm Emmanuel gets the teleprompter set up, at which point he rips off a totally flawless excuse.

Derek proves to be a gift that keeps on giving. I can understand why some cynics might believe that I invent these critics, note how his attempts at criticism, as hapless as they may be, are actually more substantive and relevant than the sort usually provided by the likes of PZ, Orac, and the Sciencebloggers.

I can’t complain about a quick response. A personal insult immediately in your response, how very… expected. Anyway, maybe my stupid mind can accept aspects of science being dangerous to humanity. I have seen the terminator and matrix movies, so you actually make a valid point. However, from your writing, you have no where near the science and math education that I have. Your writing shows a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method.

I know some about Feynman, but he was a scientist. Not knowing his entire history, I plead ignorance, but if he did not follow the scientific method, then he would have been discredited quickly, because that is how the scientific method works, as opposed to blind faith in what is comfortable. The scientific method is simply observing reality and not clinging to silly stories. It is not religious, yet religious types should not be so fearful. They have been used for many years by very greedy criminals that represent less than 1% of the population. I prefer democracy and science, because it represents what a vast majority want, and that includes me.

Let me get this straight. The guy emails to declare one of my columns “the most idiotic thing he has ever read” then complains about getting personally insulted when he is described – accurately, I think – as stupid for failing to comprehend that science is merely a tool that can be either harmful or beneficial depending upon how it is used? Fortunately, however, he has seen The Terminator, so he now admits my point to be valid, despite his previous dismissal of the case as idiotic. As for his definition of science, I shall simply note that it differs significantly from mine, Karl Popper’s, and every English language dictionary.

What is a science fetishist? Would such a person worship a physics textbook written in 1983, or make offerings to a pendulum? Naked assertions? The emperor has no clothes, but I will maintain some coverage. That is some bad writing, even to respond to even worse writing.

A science fetishist is someone who regards the current state of scientage as definitive and elevates the pronouncement of scientists – particularly in the form of scientific consensus – to the level of a static and quasi-sacred scripture. Fetish, in this sense, does not imply religious worship, only the doxastic division of labor that Daniel Dennett decries in Breaking the Spell.

‘No one, least of all me, gives a damn about what you have read or what you might happen to think’

Damn, so much hospitality, I might have to wear a Kevlar vest! I was just trying to have a discussion of logic and humor. Your writing is so ironically humorous that I felt compelled to respond.

Guests who manage to avoid pissing on the Persians are treated with considerably more hospitality than those who enter uninvited and promptly exhibit all the continence of an elderly dog with a bladder infection.

‘Your childish advice to ignore the benefits of health care due to legitimate concerns about bioweapons is totally illogical, as is your ridiculous notion that I don’t understand something as simple as the scientific method.’

Bioweapons? Where did that come from? Again, Wow! That is what you wrote. Bioweapons, becomes an excuse? From your own writings, it would seem that modern hospitals are places of danger (due to that menace, science), so again, I recommend that you set up more bible appropriate hospital.

Bioweapons, along with numerous other potentially lethal threats to Mankind, are the products of science, specifically, the result of scientistry utilizing scientody. Since Derek is attempting to criticize my case against science, bioweapons are not only every bit as pertinent to the discussion as modern hospitals, they are actually more relevant due to the many non-scientific factors that contributed to the development of modern hospitals and medical care. Derek is apparently unaware that religious hospitals are the fastest growing hospitals in the United States; religious hospitals provide at least 20 percent of the total beds.

Much of what I have seen, regarding evangelicals and fundamentalists, is all about forcing some very restrictive and superstitious type of life on everyone in this country that was founded on freedom from a king and religious freedom. So, I am bothered by those that push their religion in my face and try to legislate my obedience to it. Whatever, happened to choice? I can appreciate your response and your conviction, but it seems so silly to me and it is a beautiful spring day, so I will go out and enjoy it. I will be riding a vintage schwinn with such things as brazing, gear ratios and other science things.

It was Derek’s choice to read my column, I did not push it in his face. Moreover, I am a libertarian and I have never called for legislative restrictions on science, in fact, I have even warned of the negative consequences for science that will likely stem from the Title IX legislation that is in the process of being applied to science departments across the nation.

Derek manages to stump an Internet Superintelligence:

I just read your case against science and some of your other ‘work’. Amazing! As farce it is very funny, but if serious, it is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. You instantly destroy your own ‘argument’ and pack a short article with so much ignorance, flawed logic, falsehoods, and deranged thinking, it is truly a wonder. You do not even understand the scientific method that demolishes your ‘argument’ almost immediately. Believe what you will, but trying to force those beliefs on others who reject them is offensive. Since you are so against science, you should stay away from modern hospitals with all their advances in health care derived from science. Set up fundamentalist hospitals so you can stay true to your beliefs.

Derek is really pretty stupid if he truly doesn’t understand that science is as potentially dangerous to humanity as beneficial. I’m hardly alone in noticing this, as my view is no different than Richard Feynman’s, among many others. His naked assertions mean absolutely nothing; if he has an actual case to make, then I would encourage him to actually attempt making it. No one, least of all me, gives a damn about what he has read or what he might happen to think.

Of course, the complete lack of logic that Derek reveals in just a few short sentences indicates that the probable reason Derek fails to actually substantiate any of his assertions is that he isn’t capable of doing so. This is quite common among science fetishists because they don’t think before expressing “their” opinions, they merely regurgitate the same talking points we have heard so many times before. Derek is a model example, right down to the “you just don’t understand the complicated and ineffable magic of science”.

I will freely admit, however, that I have absolutely no idea how the scientific method almost immediately demolishes my case against science. Perhaps Derek or some other science enthusiast would be so kind as to explain this to me.

VDH belatedly notes that sacrificing principle for political pragmatism didn’t work so well:

The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives…. Once Republicans started talking about federal deficits only in terms of manageable percentages of GDP rather than as real money, they forfeited the entire issue of fiscal responsibility, and lost the moral high ground. Barack Obama can get away with unprecedented and astronomical of projected deficits, in part because the Republicans are not credible any more on spending….

If the Republicans think they can outbid the Democrats for the support of feminists, gays, and growing numbers of minorities, then they will only add embarrassment and permanent failure to the present natural cycle of political correction.

As counterintuitive as it may sound to the average political analyst, it was the liberalism of the Bush administration and the Republican congresses, not their conservativism, that led to the financial crisis and enabled the Democrats to move further to the Left. Bush didn’t have to appoint Bernanke. McCain didn’t have to tie himself to the banking bailouts… had he actually been the maverick that he feigns to be, he could have slaughtered Obama courtesy of his close ties to Wall Street and Fannie Mae. And, as VDH notes, the party that outspent LBJ simply has no credibility in complaining about Obama’s even more outlandish expenditures.

Those who believe in chasing electorates and polls don’t understand that electorates are not static, which is why their efforts are doomed to failure. They’re dynamic and they will respond favorably even to those with whom they are in fundamental disagreement for a variety of reasons. Obama will screw up, and badly, there is little question of that. But it’s far from certain that the Republicans will be able to take advantage of his mistakes and eventual unpopularity; listening to the advice of the accomodationist squish faction will only ensure another 40 years in the political wilderness.

Well, that would kind of explain why the Left consists primarily of losers:

Everyone in France who passes the Baccalaureat or “Bac” has the right to take up a state university place. The result is that the France’s public universities are overcrowded, under-funded, have high drop-out rates and fail to make any international league tables.

Economics is complex and difficult; it’s often more art than science. But really, the Law of Supply and Demand is arguably as settled than any thermodynamic law. If you reduce the price and the supply remains constant, you can’t expect demand to remain static.