Category: Uncategorized

The Amazon surge is on… as of the first hour, TIA stands at:

#1,291
#8 in Atheism

Amazon updates hourly, so if you happen to be up, please post the rankings here in the comments as they change. Thanks very much!

UPDATE – #311, #4 in Atheism

Strangely enough, the reviews all disappeared from Amazon. I suspect this might have something to do with the fact that the book is still official pre-release even though Amazon has been shipping the book for a week. I’ll let you know if we find out anything, otherwise, we’ll see if they reappear in two weeks or not.

That’s the plan for tonight, as I’m going to try to get a bit of sleep, then throw down a few cappuci before appearing on Kriston’s Cyber-Line show at 10:15 PM (CST). Swing by and see if any of the Ilk manage to score any points according to Nate’s scoreboard. The book surge starts an hour and fifteen minutes before that and will run from 9 PM tonight to 9 PM tomorrow night, (again Central time), so it occurs to me that perhaps I should offer those still sitting on the fence some reasons to consider participating in the Amazon order surge.

1. As anticipated, the media has decided that whereas the New Atheists are an Exciting Story requiring extensive coverage, all responses to them are old news and should not be mentioned in the press for any reason. Only a higher profile, like The Irrational Atheist becoming a bestseller of one sort or another, will force the general media to acknowledge its existence. Thanks to my iconoclastic standing in both the conservative and Christian medias, the same is apparently true for those as well. You’d think for all the complaints that have been written about Dawkins and company, there would have been a lot of interest in TIA. But according to the publicist, even Christianity Today is sticking with the “old news” line. Because, you know, no one ever wrote anything about God or atheism before 2003….

2. Christians often find themselves encountering the same atheist talking points over and over and over again. TIA provides the Christian with detailed, well-documented and devastating responses to most of the ones you’ve heard before and more than a few that you haven’t. And yet, unlike most of the books with which it is occasionally confused, TIA is not an apologetic, it is an assault.

3. Many children raised in religious homes are sheltered and never have the benefit of hearing the best arguments for atheism in an environment that does not foster it. So, when they first encounter them in the university setting, they are ill-prepared to understand the full extent to which they are being sold a false bill of goods. For the university student or university student-to-be, TIA is equally effective as an intellectual vaccination or post-facto antidote.

4. Many atheists consider themselves to be the heirs of the Enlightenment and champions of human reason. TIA is an avowed challenge to that claim as well as to many reasons historically given to justify non-belief in God and/or anti-religious sentiments. Anyone who is genuinely dedicated to reason should feel at least some responsibility to give these challenges a dispassionate, even-handed examination.

5. If you’re a longtime fan, then you’ll know that this is one of the few times you’ll be given the chance to vote with your dollar. I’m not going to pull a Sally Struthers on you and pretend that I need the money; most of you know perfectly well that I don’t. But this isn’t about the money and I certainly wouldn’t ask you to participate if it was. And if you can’t afford it, no worries, I’ll have free downloads of the text available in two weeks.

Perhaps some of those here can think of one or two additional reasons, but whatever your motivation, I hope you’ll consider taking part in the TIA surge over the coming 24 hours. For the most effective way to participate, here are the instructions for doing so.

Regarding an article – by a woman, of course – which complains that men are retiring too soon to give their wives the ability to sit around and do nothing after they are dead:

Yes, those troublesome men. They die earlier than women and therefore should work longer to provide for their merry widow in retirement. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? It seems to me that if you are going to die sooner, you will have a shorter retirement to enjoy and therefore, you should retire sooner, not later. But, naturally, the writer looks at what is best for women, so guys, get back to work so your wife won’t have to.

Or on the other hand, maybe someone should suggest to wives that since their husbands will be supporting them long after they’re gone, maybe the wives should try to make the few years their husbands have remaining a bit more pleasant.

Now, I fully expect to give my family the means to provide for themselves long after I have departed the premises. I believe it’s the right thing to do and I think the British ban on widow-burning not only made for a great story – “we have a tradition too….” – but was a meaningful expansion of Western civilization. Still, reading that matriarchal advocate’s obnoxious article is enough to make the most sensitive over-feminized male Democrat wonder if perhaps the Hindus might have had a point with that whole suttee thing.

He’s apparently learned the hard way that it’s much better to sit it out than get another Republican like Bush in office:

I have a feeling there’s been a secret meeting to which I have not been invited. Many of my friends must have attended, because they’re all thinking alike.

Suddenly, because Mitt Romney narrowly won one primary in his birth state – the state formerly presided over by his governor father and a primary he was expected to win all along – he has been crowned, by these friends of mine, as the heir apparent to the GOP presidential nomination.

I’m not buying it. I’m not drinking that Kool-aid. Not now, not ever.

A big government Republican like Bush or Romney is actually worse in many ways than a liberal Democrat in office, because while the big government “conservative” governs very like a liberal, the evil results of his actions are inevitably blamed on conservatives. This sets the stage for more leftward movement. There is also the Nixon-to-China phenomenon. For example, Democrats could not have achieved the massive violations of American freedom inherent in the Patriot Acts, so the Bush Republicans did it for them. Now, as the second act of the bipartisan tango, it’s highly probable that Hillary will come in and make enthusiastic use of them.

I just hope Mr. Farah will remain firm in his resolve when the Fox News crew begins shrieking about the need to defeat Hillary in the Mostest Importantest Election Ever.

And goes to the ground and pound:

As for my comment that Frum’s empiricism is theoretical, let me amplify it here: Frum has a knack for finding the arresting fact that is interesting, if true. The trouble is that too many of his facts are not true. I find that none of his facts can be trusted without independent verification. Again and again when one looks at the evidence underlying his claims, it falls short.

Reading this, the first thing I thought was “yeah, that’s going to sting”. And the second thing was “I’ll bet Frum is going to be dumb enough to demand some examples from Ramesh.” After all, based on our recent experience of him, Frum has the courage and judgment of an intoxicated man determined to enter the tiger’s cage.

So it didn’t surprise me in the least when Frum did exactly as I’d thought he would, making this all-too-predictable defense in which he only manages to set himself up for a jaw-breaking smackdown: “Well, since I myself provide the verification in the form of dozens of footnotes citing Census, Federal Reserve, polling, and other data, the task of testing the truth of what I say should not prove too difficult. But so narrowly literal a response does not do justice to the weird combination of vitriol and grandiosity that increasingly characterizes Ramesh’s contributions to this discussion.”

One can almost hear Ramesh sighing and shaking his head before he unloads. In response to Frum’s “dozens of footnotes”, he points out how Frum, rather like the proverbial Nietzsche-reading ape, may cite the Census, the Federal Reserve, polling and other data, but he does not understand it! By way of specific example, Ramesh shows how Frum confuses an increase OF 10,000 to 60,000 (in other words, from 50,000 to 60,000) with an increase FROM 10,000 to 60,000.

Frum’s Reign of Error

A sixfold increase in the Latino population—that’s a striking illustration of several of the trends Frum writes about in his book…. Later I checked Frum’s footnote, which directs you to a New York Times story. Here’s what it says:

According to the Louisiana Health and Population Survey, released in November, the number of Latinos living in households in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes has increased by about 10,000 since 2004, to 60,000.

So instead of a 500 percent increase, there was a 20 percent increase. There’s David Frum’s vaunted empiricism for you.

I didn’t have time to check every claim in the book. Usually when I did check one of his claims, though, it didn’t bear out…. I will persist in holding that his book has some real insights about what’s wrong with conservatism. But among its flaws is a pervasive sloppiness with the facts it prides itself on facing.

Garbage in, garbage out. Instead of trying to defend his shoddy work and making bitchy little comments about what he imagines is Ponnuru’s grandiosity, Frum would do better to accept the criticism and learn to be more meticulous. He would also be wise to stop trying to pick arguments with people who are more empirically minded and eminently capable of calling him out on his ignorant flights of logical fantasy.

For as Eco quotes Aquinas: “vires coporales subicuintur viribus animalibus, vires animales intellectualbus, et intellectuales practicae speculativis… ideo simpliciter veritas dignior est et excellentior et fortior.”

The cultural war is not entirely lost as yet:

The movie [The Golden Compass] tanked so badly that the second and third installments are not going to be made (it did fairly well overseas, but unfortunately for New Line Cinema, that didn’t help because it pre-sold those rights).

Gee, such a shame. Pullman has no one but himself to blame, considering that he went out of his way to set his godless work against the much-beloved Chronicles of Narnia. That might escape notice in a series of books, but it was never going to sneak past anyone once it became a reasonably high-profile movie.

One could, of course, argue that the diluted atheism of the movie was one reason it failed. However, I suspect a movie that had pushed the very anti-religious elements that were dialed back in the film would have made it an even bigger failure. And film is a lousy medium for most books anyhow, look how badly The Dark is Rising was abused and, unsurprisingly enough, how poorly it did.

Rule #1 – when seeking a mass-market hit, do try to recall that turning off your built-in base will guarantee failure, because any advantages derived will be completely overwhelmed by the negative word of mouth from the only people who actually care what you’re doing. People may be stupid, but they’re not stupid enough to blindly support something that destroys the very object of their affection.

No new Amazon reviews today, but the sweetly sensitive soul that is Bane has taken the unusual approach of writing a serial review on his blog. Here’s how he describes it so far:

I have decided to start reviewing this book a chunk at a time. It is the kind of writing that compels me to write, and he does all of your thinking for you, so you don’t have to do anything but lay back and enjoy it. So far.

And what a work of art it is. So far. It grabs you by the nose with velvet gloved fingers, pulls you around where it wants you to go…I am reminded of the Francis Dollarhyde character in Manhunter, when he is giving the slide show to the creep reporter Freddy Lounds, saying “Do you see?” as he takes Freddy from one scene of horror to the next.

It’s such a pity that the publisher didn’t query Bane for pre-release comments: “Read this book – it’s like watching a massacre in slow motion!” Actually, come to think of it, one of the editors did say that she wasn’t surprised to learn that I was involved with games because the book reminded her of one of those games where the player just walks in the room with a shotgun and shoots everything that moves. So perhaps the Reaper’s Hairball has a salient point after all.

Speaking of shots, the OC has laid out his thoughts on the best way to take part in the book surge at the Ranting Room. The essentials are: order your books between 9 PM Saturday to 9 PM Sunday (CST). I’ll be kicking it off with an interview with Cyber-Line on Saturday evening, then running a live blog during the Championship games, complete with regular surge updates. So, whether you’re taking part or not, do swing by during the games. We’ll be around.

The neocons are rapidly exiting tragedy and entering the realm of farce:

Following up on the alleged incident in the Strait of Hormuz with those five Iranian speedboats, remember that radioed threat supposedly coming from the Iranian side? Now they’re blaming it on – are you ready for this? – “the Filipino Monkey,” some crazy guy (or guys) whose obscene remarks have come crackling over ship radios in the area for years. Notice how quickly the official story is changing. First the transmission was a threat coming from the Iranians: now they’re “unsure.” This is contrary to the President’s characterization of what occurred, and the Pentagon’s video presentation of a threat emanating from the speedboats: the allegedly “aggressive” actions of the Iranians are underscored by an audio overlay in which a voice interpolates “I am coming to you, you will explode in a few minutes.”

The Iranians are calling the US video a fabrication, and it sure does look like that.

I think it’s glaringly apparent that the neocons badly need some better strategists and storytellers on their side. They’re desperately casting around for some excuse, any excuse, that will get the American people fired up again for war that doesn’t require the ritual sacrifice of a large American city. But it simply won’t work. In fact, even a dirty-bombed city or two might not get them the war they’re looking for since an increasing number of people are growing ever more skeptical about the Official Story, and rightly so considering how it is reliably wide of the margin when it comes to verifiable facts. The neocons are well past the point of diminishing marginal returns; hardly anyone even paid attention to George Bush’s half-hearted sabre-rattling this time.

This is quite tenses! Ah see OJ!

The radio giant’s BROTHER’S endorsement is much better than Ann Coulter’s, anyhow. Give him his due:

Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted. The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.

But as I’ve stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he’s the right choice.

David is correct to state, as Pat Buchanan also notes, that Reagan conservatism isn’t dead or lacking broad support among the base, it’s merely lacking support among the political and media elite who call themselves conservatives but are actually nothing of the sort. The problem is that while Fred Thompson is far from the worst candidate and is unlikely to do much to push the country further towards the abyss himself, neither would he resist the forces that are doing their damndest to force the country to take the plunge. And, it’s worth noting that he’s probably less likely to win than Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.

Sure, it’s a pity that neither David nor his brother responded affirmatively to my request and threw their support to the only Republican looking forward, but it’s hardly unexpected. But there’s absolutely no reason for despair because Ron Paul was never terribly concerned about winning, he is primarily in the race to build a coalition of freedom-lovers who are capable of providing the nucleus required to relaunch the American project once the inevitable collapse comes.

MEA CULPA – Inexcusable error confusing Rush and David there, especially since David and I exchange email every so often. My only defense is that I didn’t access the column from the Commentary page and it never occurred to me for one second that WND would consider David’s endorsement to be front page news. I mean, David is one of WND’s better columnists, but my readership is no smaller than his and I don’t recall my endorsement of Ron Paul being worthy of the front page.

I don’t know if the headline editor – it wouldn’t have been Mr. Farah, by the way – was simply juicing it up or if this is leading towards a Thompson endorsement by WND. I assume the former, but you never know.

I haven’t read Comeback. Nor am I likely to, considering the author’s very poor track record when it comes to political analysis. (Given that he’s quite good at exhortation, I have no idea why he insists on banging his head on a wall that is obviously beyond his ability to either scale or knock down.) But even from Frum’s own brief description of the book, it was quite clear that if his diagnosis of conservatism’s plight was correct – and it may well be – his prescribed treatment could not possibly be, as Ramesh confirms:

[L]et me point out that in an entire book about how conservatives and Republicans can make a comeback, at no point does Frum offer a word of advice about which voters are likely recruits for a new center-right coalition. So it isn’t as though Frum can say that the strategy he recommends is superior to the one Lowry and I discuss. He has none…. (My chief problem with Frum’s “empiricism” is that it is mostly theoretical.)

And that, in a nutshell, is why Frum is such a terrible analyst despite his stylistic skills and intelligence. Very much like the New Atheists, he substitutes logic for data and calls it an empirical approach. This oxymoronic approach allows a thinker to assemble trains of thought that sound plausible enough, but are bound to end up as flaming wreckage as soon as they run up against reality or a genuinely empirical thinker who has taken the time to assemble the relevant factual information.

It also explains his bizarre position on currency economics, as he avoids taking the long and appalling history of fiat currencies into account by simply ignoring the literal centuries of empirical data on their historical performance in favor of Keynesian theory.