Category: Uncategorized

“A good message, the philosophy of Liberty. People are still interested in being free people, living in a free country…. it’s a good message, but I don’t believe in spreading it with guns.”

Sam Harris is just a poor, misunderstood soul. Or he would be if he had one, anyhow:

Exhibit 1:
As I mentioned briefly during the live event, Hedges misrepresented my views on several topics in his opening remarks. Rather than do a little fact-checking after the debate, he chose to make these distortions indelible in his essay, “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.”

Exhibit 2:
Before I address your central argument, I’d like to point out that you continue to misunderstand me in small ways that make me seem (even) more boorish than I am…. While you admit to being “a little evasive” about the details of your Christianity, I think this has been less of an issue than your not addressing many of the points I’ve raised which are (in my view) quite damaging to the case you have made for faith.

Exhibit 3:
I should clear up a couple misconceptions you have about me…. This debate is fast drawing to a close, Dennis, and you have neither addressed my arguments nor presented any substantive arguments of your own…. I trust that attentive readers will notice where you have misconstrued me (or rendered a tortured interpretation of Collins, polling data, etc.).

It’s amazing how utterly shameless Harris is. For example, I looked at the section preceding his claim that Sullivan hasn’t addressed his points; in a meandering rant of 2,000 words, he only asks Sullivan one question that isn’t a rhetorical one he answers himself. And the question was a minor one that Sullivan was right to ignore.

You know, if Sam Harris is so often and easily misunderstood by every interlocutor with whom he engages, one would reasonably assume that the fault must lie with him and his inability to express himself in a clear and coherent manner. Regardless, anyone debating Sam Harris should be sure to arrange for a moderator, since trollish buffoonery is a major element of his debating style.

Emilio wonders why I don’t support Tancredo:

your call for rush to endorse ron paul was not a good idea, if you are going to ask “the godfather” to endorse anyone, it would have been a better choice tom tancredo, as small as it is, he would have a much better chance to pull it off than mr. paul. tancredo main focus is on illegal immigration, what is mr. paul’s stand on the subject? would he close the borders? i have asked ms mercer since she is another libertarian, and she does not know the answer to that question. i agree we should bring home troops back from all over the world, but would he put them once here, on the border?
also his view that the main reason the islamic terrorists hate us is because we went over there, is not quite true, they hate us because THEY HATE EVERYBODY THAT IS NOT MUSLIM and will not be happy until they take over the whole world, whether we had gone there or not. those two points makes me very leery of mr. paul.

Paul wants to defend the border and limit immigration. Paul is also a much more viable candidate than Tancredo, who is good on immigration but isn’t anywhere nearly as articulate. Also, Paul has proven that he is an unusually principled man, Tancredo has not.

Paul never said anything about why they hate us, he correctly identified why they ATTACKED us. There is a big difference.

thanks for answering, i agree about his having been articulate. i hope in future speeches mr. paul puts the emphasis on the illegal invasion of mexico because that is what will bring this country down in the near future without a doubt.

Don’t get me wrong, Tancredo is much better than Giuliani, McCain or Romney, he simply isn’t as reliable on the Constitutional issues as Paul. The same goes for Hunter or Huckabee. Still, it’s interesting to see how many people generally like Paul but give one or two reasons for not supporting him which are based on a mistaken view of his actual positions.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, is pure Three Monkey Republican bait, anyone who believes that he will be any different than George W. Bush is risks being fooled thrice. Proof of this is the way Bush’s biggest supporters are now rushing to get on board with Thompson’s campaign. Thompson will likely talk a good game, just as George Delano did in 2000, and that may allow him to keep the Republican Party from entirely imploding by losing to Hillary in a respectable manner instead of being blown out in the historic landslide I’m expecting.

I find Thompson’s entry to be very interesting, as I suspect it is a desperate “Save the Party” move designed to prevent that backbone-busting blowout. It’s proof that the Giuliani sale failed. I’m not convinced that it will even work, as I have little doubt that Thompson’s appeal will dissipate as soon as conservatives realize that he’s simply offering the same status quo currently on offer from Romney and McCain. He’s pro-occupation, anti-free speech and pro-UN, so there’s no reason for conservatives to be any more excited about him as a potential Hillary-killer than the other three candidates favored by the leadership.

Another of those strangely common correlations between atheism and a personal moral code which justifies slaughtering millions:

The name of the Mao movie is significant. Mao once described himself as “without law and without heaven.”

Mao wrote: “I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s actions has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others. … People like me want to … satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me. … People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.”

I note that there’s no claim killing anyone in the name of Communism. His actions are merely guided by the individual morality which atheists insist that everyone must determine for himself.

This doesn’t make any other atheist responsible for Mao’s actions, of course, but it certainly justifies viewing every individual possessed of a subjectively determined morality with more than a little skepticism until they have demonstrated that their personal moral code is not too violently in conflict with the objective moral codes of Christianity or whatever the dominant code happens to be.

Sadly, No:

But even that is mild compared to Vox Day, for whom accusations that Bush always was a liberal are too timid to bother with. No, Vox says that Bush was always a socialist!

None of these former Bush cultists can admit that Dear Leader was the bee’s knees, gave them exactly what they wanted, was a living God, was the acme of conservatism. Because to admit that is to admit the fact that what they believe in — their ‘principles’, their ideology, all of which Bush personified — sucks and is a menace to humanity. It’s our job to deny them their grip, to kick them off the cliff along with Dear Leader. Because if we don’t, they’ll just find another Dear Leader, and the Cult will be restored. No mercy. Fuck these people.

Actually, what they don’t understand is that Bush’s anointed heir is Hillary Clinton. That’s why I’ve been predicting her victory for the last eighteen months. The problem for both the conservatives who are now realizing that they were suckered and the left-wingers who are in the process of replacing them as suckers is that they are looking at a game of Go and thinking it is Checkers.

And seriously, how do you read this blog or any of my columns and reach the conclusion that I am a former Bush cultist?

Bush is a socialist, which is why so much of his World Democratic Revolution language echoes Trotsky. So is Hillary, which is why her election won’t end the wars anymore than the election of a Democratic House and Senate did.

UPDATE: the Left truly is deranged. Here’s yet more evidence:

merlallen said,
June 5, 2007 at 12:54

so why did vox day vote for him twice? i don’t have to read the fuckwit to make fun of him. fuck you pussies.

Just to set the matter straight, I have never voted for any member of the Bush family.

You’d think my fellow scientist would understand the difference between hypothesis and causation:

Public schools mostly take religion for granted—it’s rife in athletics, in particular, but many of the ceremonies have prayers and ministers involved—so when a valedictorian speech damns her godless classmates to hell, it’s just a reflection of the culture.

It’s very strange that PZ should care one way or another over a young girl expressing her belief that [presumably] nonexistent souls will go to a [presumably] nonexistent place unless the individual acknowledges a [presumably] nonexistent being. Would he have been equally offended if she had said that her classmates’ auras would not go to fairyland if they refused to believe in Tinkerbell?

While Shannon Spaulding may be a valedictorian, neither she nor any other human being has the power to damn anyone anywhere. What she did was no different than warning someone that he is in the process of walking into a burning building and will burn to death if he does not modify his direction. To equate the delivery of such a warning with sending someone to a fiery death is an abuse of the English language.

No one sends anyone else to Hell. Objecting to an infernal afterlife is like complaining that driving south on Interstate 35 will take you to Texas. That’s where the road goes, so unless you take the exit provided, that’s where you’ll end up. No one’s going to make you turn off, your destination is your choice.

Apparently Michael Medved believes there’s sufficient evidence to prove the existence of Nessie and Bigfoot, but not the North American Union:

So a badly photographed, information-free videotape is released that purports to be the Loch Ness monster… and instantly, Michael Medved touts it as “stunning evidence” that proves “Nessie” exists. Considering his infatuation with Bigfoot, and his belief that, except for a few bitter-enders, scientists all agree that Mr. Sasquatch exists, color me unsurprised.

Sometimes it’s hard for me to decide if I’m truly an Internet superintelligence, or if the “conservative” commentariat is simply so blitheringly stupid that I’m merely an average UI and it’s only the delta that makes me look like the uploaded love-child of Sir Isaac Newton and Marilyn vos Savant.

They’ll just ignore you:

Congress’s week-long Memorial Day recess was expected to leave the bill in tatters. But with a week of action set to begin today, the legislation’s champions say they believe that the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led negotiations on the bill for his party, said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day.

It’s time to leave the Republican Party. You can stick around long enough to vote in the nomination process if you like, but you might as well start getting used to the idea that if you are at all conservative or pro-American, the Republican Party has no use or place for you. And why should they, when they’re more interested in competing for the favor of the 100 million Mexicans they plan to make citizens of the North American Union than the 21 million conservative Republicans who vote.

Those socialists in Vermont have the right idea in pushing for secession.