Category: Uncategorized

Mr. Reversion to the Mean does it again:

One point, if I may, about the tempest-in-a-teapot stirred up by Leftist bloggers who seem to claim that it’s illegitimate to cite web responses in talkback features as though they had been edited and selected by the website itself. The decision to run unmoderated forums of the kind used at the Huffington Post is itself an editorial decision. Its purpose is to give readers a sense of ownership in the site, to provide them with a sense of community…to make them co-authors of the site in a sense. It’s a way of making and keeping loyal readers. That’s fine, but if your readers are also going to be your authors, you’ve got to bear some responsibility, even minimal responsibility, for what they say on your site.

That’s ridiculous. Absolutely, utterly ridiculous. The only editorial decision that has been made at the Huffington Post, or here for that matter, is to allow a very wide range of freedom of speech. That does not make me responsible in any way, shape or form for what you or anyone else chooses to post here.

Now, that being said, it is fair to characterize the readers at a site that permits such free speech on the basis of their comments. Huffington is being disingenuous when she claims, on no factual grounds, that the many posts expressing disappointment over Cheney’s survival do not represent the typical views of her readers. The correct answer is “insufficient evidence to derive a conclusion”, so her statement is incorrect, especially since the only available evidence suggests the opposite.

We do, however, have sufficient evidence to conclude that both Podhoretz and Huffington are functional morons.

As for the idea of the Iraqi rebels taking out Cheney, I suspect that a majority of readers there really do wish that they had. The much bigger problem for the Republican party is that I also suspect that a majority of readers on many conservative sites wish that the Iraqis had been successful, and also nailed the President, the Supreme Court and the Congress with him.

John Scalzi laments the death of a boy due to an infected tooth:

Some folks will want to blame the insurance system in the US. Some folks will want to blame the dentists. Some folks will want to blame the government. Some folks will want to blame the mother. Some folks will blame some combination of any or all of the above.

I’m not particularly interested in whom to blame. You all can argue about that. I just think it’s a shame that ultimately this kid is dead for no other reason than because he was poor.

While I agree that it is a genuine pity, one must note that the routine $80 tooth extraction “might” have saved him. Furthermore, don’t two operations and six weeks of hospital care cost a bit more than $80? How does poverty apply to being able to afford the latter and not the former?

Finally, how on Earth do two young boys manage to have seven cavities between them? Obviously we don’t know the facts, but I’m guessing that the family’s poverty didn’t get in the way of buying relatively expensive high-sugar trash instead of less expensive basic foods.

Scalzi is an intelligent man, but in this case, he’s letting his ideology sabotage his cognitive functions. Not only is it clearly NOT the case that there is “no other reason than because he was poor”, but there’s no indication, let alone proof that it had anything to do with his mother’s poverty.

And what about the boy’s father? Apparently he doesn’t come in for any of the blame… let’s just say it isn’t likely to be difficult to deduce some of the unreported facts of this sad case.

Poverty in Western society is relative and it cannot be solved by government action. Intelligent individuals with liberal leanings will continue to render themselves functionally stupid until they manage to get this through their decades-thick skulls. The only reason that it’s nearly impossible to see a doctor or dentist without insurance is due to the government policies that actively discourage them from doing so.

And if you think more government involvement is the answer to that, I’d strongly suggest visiting the UK or the Netherlands to understand just how badly that will backfire on you.

Since I can never remember who has requested an addition to the blogroll, but dimly recall that somebody recently made a request, this is the time and place to do so. The requirements are, as always:

1. Ask.
2. Have a link to this blog on your blogroll.
3. It must be an actual blog, not a coati porn site or whatever.

I’ll give pride of place among the new blogs to the one who can either name seven Umberto Eco books off the top of their head (counting English titles only) or name my favorite pop historian. And if there are any dead blogs currently on the rolls, please let me know that as well.

On an unrelated note, does anyone know if Windows Movie Maker lets you continue the audio from a video clip while superimposing a static or animated graphic over it? Something like the following, if A is the audio track for clip V:

A—————–
V—-|****|——-

Amynda addresses the gap between personal behavior and public advocacy:

Okay, I’ve been busy unpacking and trying to release my apartment, so I’ve been a bit behind on the blogging. That said, I can’t help but hear that the wingnuts are attacking me for being a “antisemite” for attacking Jews, as if that means anything in terms of society. Battlepanda has got a pretty good take on how silly all this is.

However, the problem of anti-semitism is wayyy beyond the capability of personal virtue to solve.

For instance, there is no doubt in my mind anti-semitism is a real phenomenon, but I still use the word kike, quote from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, burn synagogues etc. etc. Why? Because I am not a sucker. Why should I deny myself my comforts when everybody else is acting anti-semitic anyhow?

However, I am in favor of the Middle East peace process. Sure, I’ll be paying more for military aid to Israel and other stuff, but so will everyone else. So, unlike unilaterally changing my own behavior, my sacrifice might count for something in terms of society’s future well-being.

What I’ve seen Amynda do very effectively is raising awareness about the issue of anti-semitism and arguing that we should do something about it collectivelly. Not because we liberals are all secretly commies and love to do things collectively but because it is the only fair and effective way to end racism.

The very notion that I am a hypocrite when the issue is something that has nothing to do with personal virtue and everything to do with collective action just goes to show how badly it fucks people up when religion and politics get intertwined. This also shows the profound difference between the right and the left’s version of when government interference is justified.

Oh dear, I just noticed a few typos there. Did I write “anti-semitism”? I meant, of course, to write”global warming” And by “Amynda”, I meant “Al Gore”.

It is nice to see that even the most rabid left-wingers have given up on that “think globally, act locally” notion, however. Or perhaps this is merely a variant on Gloria Steinem’s “one free grope” rule.

It’s always laughable when American liberals point to the wonders of European health care. In doing so, they do nothing more than reveal their parochial ignorance of European realities:

The full scale of impending hospital closures was laid bare last night as it emerged that three out of four trusts are already restricting patients’ access to treatment as they battle soaring deficits. Fears about the number of closures intensified as Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, sent NHS managers a guide on how best to handle decisions to shut down hospitals and units – a document that opposition politicians immediately branded a “spin” blueprint.

At the same time, a survey of NHS trust chief executives revealed the impact of the health service’s financial crisis on front-line care. The survey, published in today’s Health Service Journal, shows that 73 per cent of primary care trusts, which run GP clinics and health centres, are already restricting access to treatments. Half are also delaying operations.

The next time you hear a Democrat spouting off about nationalized health care bring up any European example, ask them if they’ve ever been in a European hospital. And if they answer yes, then tell them that they’re a liar, because no one who has lived in Europe would ever willingly choose a hospital in a European country with socialized health care over an American one.

It’s true that Europeans do live longer. Of course, they don’t tend to give their children 800 vaccines before they can walk, stuff themselves to the point of obesity, eat “food” made out of genetically modified plastic and they tend to drink wine instead of soda.

Avoidance and prevention is what allows them to survive despite their terrible health care systems, it’s not the health care systems. Although I suppose that it’s possible, considering how many people are killed by health care professionals every year, that long waiting lists for the even most basic treatment could be, in an ironic sense, an inadvertant health benefit.

As I mentioned in that earlier post, there was another publisher interested in THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST. Apparently they were a bit more interested than I’d previously been led to understand. I sent them the proposal after receiving the notice of rejection from the first publisher, and got a telephone call from an editor yesterday evening, followed an hour later by a book contract from the publisher.

It’s an interesting situation, because the publisher is a secular one and the editor is an atheist. Nevertheless, he informed me the book appealed to him because he found the arguments contra Dawkins and Harris presented in the sample chapters to be not so much convincing as conclusive. Which would appear to be a good sign.

But keep in mind that the book isn’t a conventional apology, it’s a salvo returning fire in the rhetorical war declared by Sam and Dick, making a reason-based case regarding modern society’s need for religion and the right of the religious faithful to command respect for their faith within it.

And while the book’s publisher isn’t an international conglomerate like the first one, they’re a respected one with solid distribution and the arrangement we’re in the process of working out may well prove to be a much better setup for me given my plethora of idiosyncracies. The book will be published in hardcover and it may even be available by the end of the year, although we haven’t decided upon a release date yet.

I’m interested in knowing if any of you might like to try to shoot holes in some of the more controversial chapters once they are ready. If you’d like to do that and are willing to hammer on a single chapter in no small degree of detail, let me know. I’m thinking particularly of folks like JQP, who aren’t religious and have the ability to make use of their skepticism without letting it rule them when examining the strength of a countervailing logic.

UPDATE: it’s been decided and the release date will be December.

I heard an awesome song on the radio today and simply had to find out who it was. It’s kind of remniscent of “I Could Never Be Your Woman” by White Town, except more 80s and laconic despite its faster pace. And being in Italian, of course, as the song is called “Vorrei Essere La Moda”, or “I Would Like to be The Fashion”.

Which just cracks me up, as anyone familiar with Italy will understand. Actually, that is the one good thing about the video. “He is wearing white? He must be stopped!”

It’s the most addictive thing I’ve heard since Electric Six’s “I Buy the Drugs“. The video isn’t all that interesting, but the song just screams “height of the party”. If it ever makes its way across the ocean, it will deservedly be huge in the clubs and in the fashion shows.

Speaking of Electric Six, one wouldn’t have thought it would be possible for anything to be simultanously funnier and more disturbing than their great salute to President Abraham Lincoln in their video for “Gay Bar”. And one would be wrong.

This was made by the members of the Pretty Pink Ponies guild, of which I am not a member.

Also, I’m sorry.

Which reminds me of an incident in WoW the other day. I was waiting to meet up with somebody in Lakeshire when I saw a group of guys who had obviously gotten bored waiting for one of their friends begin dancing on the bridge. They were amusing themselves by jumping around and basically being silly, when one of them suddenly began taking his armor off, and then his clothes. This led to the following dialogue:

“Dude, would u put ur clothes back on!!!!!”

“Nock it off!!!”

“Stop u freak!!!!”

and, finally,

“I am so not going into a dark cave with him”

GG has a question:

It might confound some of your detractors to find that I am a huge fan of yours. I am a 47 year old gay white male who is happily living with his partner. While I do not agree with many of your opinions, I always admire your logic. Logic is important to me. Your views and attitudes always have an internal logic that is consistent.

And so, I have a question that I would like to see you address.

If we all were to agree that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore not protected under law, should we not also agree that religion is a choice, and therefore not protected under law as well?

I must admit that I am quite comfortable with a system that allows employers and landlords to refuse me because I am gay, as long as I am allowed to refuse them because they are Christian. Your thoughts?

I agree entirely. You have no obligation to employ or rent to anyone, and you may refuse to contract with anyone for any reason you wish. I have the same right to reject doing business with a homosexual Packers fan that he has to reject doing business with a Christian Vikings supporter, and it doesn’t matter whether it is the sexual orientation, the religion or the sports affiliation that is the core reason.

That is what is known as the Freedom of Association, and its near-complete absence in the USA demonstrates very clearly that the American government no longer even pretends to govern lawfully.

I’m not quite sure how to address the first question. Is it a hypothetical question or a practical one based on a misconception of Constitutional law that is honored only by its breach? Assuming the former, I don’t think I agree. The protection of religion is not based on its being a matter of choice, (which it clearly is), since some choices are protected while others are not.

What GG appears to fail to grasp is that the protection of religion in the American structure, its special status, is both a protection of the state from the misapplication of religious corruption and the protection of religion from the temptation of the corruption of exercising temporal power.

Therefore, this matter simply has no comparable application to homosexuality or the vast majority of other human choices.

Given the fact that so few talking heads are even capable of speaking coherently, I continue to be amazed at the amount of credibility they are assigned in our society. And thanks to ProFootballTalk, I’m forced to remember those halcyon days when this guy was starting NFL games as a Vikings quarterback:

A couple of readers tell us that ESPN’s Sean Salisbury was on Thursday’s NFL Live taking sample Wonderlic questions, and that he flat-out screwed one of the answers up. And didn’t realize it.

The question: A boy is 17 years old and his sister is twice his age. When the boy is 23, how old will his sister be?

Salisbury spouts off “46,” when the right number was 40. And, apparently, Salisbury bragged after the segment that he had answered all of the questions correctly.

Sounds to me as if Bill O’Reilly may some serious competition looming in the near future. No doubt Fox or CNN is going to snap him up after that performance.

“Does he wear his makeup well?”

“Check.”

“Does he babble on and on without making any sense?”

“Reliably.”

“Does he have an overinflated ego?”

“Most definitely.”

“Can he handle basic multiplication and addition?”

“He thinks six plus thirty-four is forty-six.”

“Perfect. Get him a contract. We’ll put him on after Shep and groom him for Bill’s spot.”