Vox Popoli

GT asks a distubingly common question:

“Neo-Cons like to claim that they are libertarians “with a small ‘l'”, and with their economics they are close to Libertarians, but they love that whole authoritarianism thing.”

Errr – what about “Christian Libertarians”?

Yes, I know, it is a contradiction in terms, since, a theocracy is the most evil form of tyranny known, but they exist. Try “Vox Populi” – and yes, I have asked them how they reconcile these views, and got no answer.

Like many of the insufficiently contemplative, GT fails to grasp that there’s simply nothing there requiring reconciliation. There is nothing more inherently contradictory about Christianity and libertarianism than there is about mathematics and libertarianism, Buddhism and libertarianism or la cucina italiana and libertarianism. It’s like demanding someone explain away the contradiction inherent in the phrase Blue Three.

GT’s error is a basic logical one, which is that all Christians are statist theocrats. This is obviously untrue whether one relies on theory or empirical evidence. In fact, if God does not in fact exist, one could make the case that theocrats are rather more similar to anarchists than secular statists.

One wonders if GT and his sort get equally puzzled by concepts such as “Christian Democrats”, “Social Democrats” and “New Laborites”. In fairness, the concept of a “Cameron Tory” does appear to be entirely oxymoronic.

Wolver proves that hope springs eternal in the Rpublican breast:

Sorry Vox, but Hillary can’t win, regardless who she runs against. She is much too polarizing and even most women won’t vote for her. She is an embarrassment to females everywhere and to most democrats. Obama can win if given the chance. Giuliani can beat Hillary because she is as much a dick as he is and no matter how many times she changes she too well known. Most Americans are still in love with Giuliani and don’t know he’s a dick because most people don’t follow politics like we do. The best bet is Fred Thompson, President Thompson is a winner for sure.

The only Americans “in love with Giuliani” work for the conservative commentariat. The Magic Negro can’t win; political polls are the only thing less honest than politicians.

But the silliest idea is the notion that a man who can’t even decide if he wants to run for president or not can defeat a woman who is perfectly willing to devour alive every puppy and kitten who happens to find itself in between her and the Cherry Blossom Throne.

And at a younger age, no doubt:

A much-anticipated report from the largest and longest-running study of American child care has found that keeping a preschooler in a day care center for a year or more increased the likelihood that the child would become disruptive in class — and that the effect persisted through the sixth grade.

The effect was slight, and well within the normal range for healthy children, the researchers found. And as expected, parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence on how children behaved.

But the finding held up regardless of the child’s sex or family income, and regardless of the quality of the day care center. With more than two million American preschoolers attending day care, the increased disruptiveness very likely contributes to the load on teachers who must manage large classrooms, the authors argue.

I think we’re getting close to the point where it could be demonstrated that putting your child in public school led directly to devil worship and cannibalism and complacent parents would still argue that a) their local school is excellent and has some really great teachers, b) Satan isn’t really all that bad, and c) at least the kids are getting some protein in their diet.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Carton and Mr. Rossi started “Operation Rat a Rat/La Cucha Gotcha,” a listener-participation game that encourages people to turn in friends, neighbors and “anyone suspicious” to immigration authorities.

They introduced the segment with mariachi music and set the campaign to end on May 5 (Cinco de Mayo), a well-known Mexican holiday.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the phrase “La Cucha Gotcha” is meant to evoke the Spanish word for cockroach. Here in New Jersey, where 15 percent of the population is Hispanic, reaction to the show has not exactly been positive.

Not that the immigration authorities would do anything about it, of course. Now, it probably wasn’t the intention, but the only thing I find appalling about this story is that 15 percent of New Jersey is already Hispanic. I look forward to the horror that all of the people who boast that they are so morally superior as to be colorblind will experience when they finally realize that third world people neither subscribe to their liberal ideals nor have any intention of abiding by white European norms.

Perhaps they’ll enjoy living in the barrio. But whether they do or not, they’ll definitely deserve it.

We went to a little French reptile show the other day. They had several dozen glass cages containing everything from Blue-tongued Skinks to rare Tarantulas. What was a little disturbing, however, was the fact that one cage had two big cracks in it, one of which showed a definite hole. The cracks were partially covered with duct tape, which was old and peeling away from the cage… of the green mamba.

I mean, it’s not like green mambas are particularly venomous or anything, like rattlesnakes.

Perhaps the evolutionary biologists here can determine whether it was a moral act or an immoral act to have pointed out that the mamba was no longer nosing about its potential exit route, but appeared to have already effected its escape. (Actually, it had only climbed its little tree where it was mostly out of sight.)

I can, however, state that it was an act which afforded some small amusement.

Cedarford disputes the contentions of his fellow sciencists:

It is fitting when VD outed himself as a scientist(actually, more an engineer or technician since VD has never done scientific research or published a single science paper)

Oh, so today we’re deciding that engineers aren’t scientists, now that it doesn’t suit the scientific faithful to describe a particular individual as a scientist? Because only two weeks ago, people were swearing up and down that the guys who invented the silicon chip were scientists because they were engineers.

Do make up your collective mind, science fans.

I have certainly postulated a hypothesis, performed experiments and observed them.. It’s true, I have never published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal, but then, neither did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton or Darwin. I suppose they must not be scientists either, then. Or is what makes a scientist different today than 300 years ago, is the problem that science is as mutable in the secularist mind as morality?

You see, Cedarford and others find themselves in a bit of an uncomfortable dilemma. Either science is not responsible for the great majority of the scientific goodness that its worshippers wish to claim for it, or I am a scientist, the son of a scientist, and my dictates must be given great weight on the basis of my membership in the Priesthood of Progressive Man.

Who simply can’t stop lying:

“I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power;”
– Charles Darwin

Here’s where the quote came from, and it carries a rather different message than Cordova communicated.

“Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.”

Why do creationists lie so? It must be something in their upbringing.

Accurately quoting is not a lie. Darwin did beat a puppy. He did enjoy it. The quote is accurate. To be sure, he regretted it and did not continue to do so, but it doesn’t change the fact that the quote is precisely accurate and within context.

One could reasonably argue that the quote is used unfairly. To describe it as a lie, however, which is to claim that Darwin never said or wrote such a thing, is demonstrably untrue. It is, in other words, a lie.

But one really can’t expect any better of an irrational and amoral atheist, can one?

Personally, I see little point in quote mining to prove that 19th century individuals held beliefs considered unacceptable by 21st century individuals. This strikes me as tantamount to attempting to prove the wetness of water.

It’s impossible… except when it isn’t:

Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun’s surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as “impossible”. Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

The thing that is so wildly stupid about my fellow scientists is the way that they constantly try to have it both ways. One cannot praise something for providing certainty one moment, then praise it for being flexible enough to correct its previous errors.

SCIENCIST: You must believe X!

SKEPTIC: Okay, why?

SCIENCIST: Because 98.2 percent of all scientist say so! Science says so!

SKEPTIC: Okay, I believe X!

SCIENTIST: Um, guys, I kind of hate to bring this up, but we were wrong about X. It’s actually Y.

SCIENCIST: You must believe Y!

SKEPTIC: But, I believe X.

SCIENCIST: You uneducated fool! What are you, a Bible thumper? You must believe Y! Science says so!

SKEPTIC: But didn’t you just say it said X?

SCIENCIST: LIAR!

SCIENTIST: Hey, sorry everyone, it turns out that it’s actually Z.

SCIENCIST: You must believe Z!

SKEPTIC: Yeah, we’re going to let you jokers define truth, beauty, love and morality. That sounds like a brilliant idea. Let me know when you find the “missing” 96 percent of the universe.

One of the more foolish sciencists once commented here that I was insane because I look forward to scientists being forced to admit that they were completely wrong about dinosaurs being separated from humans by millions of years. But science history is nothing except the impossible being proved possible; I don’t believe they’ll be wrong because of any Young Earth beliefs on my part, but because their train of logic on the subject requires several assumptions, any of which could easily prove to be false.

Logic and theory are great, but they are no substitute for demonstrable fact. The strongest claim to truth are when logic, experience and demonstrable fact all point to the same place, and when they don’t all fit perfectly together, you’ve got a pretty good clue that you’re missing something somewhere.

Man’s scientific understanding is a snapshot, nothing more. Investing too much in the snapshot is foolish, history strongly suggests that you WILL be proven hopelessly wrong, quite possibly even within your lifetime.

I am a fan of both science and religion. I don’t worry at all about conflicts between them, not when science can’t even find most of the universe it infers and when the best social scientists can’t achieve better results with even the smallest focus group than an ancient text.

From the New York Times:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

And in other news, rapists argue that it is for rapists to say what consent is, while thieves argue that it is for thieves to say what private property are.

Seriously, who falls for this idiocy? If morality “grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution”, how would that give biologists any more claim on defining those rules anyhow?

Even if the evolutionary biologists are correct about absolutely everything, they are still merely the products of evolution, not the directors of it. Their claim on it is no greater than anyone else’s. Adam Smith didn’t claim the right to set prices because he discovered the law of supply and demand, after all.